Does the Bahai Faith hope and intend to be a World Theocracy?

[Windwalker]

This comes to mind that just calling oneself anything does not make it so.

The man who lives the life according to the teachings of Bahá’u’lláh is already a Bahá’í. On the other hand, a man may call himself a Bahá’í for fifty years, and if he does not live the life he is not a Bahá’í. An ugly man may call himself handsome, but he deceives no one, and a black man may call himself white, yet he deceives no one, not even himself. - Abdul- Bahá

I certainly agree with this. Many are more Christian not being Christians "believing in Jesus", than those who call themselves Christian, who identify as such by name. Then why call yourself anything? And to @Unification point in quoting this from Krishnamurti,

"When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence."​

When you call yourself a Baha'i' or a Christian you distinguish yourself from others, making an "us and them" distinction. You organize yourselves under ruling bodies which distinguishes you from others. I personally avoid labeling myself. I have a saying, "I am all religions. I am none". Another way I like to say this when asked my religion. "I am the same religion God is". Which religion does God follow?

Another member in this thread stated the Baha'i' hopes to see this Unification of religions as falling underneath the "Monotheistic Umbrella". He also asked about what happens to non-theistic religions? How can you possibly hope to have a One World Religion which is distinctively a "Revealed Religion" with Prophets of God, with religions such as Buddhism? To talk about and teach others from the words of Prophets as Authoritative truth, will have no value or meaning to those who do not accept such ideas as Prophets of God, nor that God "speaks" and give's direction to human beings from His Mind. What about Atheism for that matter?

To me the only One World Religion is a religion that is neither theistic nor atheistic. It is one which does not identify by a name as the people of this prophet or that guru. All of that divides, or "does violence" as Krishnamurti put it. A religion that names itself, that claims a bead on Truth as revealed by a prophet, is in fact not on that path at all. Not until it dies to itself and releases its hold on a direct line to Truth itself will it begin to see and be qualified to speak of Unity.

That Baha'i apparently does not seek to be a theocracy is good. But how far is it willing to open that umbrella as a religion? Do you accept atheists who reject Baha'u'llah as a prophet of God?

 

[oldbadger]

The Baha'i system is for Baha'is only. But this does not mean that when there are a majority of Baha'is a Baha'i State will not be formed.

................. so that would be a Bahai only State, a Theocracy!

By going to this link and typing in the top right corner 'theocracy' you can get all the answers to every question from an authoritative Source namely, the Universal House of Justice who are the infallible Bahá'í Institution on matters concerning the Baha'i Faith.

That's really frightening........ Infallible! We cannot make a mistake! Bbbrrrr........!

http://www.bahai.org/library/authoritative-texts/search#q=Theocracy
This particular letter goes into much depth ...

....yes, but cut to the chase, and here it is, deep in the heart of that letter....

He thinks your question is well put: what the Guardian was referring to was the theocratic systems, such as the Catholic Church and the Caliphate, which are not divinely given as systems, but man-made, and yet, being partly derived from the teachings of Christ and Muḥammad are in a sense theocracies. The Bahai theocracy, on the contrary, is both divinely ordained as a system and, of course, based on the teachings of the Prophet Himself

Oh my Goodness! After all this thread and posts, ducking and diving because 'we' don't like the word 'theocracy'! Here it is in black and white, So the Catholic and Islamic theocracies were not ordained by God, but man-made, but the Bahai THEOCRACY is ordained by God as a system!

............and only Bahais can take part in its infallible decisions....

 

[loverofhumanity]

................. so that would be a Bahai only State, a Theocracy!

That's really frightening........ Infallible! We cannot make a mistake! Bbbrrrr........!

....yes, but cut to the chase, and here it is, deep in the heart of that letter....

Oh my Goodness! After all this thread and posts, ducking and diving because 'we' don't like the word 'theocracy'! Here it is in black and white, So the Catholic and Islamic theocracies were not ordained by God, but man-made, but the Bahai THEOCRACY is ordained by God as a system!

............and only Bahais can take part in its infallible decisions....

Didn't you read the quotes? It's very clear it's not a theocracy.

" Inasmuch as the Order of Bahá’u’lláh is an integral part of the divine Revelation that He, as a Manifestation of God, has given us, one could say that this Order is essentially theocratic, but inasmuch as it is entirely devoid of any kind of clergy or priesthood, it is not at all a “theocracy” in the sense in which the term is generally used and understood. (Universal House of Justice"

 

[loverofhumanity]

I certainly agree with this. Many are more Christian not being Christians "believing in Jesus", than those who call themselves Christian, who identify as such by name. Then why call yourself anything? And to @Unification point in quoting this from Krishnamurti,

"When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence."​

When you call yourself a Baha'i' or a Christian you distinguish yourself from others, making an "us and them" distinction. You organize yourselves under ruling bodies which distinguishes you from others. I personally avoid labeling myself. I have a saying, "I am all religions. I am none". Another way I like to say this when asked my religion. "I am the same religion God is". Which religion does God follow?

Another member in this thread stated the Baha'i' hopes to see this Unification of religions as falling underneath the "Monotheistic Umbrella". He also asked about what happens to non-theistic religions? How can you possibly hope to have a One World Religion which is distinctively a "Revealed Religion" with Prophets of God, with religions such as Buddhism? To talk about and teach others from the words of Prophets as Authoritative truth, will have no value or meaning to those who do not accept such ideas as Prophets of God, nor that God "speaks" and give's direction to human beings from His Mind. What about Atheism for that matter?

To me the only One World Religion is a religion that is neither theistic nor atheistic. It is one which does not identify by a name as the people of this prophet or that guru. All of that divides, or "does violence" as Krishnamurti put it. A religion that names itself, that claims a bead on Truth as revealed by a prophet, is in fact not on that path at all. Not until it dies to itself and releases its hold on a direct line to Truth itself will it begin to see and be qualified to speak of Unity.

That Baha'i apparently does not seek to be a theocracy is good. But how far is it willing to open that umbrella as a religion? Do you accept atheists who reject Baha'u'llah as a prophet of God?

Much appreciate your very good comments. The principle around which all the Baha'i Teachings revolve is the oneness of humanity. So that includes every human being on the planet.

I was an atheist when I came across the Baha'is and I was friends with them for years and they accepted me even though I was against their religion as I couldn't accept the idea of a God. I was an avowed atheist.

As an atheist I didn't want to participate in things like prayer meetings or teaching their religion as I didn't believe in God and I didn't want to help them build the Kingdom of God as I rejected the idea of a God. So as an atheist I had my own limitations on what level I wanted to mix with Baha'is but what I did understand clearly is that they loved me just for being human regardless of the fact that I wasn't interested in joining them as I was always suspicious of religious people's motives.

After many years when I saw their motives weren't just to grab me and convert me and their love was genuine I began wanting to find out how people who believed in a mythical God could be so loving and sincere and it gnawed at me daily their love and kindness.

Not having a motive was a very hard thing for me to believe existed in today's world. So I read their books, argued and challenged them and even cried that I felt here were such beautiful people yet they believed in such fantasies as a God. What troubled me most was their unconditional acceptance of me. There just had to be an ulterior motive and I was determined to find it.

So I was treated just as one of them without discrimination. I found out later that it was Baha'u'llah Who taught them to just love unconditionally for the sake of God nothing else. They are not interested in power or dominance quite the opposite so I eventually realised such pure love could only have come from this God and then I fell in love with the idea of accepting everyone, welcoming everyone, condemning no one just being part of one human family.

Now there is beauty and good in everyone I meet and I see God in all of them here whether they agree with me or not or say nice things or not. Everyone here I learn from.

I don't see Baha'is as better, matter of fact we're the new kid on the block so we have a lot to learn from everyone else about so many things. But we share that world vision that we hope one day people will accept their diversity and see it as beauty and not as a cause of conflict and learn to live in peace.

 

[oldbadger]

Didn't you read the quotes? It's very clear it's not a theocracy.

It is crystal clear that Shogi effendi thought is was....... and unlike Christian or Islamic theocracies which he thought were man-made, the Bahai theocracy was ordained by God. Look at it!:-
'He thinks your question is well put: what the Guardian was referring to was the theocratic systems, such as the Catholic Church and the Caliphate, which are not divinely given as systems, but man-made, and yet, being partly derived from the teachings of Christ and Muḥammad are in a sense theocracies. The Bahai theocracy, on the contrary, is both divinely ordained as a system and, of course, based on the teachings of the Prophet Himself '.

" Inasmuch as the Order of Bahá’u’lláh is an integral part of the divine Revelation that He, as a Manifestation of God, has given us, one could say that this Order is essentially theocratic, but inasmuch as it is entirely devoid of any kind of clergy or priesthood, it is not at all a "theocracy" in the sense in which the term is generally used and understood. (Universal House of Justice"

This is simply a massive back-peddle on Shogi Effendi's definition which was no doubt based upon Bahauallah's writings. The UHJ suggest it could not be a theocracy because Bahai has no clergy!!
Unfortunately for that decision and claim, theocracy simply means a system of rule where God is recognised as the authority:
Theocracy | Define Theocracy at Dictionary.com
www.dictionary.com/browse/theocracyHYPERLINK \l ""

Theocracy definition
, a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ...
Theocracy - definition of theocracy by The Free Dictionary
www.thefreedictionary.com/theocracyHYPERLINK \l ""
the·oc·ra·cy (thē-ŏk′rə-sē) n. pl. the·oc·ra·cies 1. Government ruled by or subject to religious authority. 2. A country or state governed in this way ...
............ and so, in order to distance itself from such an unfashionable and unpleasant word, Bahai has ducked and dived because some definitions, incorrectly, describe same as 'rule by priesthood'.

Ergo..... you are the embryo of a hoped for and would-be theocracy, all law and control being in the hands of Bahais, and all other people outside the faith being unable to vote, to sit in any seats of authority, nor to influence legislation.

Thought for the day: A Rose is a Rose, by any other name
.

 

[Sen McGlinn]

Bahai will never run the world. That will be undertaken in a secular way, and it will be brought about by atheists, the odd Druid, some Lefty-hand pathers, Christians, the odd Bahai etc?

Sen, the 'bottom line' on this subject (for you) was Abdul Baha's word? So there was nothing that Bahauallah wrote that was more intimately acquainted with this subject matter?

Abdu'l-Baha is basing himself on Baha'u'llah, whose words have been quoted on this thread I think:

========================
It is incumbent upon the Sovereigns of the world .... unitedly to hold fast unto this Peace, which is the chief instrument for the protection of all mankind. ... It is their duty to convene an all-inclusive assembly, which either they themselves or their ministers will attend, and to enforce whatever measures are required to establish unity and concord amongst men. They must put away the weapons of war, and turn to the instruments of universal reconstruction. Should one king rise up against another, all the other kings must arise to deter him. Arms and armaments will, then, be no more needed beyond that which is necessary to insure the internal security of their respective countries. If they attain unto this all-surpassing blessing, the people of each nation will pursue, with tranquillity and contentment, their own occupations, and the groanings and lamentations of most men would be silenced. ... It would be preferable and more fitting that the highly honored kings themselves should attend such an assembly, and proclaim their edicts. ... In this land [Palestine], every time men are conscripted for the army, a great terror seizeth the people. Every nation augmenteth, each year, its forces, for their ministers of war are insatiable in their desire to add fresh recruits to their battalions. We have learned that the government of Persia -- may God assist them -- have, likewise decided to reinforce their army. In the opinion of this Wronged One a force of one hundred thousand fully-equipped and well-disciplined men would suffice. ... (Baha'u'llah, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 31)
==========================

There is no reason in principle why Bahais as individuals should not be part of secular government. Along with Catholics and Muslims and others. The separation of church and state does not mean that believers in any religion cannot participate in government, it means (1) that the government does not interfere in matters of religious belief and religious institutions do not get involved in politics and (2) that each individual wears two hats: they are citizens, and they are members of various religious communities including the don't knows and atheists and humanists. When you are doing politics, or government, "God says so" is not an argument. Having believers in some religion, including Bahais, in positions of authority is not a problem (and anyway, excluding believers would be VERY problematical). Abdu'l-Baha says that Bahais in a democracy should participate, as citizens, and he praises the involvement of Bahais and believers in general in public life, because they have two reasons to be virtuous - fear of exposure and fear of God:

====================
O thou servant of Baha'! Thou hast asked regarding the political affairs. In the United States it is necessary that the citizens shall take part in elections. This is a necessary matter and no excuse from it is possible. My object in telling the believers that they should not interfere in the affairs of government is this: That they should not make any trouble and that they should not move against the opinion of the government, but obedience to the laws and the administration of the commonwealth is necessary. Now, as the government of America is a republican form of government, it is necessary that all the citizens shall take part in the elections of officers and take part in the affairs of the republic.
(Abdu'l-Baha, Tablets of Abdu'l-Baha v2, p. 342)

and

[Words of Abdu’l-Baha on the evening of Saturday 26 Dhu’l-Qacdah 1329 in the house of Monsieur Dreyfus, Paris, 17 November 1911 (my translation from Khitabat-e Abdu’l-Baha page 180, http://reference.bahai.org/fa/t/ab/KA1/ka1-176.html ) ]

He is God.
In the world of existence, a human being should have the hope of reward and the fear of punishment,
particularly those souls who serve in the government, and have the affairs of the state and the people in their grasp. If the officials of the government do not have such a hope of reward and fear of retribution, they will certainly not behave with justice.
Rewards and punishments are the two poles on which the tent of the world is raised. Thus government officials are held back from committing injustice by the fear of punishment and eager hope for reward.
Consider despotic governments in which there is neither fear of punishment nor hope for rewards. As a result, the affairs of such governments do not pivot upon justice and fairness.
Rewards and punishments are of two sorts. One is political rewards and punishments, and the other is divine rewards and punishments.
It is certain that, if some souls are firmly persuaded of divine rewards and punishments, and they are under the constraints of political rewards and punishments as well, those persons are more perfect, for they will constrained and deterred from practising oppression. If both the fear of God and the fear of retribution are present, that is, if there is both spiritual and political deterrence, of course this is more perfect.
Some government officials, who both fear the chastisement of the state and dread divine torment, naturally observe justice to a greater extent. In particular, those who fear eternal punishment and have hope of everlasting reward: such souls make the greatest possible efforts in thinking how to implement justice, and they are averse to oppression.
For, for those who are firm believers, to commit tyranny is to be visited by divine punishment in the eternal world. Naturally, they will shun oppression and wrong-doing, especially as firm believers, if they dispense justice, will draw near to the threshold of grandeur, gain eternal life, enter into the Kingdom of God, and their faces will be illumined by the lights of divine grace and loving-kindness.
Thus, if government officials are religious, naturally that is better, for they are the manifestations of the fear of God.
My intent with these words is not that religion should have any business in politics. Religion has absolutely no jurisdiction or involvement in politics. For religion is related to spirits and the conscience
while politics is related to the body.
Therefore the leaders of religions should not be involved in political matters, but should devote themselves to rectifying the morals of the people. They admonish and excite the desire and appetite for piety. They sustain the morals of the community, they impart spiritual understandings to the souls, and teach the [religious] sciences, but never get involved in political matters.
Baha’u’llah commands this. In the Gospels, it is written that you should give Caesar what is Caesar’s, and God what is God’s.
The essence of the matter is this: in Iran the righteous Bahai government officials observe the utmost justice, because they fear the wrath of God and hope for the mercy of God.
However there are others who do have no scruples at all. However capable they may be, they never cease their oppressive and negligent acts. This is why Iran is in such difficulties. ...
==============================

 

[CG Didymus]

It is crystal clear that Shogi effendi thought is was....... and unlike Christian or Islamic theocracies which he thought were man-made, the Bahai theocracy was ordained by God. Look at it!:-
'He thinks your question is well put: what the Guardian was referring to was the theocratic systems, such as the Catholic Church and the Caliphate, which are not divinely given as systems, but man-made, and yet, being partly derived from the teachings of Christ and Muḥammad are in a sense theocracies. The Bahai theocracy, on the contrary, is both divinely ordained as a system and, of course, based on the teachings of the Prophet Himself '.

This is simply a massive back-peddle on Shogi Effendi's definition which was no doubt based upon Bahauallah's writings. The UHJ suggest it could not be a theocracy because Bahai has no clergy!!
Unfortunately for that decision and claim, theocracy simply means a system of rule where God is recognised as the authority:
Theocracy | Define Theocracy at Dictionary.com
www.dictionary.com/browse/theocracyHYPERLINK \l ""

Theocracy definition
, a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ...
Theocracy - definition of theocracy by The Free Dictionary
www.thefreedictionary.com/theocracyHYPERLINK \l ""
the·oc·ra·cy (thē-ŏk′rə-sē) n. pl. the·oc·ra·cies 1. Government ruled by or subject to religious authority. 2. A country or state governed in this way ...
............ and so, in order to distance itself from such an unfashionable and unpleasant word, Bahai has ducked and dived because some definitions, incorrectly, describe same as 'rule by priesthood'.

Ergo..... you are the embryo of a hoped for and would-be theocracy, all law and control being in the hands of Bahais, and all other people outside the faith being unable to vote, to sit in any seats of authority, nor to influence legislation.

Thought for the day: A Rose is a Rose, by any other name
.

So the "T" word is the problem? So where do Baha'i laws and teachings come from? The Baha'i would have to answer from God, right? So God is the ruler of Baha'is. And, God has put together his system to bring peace to the world. All people have to do is put it into practice. But it's not a theocracy. It's God telling people, through the prophet, what we need to bring order to the world. He then wants people to (and not screw it up) implement his divine plan. But, no it's not a theocracy.

It's people, Baha'i people, elected by Baha'is, to serve on the UHJ. Those people when acting as the UHJ get their information from divine inspiration from God. So their decisions are as if God spoke, which makes those decisions infallible. But, no it's not a theocracy. Now at some point, we all will want the Baha'is to rule over us, because the world will be so screwed up that we will have no other choice but to turn to the Baha'is. Because, we will realize that nothing else works. Because no one other than the Baha'is has the answers to the problems of the world, right? They have the truth from God, right? We do want them to rule us according to God's laws, right? Or, because of the track record of religions, do we trust anyone claiming to have a message from God? Especially, a religion that is a theocracy... opps, I mean that might, if it gets corrupted by people, be in a position to rule the world and force its will on the world. But what are the chances of that?

 

[oldbadger]

Abdu'l-Baha is basing himself on Baha'u'llah, whose words have been quoted on this thread I think:

========================
It is incumbent upon the Sovereigns of the world .... unitedly to hold fast unto this Peace, which is the chief instrument for the protection of all mankind. ... It is their duty to convene an all-inclusive assembly, which either they themselves or their ministers will attend, and to enforce whatever measures are required to establish unity and concord amongst men. They must put away the weapons of war, and turn to the instruments of universal reconstruction. Should one king rise up against another, all the other kings must arise to deter him. Arms and armaments will, then, be no more needed beyond that which is necessary to insure the internal security of their respective countries. If they attain unto this all-surpassing blessing, the people of each nation will pursue, with tranquillity and contentment, their own occupations, and the groanings and lamentations of most men would be silenced. ... It would be preferable and more fitting that the highly honored kings themselves should attend such an assembly, and proclaim their edicts. ... In this land [Palestine], every time men are conscripted for the army, a great terror seizeth the people. Every nation augmenteth, each year, its forces, for their ministers of war are insatiable in their desire to add fresh recruits to their battalions. We have learned that the government of Persia -- may God assist them -- have, likewise decided to reinforce their army. In the opinion of this Wronged One a force of one hundred thousand fully-equipped and well-disciplined men would suffice. ... (Baha'u'llah, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 31)
==========================

There is no reason in principle why Bahais as individuals should not be part of secular government. Along with Catholics and Muslims and others. The separation of church and state does not mean that believers in any religion cannot participate in government, it means (1) that the government does not interfere in matters of religious belief and religious institutions do not get involved in politics and (2) that each individual wears two hats: they are citizens, and they are members of various religious communities including the don't knows and atheists and humanists. When you are doing politics, or government, "God says so" is not an argument. Having believers in some religion, including Bahais, in positions of authority is not a problem (and anyway, excluding believers would be VERY problematical). Abdu'l-Baha says that Bahais in a democracy should participate, as citizens, and he praises the involvement of Bahais and believers in general in public life, because they have two reasons to be virtuous - fear of exposure and fear of God:

====================
O thou servant of Baha'! Thou hast asked regarding the political affairs. In the United States it is necessary that the citizens shall take part in elections. This is a necessary matter and no excuse from it is possible. My object in telling the believers that they should not interfere in the affairs of government is this: That they should not make any trouble and that they should not move against the opinion of the government, but obedience to the laws and the administration of the commonwealth is necessary. Now, as the government of America is a republican form of government, it is necessary that all the citizens shall take part in the elections of officers and take part in the affairs of the republic.
(Abdu'l-Baha, Tablets of Abdu'l-Baha v2, p. 342)

and

[Words of Abdu’l-Baha on the evening of Saturday 26 Dhu’l-Qacdah 1329 in the house of Monsieur Dreyfus, Paris, 17 November 1911 (my translation from Khitabat-e Abdu’l-Baha page 180, http://reference.bahai.org/fa/t/ab/KA1/ka1-176.html ) ]

He is God.
In the world of existence, a human being should have the hope of reward and the fear of punishment,
particularly those souls who serve in the government, and have the affairs of the state and the people in their grasp. If the officials of the government do not have such a hope of reward and fear of retribution, they will certainly not behave with justice.
Rewards and punishments are the two poles on which the tent of the world is raised. Thus government officials are held back from committing injustice by the fear of punishment and eager hope for reward.
Consider despotic governments in which there is neither fear of punishment nor hope for rewards. As a result, the affairs of such governments do not pivot upon justice and fairness.
Rewards and punishments are of two sorts. One is political rewards and punishments, and the other is divine rewards and punishments.
It is certain that, if some souls are firmly persuaded of divine rewards and punishments, and they are under the constraints of political rewards and punishments as well, those persons are more perfect, for they will constrained and deterred from practising oppression. If both the fear of God and the fear of retribution are present, that is, if there is both spiritual and political deterrence, of course this is more perfect.
Some government officials, who both fear the chastisement of the state and dread divine torment, naturally observe justice to a greater extent. In particular, those who fear eternal punishment and have hope of everlasting reward: such souls make the greatest possible efforts in thinking how to implement justice, and they are averse to oppression.
For, for those who are firm believers, to commit tyranny is to be visited by divine punishment in the eternal world. Naturally, they will shun oppression and wrong-doing, especially as firm believers, if they dispense justice, will draw near to the threshold of grandeur, gain eternal life, enter into the Kingdom of God, and their faces will be illumined by the lights of divine grace and loving-kindness.
Thus, if government officials are religious, naturally that is better, for they are the manifestations of the fear of God.
My intent with these words is not that religion should have any business in politics. Religion has absolutely no jurisdiction or involvement in politics. For religion is related to spirits and the conscience
while politics is related to the body.
Therefore the leaders of religions should not be involved in political matters, but should devote themselves to rectifying the morals of the people. They admonish and excite the desire and appetite for piety. They sustain the morals of the community, they impart spiritual understandings to the souls, and teach the [religious] sciences, but never get involved in political matters.
Baha’u’llah commands this. In the Gospels, it is written that you should give Caesar what is Caesar’s, and God what is God’s.
The essence of the matter is this: in Iran the righteous Bahai government officials observe the utmost justice, because they fear the wrath of God and hope for the mercy of God.
However there are others who do have no scruples at all. However capable they may be, they never cease their oppressive and negligent acts. This is why Iran is in such difficulties. ...
==============================

Sen, Abdul Baha was writing in terms of the present day, time, era.
But Shogi Effendi, in writing about a theocracy ordained by God (as opposed to man-made ones) was surely thinking of the distant future.
And the UHJ's letter showed that it understood that concept of a Bahai World Government, legislature and control by explaining that it was not a theocracy because no priesthood would running it!
Unfortunately the UHJ's choice of definition for theocracy was/is not the only one, as shown in my post to another.

I understand that you believe in a Bahai spiritual religion quite separate from a World Government which could be composed of people from many faiths, theists, atheists etc..... but that isn't what Shogi Effendi wrote about, nor what the UHJ wished to call some other name than theocracy by playing with dictionary definitions.

All that remains for me to do is to scan Bahauallah's writings for confirmation of what I have seen and read on this thread. That will be an interesting project for me, and I do expect to find enough evidence to back up the two key letters that I have seen on another member's posts. Obviously Bahauallah's written word is the absolute word. After all, he is the prophet regardless of what he wished in his Will.

 

[oldbadger]

So the "T" word is the problem? So where do Baha'i laws and teachings come from? The Baha'i would have to answer from God, right? So God is the ruler of Baha'is. And, God has put together his system to bring peace to the world. All people have to do is put it into practice. But it's not a theocracy. It's God telling people, through the prophet, what we need to bring order to the world. He then wants people to (and not screw it up) implement his divine plan. But, no it's not a theocracy.

It's people, Baha'i people, elected by Baha'is, to serve on the UHJ. Those people when acting as the UHJ get their information from divine inspiration from God. So their decisions are as if God spoke, which makes those decisions infallible. But, no it's not a theocracy. Now at some point, we all will want the Baha'is to rule over us, because the world will be so screwed up that we will have no other choice but to turn to the Baha'is. Because, we will realize that nothing else works. Because no one other than the Baha'is has the answers to the problems of the world, right? They have the truth from God, right? We do want them to rule us according to God's laws, right? Or, because of the track record of religions, do we trust anyone claiming to have a message from God? Especially, a religion that is a theocracy... opps, I mean that might, if it gets corrupted by people, be in a position to rule the world and force its will on the world. But what are the chances of that?

If the world was ruled by people who believed that they could not ever make a mistake, and who could never be removed because outsiders would not have a vote, that is a recipe for a George Orwell or Animal Farm novel.

And, 'No', there are other religions and faiths out there who believe that their World order and Government would be directed by God and that no others are God's servants on Earth, so Bahai is only one of several religions which think that their World would be right.

PS, can you think of any yourself? If you can, then 'there you are'. If not, then I am surprised!

 

[arthra]

They eschew political methods towards the achievement of their aims, and concentrate on revitalizing the hearts, minds and behavior of people and on presenting a working model as evidence of the reality and practicality of the way of life they propound.

I think that's a good summary!

 

[George-ananda]

It is becoming clear to me that the Baha'i Faith is not easy to understand and I do not believe many of its members really understand it. They have their respective understandings on the issues discussed.

You might want to say that includes me, but I really believe I studied intensely under some people that I believe did fully understand and that I asked the right questions.

 

[loverofhumanity]

In all the letters of the House of Justice there is consistency and no contradiction with Shoghi Effendi but people who are not reading entire letters and cherry picking what they might like to think to try and prove their view point are not being fair here. The Guardian clearly used the words theocracy but not in the context of the Catholic Church or the Imamate and He said the Bahai Theocracy was different so in reality although the name theocracy is used it is not a theocracy according to the dictionary definition which some are referring to and he made that abundantly clear in this passage and the House of Justice also made that clear....

It is a Divine System. No other 'theocracy' was ever Divine. There is no will of Muhammad or Christ about any Divine Administration but the Baha'i System is the first and is laid down in our Most Holy Book so it is not a theocracy but a Divine World Order.

"He thinks your question is well put: what the Guardian was referring to was the theocratic systems, such as the Catholic Church and the Caliphate, which are not divinely given as systems, but man-made, and yet, being partly derived from the teachings of Christ and Muḥammad are in a sense theocracies. The Bahá’í theocracy, on the contrary, is both divinely ordained as a system and, of course, based on the teachings of the Prophet Himself."

Some here are trying to compare the Baha'i System to previously known systems in the world such as theocracy but the Guardian in His World Order of Baha'u'llah clearly states this is incorrect and being taken out of context.

The Baha'i Faith is not a theocracy as people or the dictionary defines it as is nothing we have ever seen before so trying to compare it is meaningless.

"A word should now be said regarding the theory on which this Administrative Order is based and the principle that must govern the operation of its chief institutions. It would be utterly misleading to attempt a comparison between this unique, this divinely-conceived Order and any of the diverse systems which the minds of men, at various periods of their history, have contrived for the government of human institutions. Such an attempt would in itself betray a lack of complete appreciation of the excellence of the handiwork of its great Author. How could it be otherwise when we remember that this Order constitutes the very pattern of that divine civilization which the almighty Law of Bahá’u’lláh is designed to establish upon earth? The divers and ever-shifting systems of human polity, whether past or present, whether originating in the East or in the West, offer no adequate criterion wherewith to estimate the potency of its hidden virtues or to appraise the solidity of its foundations.
The Bahá’í Commonwealth of the future, of which this vast Administrative Order is the sole framework, is, both in theory and practice, not only unique in the entire history of political institutions, but can find no parallel in the annals of any of the world’s recognized religious systems. No form of democratic government; no system of autocracy or of dictatorship, whether monarchical or republican; no intermediary scheme of a purely aristocratic order; nor even any of the recognized types of theocracy, whether it be the Hebrew Commonwealth, or the various Christian ecclesiastical organizations, or the Imamate or the Caliphate in Islám—none of these can be identified or be said to conform with the Administrative Order which the master-hand of its perfect Architect has fashioned. (Shoghi Effendi - World Order of Baha'u'llah)

 

[loverofhumanity]

It is crystal clear that Shogi effendi thought is was....... and unlike Christian or Islamic theocracies which he thought were man-made, the Bahai theocracy was ordained by God. Look at it!:-
'He thinks your question is well put: what the Guardian was referring to was the theocratic systems, such as the Catholic Church and the Caliphate, which are not divinely given as systems, but man-made, and yet, being partly derived from the teachings of Christ and Muḥammad are in a sense theocracies. The Bahai theocracy, on the contrary, is both divinely ordained as a system and, of course, based on the teachings of the Prophet Himself '.

This is simply a massive back-peddle on Shogi Effendi's definition which was no doubt based upon Bahauallah's writings. The UHJ suggest it could not be a theocracy because Bahai has no clergy!!
Unfortunately for that decision and claim, theocracy simply means a system of rule where God is recognised as the authority:
Theocracy | Define Theocracy at Dictionary.com
www.dictionary.com/browse/theocracyHYPERLINK \l ""

Theocracy definition
, a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ...
Theocracy - definition of theocracy by The Free Dictionary
www.thefreedictionary.com/theocracyHYPERLINK \l ""
the·oc·ra·cy (thē-ŏk′rə-sē) n. pl. the·oc·ra·cies 1. Government ruled by or subject to religious authority. 2. A country or state governed in this way ...
............ and so, in order to distance itself from such an unfashionable and unpleasant word, Bahai has ducked and dived because some definitions, incorrectly, describe same as 'rule by priesthood'.

Ergo..... you are the embryo of a hoped for and would-be theocracy, all law and control being in the hands of Bahais, and all other people outside the faith being unable to vote, to sit in any seats of authority, nor to influence legislation.

Thought for the day: A Rose is a Rose, by any other name
.

The Baha'i system cannot possibly be compared to any previous man made system or even the dictionary definition as no previous Prophet of God has ever brought a Divine Order. This is a first.

 

[loverofhumanity]

It is becoming clear to me that the Baha'i Faith is not easy to understand and I do not believe many of its members really understand it. They have their respective understandings on the issues discussed.

You might want to say that includes me, but I really believe I studied intensely under some people that I believe did fully understand and that I asked the right questions.

I am always learning more each day and these questions are good and I thank the original poster.

Think about it. This is the very first time humanity has been given a Divine World Order. So with the failed experiments of the past people are bound to be skeptical and apprehensive which is all they have with which to compare us.

So the Universal House of Justice has made this topic available to the entire public in its Reference Library because they fully understand there will be many concerns, anxieties and questions.

And we who know it's a Divine System from a loving God and is the Kingdom of God on earth promised in the Bible have the privilege of explaining it to others.

“The world’s equilibrium hath been upset through the vibrating influence of this most great, this new World Order. Mankind’s ordered life hath been revolutionized through the agency of this unique, this wondrous System—the like of which mortal eyes have never witnessed.”

Bahá’u’lláh. “The Kitab-i-Aqdas.”

 

[Sen McGlinn]

Shogi Effendi, in writing about a theocracy ordained by God (as opposed to man-made ones) was surely thinking of the distant future.

Not at all; his secretary was writing in answer to a question about the Bahai Administrative Order, which already existed in the lifetime of Shoghi Effendi. It was initially mistrusted and opposed by a portion of the Bahai community. Someone had evidently written to Shoghi Effendi, asking about the meaning of the terms theocracy and theophany, and the secretary replies using the same terms. But clearly the secretary was not meaning "theocracy" according to the dictionary definition you have given us, ie a system of governing a nation. The 1949 letter on behalf of Shoghi Effendi says:

"What the Guardian was referring to was the Theocratic systems, such as the Catholic Church and the Caliphate, which are not divinely given as systems, but man-made and yet, having partly derived from the teachings of Christ and Muhammad are, in a sense, theocracies. The Baha’i theocracy, on the contrary, is both divinely ordained as a system and, of course, based on the teachings of the Prophet Himself... Theophany is used in the sense of Dispensation...”

While both the Catholic Church and the Caliphate have at times exercised the power of civil government, this was not the case in 1949. The last of the several ‘caliphates’ that could be referred to is the caliphate claimed in the late Ottoman empire by the Sultan, according to which he would be the spiritual leader – not ruler – of the world’s Muslims. On the several occasions when Shoghi Effendi refers to the end of the Caliphate in his writings, he is referring to this spiritual caliphate. Its abolition, two years after the abolition of the Sultanate, was a renunciation of the idea of a pan-Islamic union that the Sultans had fostered. So the theocracies, including the ‘Bahai theocracy,’ that the Guardian’s secretary is referring to here are systems of leading and guiding a religious community, they are not systems of government.

If we try to locate the earlier passage from Shoghi Effendi that the secretary is explaining, two possibilities present themselves. The earlier is in his 1934 letter, ‘The Dispensation of Baha’u’llah,’ a letter that is entirely devoted to explaining the principles underlying the Bahai Administrative Order, and in particular the relationship between the hereditary guardianship and the elected Houses of Justice. He says:

The Baha’i Commonwealth of the future, of which this vast Administrative Order is the sole framework, is, both in theory and practice, not only unique in the entire history of political institutions, but can find no parallel in the annals of any of the world’s recognized religious systems. No form of democratic government; no system of autocracy or of dictatorship, whether monarchical or republican; no intermediary scheme of a purely aristocratic order; nor even any of the recognized types of theocracy, whether it be the Hebrew Commonwealth, or the various Christian ecclesiastical organizations, or the Imamate or the Caliphate in Islam – none of these can be identified or be said to conform with the Administrative Order ... [which] ... incorporates within its structure certain elements which are to be found in each of the three recognized forms of secular government, without being in any sense a mere replica of any one of them ...

The letter continues in this vein for some time, comparing and contrasting the Bahai Administrative Order to democracy, autocracy, ecclesiastical government (with the examples of the Papacy and the Imamate), and aristocratic and hereditary government. It is not describing a system of governing a country or a world, but the system of “the Baha’i Commonwealth,” a commonwealth in the sense Gibbon refers to the Christian commonwealth, operating and growing within the pagan Roman Empire. (Decline and Fall, chapter 15 section V).

This section of the letter refers repeatedly to ‘The Administrative Order’ and cannot be made to apply to the institutions of the world political order envisioned by Baha’u’llah and explained by Shoghi Effendi in ‘The Unfoldment of World Civilization,’ with the world legislature, executive and judiciary, and House of Justice mentioned.

The second possible reference is to Shoghi Effendi’s review of the first century of the Babi and Bahai history, God Passes By (1944). In it he says that:

The Administrative Order ... is ... unique in the annals of the world’s religious systems. ... Nor is the principle governing its operation similar to that which underlies any system, whether theocratic or otherwise, which the minds of men have devised for the government of human institutions. Neither in theory nor in practice can the Administrative Order of the Faith of Baha’u’llah be said to conform to any type of democratic government, to any system of autocracy, to any purely aristocratic order, or to any of the various theocracies, whether Jewish, Christian or Islamic which mankind has witnessed in the past.

This echoes his earlier statement, more briefly. These are the only two instances in which Shoghi Effendi uses the word theocracy in connection with the Bahai Faith, and both refer to its internal organisation as a religious community, not to its theories about the organisation of the state.

This administrative order can never be transformed into a government because Shoghi Effendi had written, just two years earlier that the Bahais must never “allow the machinery of their administration to supersede the government of their respective countries.”(The World Order of Baha'u'llah 66)

 

[oldbadger]

It is becoming clear to me that the Baha'i Faith is not easy to understand and I do not believe many of its members really understand it. They have their respective understandings on the issues discussed.

You might want to say that includes me, but I really believe I studied intensely under some people that I believe did fully understand and that I asked the right questions.

Yes! Yes! Absolutely, yes!

Back in the earliest 70's I often listened to visitors at firesides explaining what they personally believed. And very often the reply to them would be, 'That's what we believe'!

I described my 'God is all' belief very early on and was told that this fitted with Bahai. It was only when I gave a talk on this subject at Rutland Gate some years later that the audience became somewhat reserved, chewing finger nails and such..... Oh dear, I was merrily banging on energetically about Deism....... ...... there I've gonre and embarrassed myself again.

I also heard that whole communities in'third-world' countries might declare 'overnight' and 'en masse' because they liked a Bahai vistor. A famous doctor (whose name I shall keep to myself ) who worked in forestry once told me a story exactly like that, from Africa, as I remember.

 

[oldbadger]

In all the letters of the House of Justice there is consistency and no contradiction with Shoghi Effendi but people who are not reading entire letters and cherry picking what they might like to think to try and prove their view point are not being fair here.

Ah ha! So you think that I have something to prove?

The Guardian clearly used the words theocracy but not in the context of the Catholic Church or the Imamate and He said the Bahai Theocracy was different so in reality although the name theocracy is used it is not a theocracy according to the dictionary definition which some are referring to and he made that abundantly clear in this passage and the House of Justice also made that clear....

It is a Divine System. No other 'theocracy' was ever Divine. There is no will of Muhammad or Christ about any Divine Administration but the Baha'i System is the first and is laid down in our Most Holy Book so it is not a theocracy but a Divine World Order.

Now, please...... please!
By saying that previous systems were not 'Divine' he was telling you all that they were not true theocracies! A true theocracy is ORDAINED BY GOD. He was explaining that the Bahai system is the TRUE THEOCRACY because it is ORDAINED BY GOD..... DIVINE!!

Some here are trying to compare the Baha'i System to previously known systems in the world such as theocracy but the Guardian in His World Order of Baha'u'llah clearly states this is incorrect and being taken out of context.

Wrong! You just don't want that label clipped, nailed, bolted down to the name of Bahai. Unfortunately that is the term in the english language which defines a System of Government which is DIVINE, ORDAINED BY GOD.

The Baha'i Faith is not a theocracy as people or the dictionary defines it as is nothing we have ever seen before so trying to compare it is meaningless.

Wrong! It is massively definitely meaningful!! A Divine system cannot ever be wrong, but sadly when human beings have such power they can go very very wrong, but will still be chanting the mantra 'our decisions are guided by God!'
Karl Marx's ideas for communal living were mostly beautiful; who on earth could ever have guessed that they might lead circuitously to Stalin?

You have mentioned that it's not fair to pluck a para from a mass of written camourflage, but that's what investigation is all about, finding the diamonds in the sands of what could be described as truth swathed in 'waffle'. I'm sorry, but I expect to discover that Bahauallah has indeed written about a World Order, controlled exclusively by Bahai, an Order which is infallible, but run by human beings.

You are not the only ones. I can think of a few other religions that seek exactly this, believing that their Order will be perfect because it is divine.

You might think that these other ones are misguided, or wrong, or even bad; but many people in the world might wish to place Bahai in the same file as all those others.

 

[oldbadger]

Not at all; his secretary was writing in answer to a question about the Bahai Administrative Order, which already existed in the lifetime of Shoghi Effendi. It was initially mistrusted and opposed by a portion of the Bahai community. Someone had evidently written to Shoghi Effendi, asking about the meaning of the terms theocracy and theophany, and the secretary replies using the same terms. But clearly the secretary was not meaning "theocracy" according to the dictionary definition you have given us, ie a system of governing a nation. The 1949 letter on behalf of Shoghi Effendi says:

Sen, theocracy is not onlyu a system of governing a nation, nor does thgis apply to Bahai.
Bahai is an Administrative Order for the whole World.
And your quote as posted can't help your proposal, because it shows that 'no order has ever been a theocracy before, because only Bahai is divinely ordained'.

While both the Catholic Church and the Caliphate have at times exercised the power of civil government, this was not the case in 1949. The last of the several ‘caliphates’ that could be referred to is the caliphate claimed in the late Ottoman empire by the Sultan, according to which he would be the spiritual leader – not ruler – of the world’s Muslims. On the several occasions when Shoghi Effendi refers to the end of the Caliphate in his writings, he is referring to this spiritual caliphate. Its abolition, two years after the abolition of the Sultanate, was a renunciation of the idea of a pan-Islamic union that the Sultans had fostered. So the theocracies, including the ‘Bahai theocracy,’ that the Guardian’s secretary is referring to here are systems of leading and guiding a religious community, they are not systems of government.

No...... in a Bahai World with a Bahai majority, the Bahai Administrative Order, the deliverer of Justice, would be leading and guiding the whole world.

If we try to locate the earlier passage from Shoghi Effendi that the secretary is explaining, two possibilities present themselves. The earlier is in his 1934 letter, ‘The Dispensation of Baha’u’llah,’ a letter that is entirely devoted to explaining the principles underlying the Bahai Administrative Order, and in particular the relationship between the hereditary guardianship and the elected Houses of Justice. He says:

He explained that the Bahai World Administrative Order was unlike anything ever seen before. Previous I read that he said the no other system was Divine, so clearly he would see Bahai as unique.
But this simply means that no theoctracy had EVER EXSTRED BEFORE to his way of thinking.
Ergo. Bahai is a theocracy, the only theocracy ever to have existed, Ordained By God.

The letter continues in this vein for some time, comparing and contrasting the Bahai Administrative Order to democracy, autocracy, ecclesiastical government (with the examples of the Papacy and the Imamate), and aristocratic and hereditary government. It is not describing a system of governing a country or a world, but the system of “the Baha’i Commonwealth,” a commonwealth in the sense Gibbon refers to the Christian commonwealth, operating and growing within the pagan Roman Empire. (Decline and Fall, chapter 15 section V).

Whoa! Did Bahauallah compare his received orders from God to something Gibbon wrote about, before or after his life?
I'm going to find what Bahauallah wrote, Sen. That can be the only pure information because this whole faith seems to be muddled up since his time. Bahauallah knew that his Faith could never be damaged because folks would continually return to what he wrote in search of his truth. It will cause schisms, but it has to be the right way to investigate Bahai, surely?

This administrative order can never be transformed into a government because Shoghi Effendi had written, just two years earlier that the Bahais must never “allow the machinery of their administration to supersede the government of their respective countries.”(The World Order of Baha'u'llah 66)

That was then, now and in the foreseeable future!!
Don't try to supersede anything!
But one day, eons from now, in a Bahai Majority World, the Universal House of Justice will no doubt receive a message in their spiritrual togetherness, to unfold the Bahai Commonwealth, the Bahai World Order, as Ordained by God, the only Divine system ever supported by God since.... since..... Exodus?

 

[Sen McGlinn]

All that remains for me to do is to scan Bahauallah's writings for confirmation of what I have seen and read on this thread.

Let me get you started on that project:

… God, …hath ever regarded, and will continue to regard, the hearts of men as His own, His exclusive possession. All else, whether pertaining to land or sea, whether riches or glory, He hath bequeathed unto the Kings and rulers of the earth. … The instruments which are essential to the immediate protection, the security and assurance of the human race have been entrusted to the hands, and lie in the grasp, of the governors of human society. This is the wish of God and His decree…. .” (Gleanings, CII 206-7)

Every nation must have a high regard for the position of its sovereign, must be submissive unto him, must carry out his behests, and hold fast his authority. The sovereigns of the earth have been and are the manifestations of the power, the grandeur and the majesty of God. This Wronged One hath at no time dealt deceitfully with anyone. Every one is well aware of this, and beareth witness unto it. Regard for the rank of sovereigns is divinely ordained, as is clearly attested by the words of the Prophets of God and His chosen ones. He Who is the Spirit (Jesus) — may peace be upon Him — was asked: “O Spirit of God! Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not?” And He made reply: “Yea, render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.” He forbade it not. These two sayings are, in the estimation of men of insight, one and the same, for if that which belonged to Caesar had not come from God, He would have forbidden it. And likewise in the sacred verse: “Obey God and obey the Apostle, and those among you invested with authority.” By “those invested with authority” is meant primarily and more especially the Imams — the blessings of God rest upon them! They, verily, are the manifestations of the power of God, and the sources of His authority, and the repositories of His knowledge, and the daysprings of His commandments. Secondarily these words refer unto the kings and rulers — those through the brightness of whose justice the horizons of the world are resplendent and luminous. We fain would hope that His Majesty the Shah will shine forth with a light of justice whose radiance will envelop all the kindreds of the earth. It is incumbent upon every one to beseech the one true God on his behalf for that which is meet and seemly in this day.
(Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 89)

Know thou that We have annulled the rule of the sword, as an aid to Our Cause, and substituted for it the power born of the utterance of men. Thus have We irrevocably decreed, by virtue of Our grace. Say: O people! Sow not the seeds of discord among men, and refrain from contending with your neighbor, for your Lord hath committed the world and the cities thereof to the care of the kings of the earth, and made them the emblems of His own power, by virtue of the sovereignty He hath chosen to bestow upon them. He hath refused to reserve for Himself any share whatever of this world’s dominion. To this He Who is Himself the Eternal Truth will testify. The things He hath reserved for Himself are the cities of men’s hearts, that He may cleanse them from all earthly defilements, and enable them to draw nigh unto the hallowed Spot which the hands of the infidel can never profane.
(Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, 303)

In the Epistle to the Romans Saint Paul hath written: “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God.” And further: “For he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” He saith that the appearance of the kings, and their majesty and power are of God.
(Baha’u’llah, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, 91)

Dispute not with any one concerning the things of this world and its affairs, for God hath abandoned them to such as have set their affection upon them. Out of the whole world He hath chosen for Himself the hearts of men — hearts which the hosts of revelation and of utterance can subdue. Thus hath it been ordained by the Fingers of Baha, upon the Tablet of God’s irrevocable decree, by the behest of Him Who is the Supreme Ordainer, the All-Knowing.
(Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, 279)

Forbear ye from concerning yourselves with the affairs of this world and all that pertaineth unto it, or from meddling with the activities of those who are its outward leaders. The one true God, exalted be His glory, hath bestowed the government of the earth upon the kings. To none is given the right to act in any manner that would run counter to the considered views of them who are in authority. That which He hath reserved for Himself are the cities of men’s hearts; and of these the loved ones of Him Who is the Sovereign Truth are, in this Day, as the keys. Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, 241

 

[loverofhumanity]

Ah ha! So you think that I have something to prove?

Now, please...... please!
By saying that previous systems were not 'Divine' he was telling you all that they were not true theocracies! A true theocracy is ORDAINED BY GOD. He was explaining that the Bahai system is the TRUE THEOCRACY because it is ORDAINED BY GOD..... DIVINE!!


Wrong! You just don't want that label clipped, nailed, bolted down to the name of Bahai. Unfortunately that is the term in the english language which defines a System of Government which is DIVINE, ORDAINED BY GOD.


Wrong! It is massively definitely meaningful!! A Divine system cannot ever be wrong, but sadly when human beings have such power they can go very very wrong, but will still be chanting the mantra 'our decisions are guided by God!'
Karl Marx's ideas for communal living were mostly beautiful; who on earth could ever have guessed that they might lead circuitously to Stalin?

You have mentioned that it's not fair to pluck a para from a mass of written camourflage, but that's what investigation is all about, finding the diamonds in the sands of what could be described as truth swathed in 'waffle'. I'm sorry, but I expect to discover that Bahauallah has indeed written about a World Order, controlled exclusively by Bahai, an Order which is infallible, but run by human beings.

You are not the only ones. I can think of a few other religions that seek exactly this, believing that their Order will be perfect because it is divine.

You might think that these other ones are misguided, or wrong, or even bad; but many people in the world might wish to place Bahai in the same file as all those others.

Old badger I gave you a like because I love the spirit of your questioning. (More like interrogation ha! Ha!). I love you digging deep because you might strike gold or diamonds one day like we all have.

Let's go back to Baha'u'llah in His Most Holy Book, the Law Book of the Baha'i Faith.

Note He refers to the Baha'i system as a - 'unique' System the like of which mortal eyes have never witnessed.

Oxford definition / unique - being the only one of its kind;

Trying to compare a 'one of its kind' System to any other system is illogical.

“The world’s equilibrium hath been upset through the vibrating influence of this most great, this new World Order. Mankind’s ordered life hath been revolutionized through the agency of this unique, this wondrous System—the like of which mortal eyes have never witnessed.”

Excerpt From: Bahá’u’lláh. “The Kitab-i-Aqdas.” Bahá’í