Baha’i Justice

The response by members of the Wilmette Bahai denomination here to this article by The Chicago Tribune ought to give any thoughtful person reason for pause and reflection. Below are a few excerpts for historical context.

Many of the comments demonstrate the truth of what Professor Juan Cole of the University of Michigan observed way back in 1998 in his book Modernity and the Millennium: The Genesis of the Baha’i Faith in the Nineteenth-Century Middle East, Columbia University Press, writing that the Baha’i administration has increasingly come under the control of fundamentalists, “stressing scriptural literalism … theocracy, censorship, intellectual intolerance, and denying key democratic values” (196).

Similarly he wrote online in 1998,“The very technique of the more glaze-eyed among these people is to unbearably bully a Baha’i whom they don’t like, use unjustified threats of declaring him or her a CB [Covenant Breaker (heretic)] to silence the individual, and if the person will not be silenced, then to depend upon the gullibility of the Baha’is in refusing to listen to any victim’s story because, of course, the Baha’i institutions are infallible and divinely guided and could never do anything wrong. It is a perfect racket.”

Professor Juan Cole, in February 23, 1999:
“There is nothing to be puzzled by. Right wing Baha’is only like to hear the sound of their own voices (which are the only voices they will admit to being “Baha’i” at all). Obviously, the world is so constructed that they cannot in fact only hear their own voices. They are forced to hear other
voices that differ from theirs. This most disturbs them when the voices come from enrolled Baha’is or when the voices speak of the Baha’i faith. The way they sometimes deal with the enrolled Baha’is is to summon them to a heresy inquiry and threaten them with being shunned if they do not fall silent. With non-Baha’is or with ex-Baha’is, they deal with their speech about the faith by backbiting, slandering and libelling the speaker. You will note that since I’ve been on this list I have been accused of long-term heresy, of “claiming authority,” of out and out lying
(though that was retracted, twice), of misrepresentation, of ‘playing fast and loose with the facts,’ and even of being ‘delusional.’ I have been accused of all these falsehoods by *Baha’is*, by prominent Baha’is. I have been backbitten by them. This shows that all the talk about the
danger a sharp tongue can do, all the talk about the need for harmony, for returning poison with honey, for a sin-covering eye, is just *talk* among right wing Baha’is. No one fights dirtier than they when they discover a voice they cannot silence and cannot refute.

I suggest recalling the words of Judge Diane S. Sykes, to the lawyer for the Wilmette Baha’is in their attempt to deprive other Bahai denominations of essentially their religious freedom and liberty, quote, “Clearly raises some Constitutional concerns.” Again, the 3-minute Mp3 file of her actually making this statement in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals may be found at
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/USCo…

It’s long past time that the people of Chicago and the United States should know the Wilmette Baha’is for the fanatical and oppressive organization it actually is. The Chicago Tribune is to be applauded for allowing its readers to decide for themselves.

Frederick
The Reform Bahai Faith

Susan wrote:

I think you need a lesson in history. Christianity survived precisely because it *did* have a locus of authority unlike the gnostics who fragmented endlessly and eventually dissipated.

I’m a Christian and don’t need you to teach me my own history. The “locus of authority” that you speak of was responsible for the stagnation and corruption of the Christian faith — just like the UHJ. Christianity survives today precisely because the Christian community rejected that authority.

Susan wrote:
As for Ruhi, somehow I don’t think you’ve actually read the books. Nowhere does it forbid individual interpretation.

From Ruhi:
“We believe that the habit of thinking about the implications of the
Writings with the minimum of personal interpretation would eliminate a
great share of the disagreements which afflict consultation in many
communities, and would make the activities of our communities more
effective.” Marcello

No one religious group can claim to have copyright over their religious words and symbols. Would the US court allow one group to exclusively use the words “Christ”, “Muhammad”, “Islam” or “Christianity”? James

Marcello wrote:
The great religions have lasted for thousands of years precisely because there was no central authority controlling the dialogue (although the Vatican certainly gave it a good try!). In contrast, the hierarchy of the Baha’i Faith seeks to create “unity” by stifling diversity. In the Ruhi books, they’ve even gone so far as to forbid individual interpretation. Until the Baha’i Faith can break free of this inflexible dogma, it’s unlikely to find a place alongside the great religions.

I think you need a lesson in history. Christianity survived precisely because it *did* have a locus of authority unlike the gnostics who fragmented endlessly and eventually dissipated.

Ultimately any religion which takes revelation seriously has to accept an authority outside of the self.

As for Ruhi, somehow I don’t think you’ve actually read the books. Nowhere does it forbid individual interpretation. Susan

Marcello wrote:

Depends what you mean by “teaching”. If you mean that the hierarchy dictates the dogma and the laypeople accept without questioning, then you have a point. But in all the great religions, “teaching” involves discussion, debate and argument. The great religions have lasted for thousands of years precisely because there was no central authority controlling the dialogue (although the Vatican certainly gave it a good try!). In contrast, the hierarchy of the Baha’i Faith seeks to create “unity” by stifling diversity. In the Ruhi books, they’ve even gone so far as to forbid individual interpretation. Until the Baha’i Faith can break free of this inflexible dogma, it’s unlikely to find a place alongside the great religions.

Your points are either invalid or downright factually incorrect.

Although agree with you, I don’t believe everything in Ruhi but neither does everybody. Therefor by your definition Ruhi is a good tool because it causes discussion, debate, and argument. At least the circles that i’ve been in.

Please don’t make me go into detail. Every Baha’i knows that they can interpret anything to mean anything and everything crazy that their mind thinks of EXCEPT if it contradicts what the Head of the Faith has written. I have been in many, many, MANY, Baha’i communities including a year at The Baha’i World Centre and have not witnessed what you would refer to as “stifling diversity”. Lorenzo

Fredrick is a wanna-be Martin Luther.

Fredrick who posted above spends all his time spamming Baha’i discussion forums with his full name and “organization” which is basically just a website which he says grows in “adherents” whenever he gets an email.

He was kicked out of the Baha’i Faith for his radical views and now spends all his time making inflammatory statements about the Baha’i Faith and the Baha’i Administration.

His dream is to be the next Martin Luther

He is not to be taken seriously. Egomaniac

Lorenzo wrote:
We could go on and on with this discussion but it all boils down to one basic question:
-Who is actively teaching Baha’u’llah?

Depends what you mean by “teaching”. If you mean that the hierarchy dictates the dogma and the laypeople accept without questioning, then you have a point. But in all the great religions, “teaching” involves discussion, debate and argument. The great religions have lasted for thousands of years precisely because there was no central authority controlling the dialogue (although the Vatican certainly gave it a good try!). In contrast, the hierarchy of the Baha’i Faith seeks to create “unity” by stifling diversity. In the Ruhi books, they’ve even gone so far as to forbid individual interpretation. Until the Baha’i Faith can break free of this inflexible dogma, it’s unlikely to find a place alongside the great religions. Marcello

I am a BUPC and we were the ones to blame for the sans-Guardians raising such a fuss. We have websites published that promote the Guardianship through the only ones in the Will & Teatament who are given this priviledge, namely – the Aghsan. The Aghsan are the male descendants of Baha’u’llah and are the only ones who are allowed to fill this position. Abdu’l-Baha over and over again proclaimed Mason Remey to be his “Aghsan” his son. Abdu’l-Baha did not speak English, and when in the multitude of letters Abdu’l-Baha wrote to Mason he always addressed them with “My dear Son” which was written by Abdu’l-Baha as “My dear Aghsan” This is what Abdu’l-Baha wrote. Funny how people always forget about that. Mason Remey deposited copies of his diaries all over the world, and in Mason’s diaries he describes his last meeting with Abdu’l-Baha before his passing at the sea of Tiberias in the Holy Land. Here he descibes how Abdu’l-Baha proclaimed outright “I have adopted you as my son.” In the Diaries of Juliet Thompson Abdu’l-Baha is quoted in a letter saying “You are my real son. I have an idea for you and hope that it will come to pass.” An adopted son has all the right and priveledges of a natual son. A hereditery lineage includes adopted children and this is and will continue to be the “Straight Path” that we are admonished in the writings to follow. The Great-Grandson of Abdu’l-Baha through Mason Remey is alive and teaching and fighting these enemies of the Cause of which is the “Kingdom of God on Earth” How can you have a “Kingdom” without a King? The King is the Guardian who sits at the head of the ture Universal House of Justice but only has a vote of one in the decision making process and has no veto power. This is Justice. Justice in not any one man making all the decisions and interpretations, this is tyranny. The Kingship is that which is passed down from Baha’u’llah as He Himself proclaims

“THE Most Great Law is come, and the Ancient Beauty ruleth upon the throne of David. Thus hath My Pen spoken that which the histories of bygone ages have related.”

(Baha’u’llah, The Proclamation of Baha’u’llah, p. 89)

The Histories of bygone ages prove that Baha’u’llah is indeed a direct throne line descendant of David and we have compiled the Genealogy that now even the Sans-Guardian admit to using in their teaching efforts becasuse nothing elses is as authoritative. These facts, just like the prophecies Baha’u’llah Himself fulfills, cannot be denied. To any truly discerning individual, this is the essence of discovery and truth at it is confirmed and related in the pages of documented history. This is why the Guardianship cannot and will not ever come to an end, because it is the fulfillment of the prophecies for Baha’u’llah as the Great descendant of David who appears and bring the “Kingdom of God” on earth. Victor

We could go on and on with this discussion but it all boils down to one basic question:

-Who is actively teaching Baha’u’llah?

As a student of Baha’i organizations, as one who accept Baha’u’llah’s message for humanity as the healing medicine for a sick world, I asked myself which of these Baha’i organizations is teaching Baha’u’llah?

It is evident that The Orthodox Baha’is are concerned only with self glorification with ample evidence being their own website where 95% of their articles are why they’re right and everybody is else is wrong. Their own Hands of the Cause and general members also prove this point.

The Reform Bahais are also only concerned with self glorification, specifically the glorification of Fredrick as their Big Cheese.

As for the Baha’is Loyal to the IV Guardian, their Guardian Soghomonian has a policy against teaching their Faith.

The Baha’i World Faith is the only Baha’i community that teaches Baha’u’llah, simple as that.

In my humble opinion all Orthodox and CB organizations exist for one reason and one reason only: to destroy the Baha’i World Faith.
To this bears witness their ‘ridvan messages’, their ‘nawruz messages’, their ‘hands’ and their general membership. Lorenzo

Susan wrote:
The only thing that was said about the Reform Baha’i Faith was the doubts expressed as to whether there really was such an organization apart from Fred himself. Fred has been linked to a number of websites claiming to represent Baha’i sects which in fact no longer exist.

Let me clarify the above the statement. It is in reference to Fred’s accusation that his so-called Reformed Baha’i was slandered in the recent court cases. The judge in the Court of Appeals which Fred gave us the MP3 link was not referring to Fred’s organization (if indeed there is one) but to whether or not the Remeyites who are bound by this court injunction could *theoretically* call themselves Reformed Baha’is. Susan