Baha’i Justice

“This idea of equating adopted children with natural children in matters of succession is well expressed in a responsum of Rabbi Jacob Emden which the learned Judge cited in another decision, In re: Succession of the late Yoseph Blum deceased (4)(at pp. 161), as follows:“If he rears the child for the glory of God the child is certainly to be regarded as his child and not only in lineage, but even where the child had parents and is being brought up by the stranger as a meritorious act, if the latter has no children [‘Abdu’l-Baha had no living natural sons] and is bringing up the child to be his son and to succeed him and they address each other as father and son”(response of Yavetz, Part I, section 168). So also with the deceased in the present case: He reared the child as his daughter to succeed him, and she called him “father” and he called her “daughter.” These were not vague terms of affection but expressed the precise legal relationship which had been created between them – at any rate with respect to the matter of succession.”
(Selected Judgments from the Israeli Supreme Court,
Vol. III, pp. 426-7.)
This was usually confirmed by some token such as a stick or a stone, or something, to make it definite that it was meant that it was a legal adoption. This is called institutive evidence.
“Institutive evidence is that which is created or adopted as a memorial of a fact and for the purpose of being evidence of the fact. The stone set up for a boundary; the giving of a clod of earth or a twig in livery of seizing as evidence or the transfer of the title [etc]….”(Sagebeer, The Bible in Court, p. 104.)
“The Master gave Mr. Remey what no one else ever received – relics of the Blood and Hair of Baha’u’llah; in the East this act symbolizes Mr. Remey’s adoption as a Son by ‘Abdu’l-Baha and his becoming a member of the Holy Family.”
(Questions and Answers about Charles Mason Remey and the Baha’i Faith, by F.C. Spataro.)
Shoghi Effendi recognized ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s adoption of Mason as true and legal. Immediately after the death of ‘Abdu’l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi called Mason to the Holy land in February and March of 1922 giving to him a “package of ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s most sacred possession,” which was left to Shoghi Effendi, as the executor of ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s Will to deliver to Mason Remey as his inheritance:“locks of Baha’u’llah’s hair”(which represents the headship of the International Baha’i Council/Universal House of Justice) and “drops of his coagulated blood”(which represents the bloodline of David and Baha’u’llah). On the outside of the package Shoghi Effendi addressed it to ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s “dear son” whom he later appointed to the headship of the IBC/UHJ. The hair and blood are the tokens of inheritance.‘Abdu’l-Baha’s most prized possession shows the evidence of the legal adoption passed on from father to son –‘Abdu’l-Baha to Mason. This type of evidence of a token is called “institutive evidence.”
Victor

Dear Janice,
The laws of adoption in the East are as follows:
According to the laws of the Ottoman Empire of the Middle East that ruled over Palestine before it became the state of Israel, a legal adoption occurred when a man called another his son. Then the British Mandate of the West which succeeded the Ottoman Empire retained the adoption laws of the Ottoman Empire as legal and binding under their rule. Then, for the Israeli government, the law for adoption remained the same. If a man calls another his son and leaves him a token to show inheritance (whether it be a stick or a stone or something), then the adoption is legal and binding. When ‘Abdu’l-Baha proclaimed that Mason was his son (privately, publicly and in letters published in Star of the West Magazine), these were not “vague terms of affection but expressed the precise legal relationship which had been created between them.” Here is cited the law of adoption in the Middle East (from Ottoman times to the present) upheld by the British Mandate of the West and the Israeli Supreme Court on June 22, 1960, long after ‘Abdu’l-Baha adopted Mason to be his son and heir.
Victor

Dear Doris,

It is funny that people always misunderstand this passage in the Will, even though Shoghi was clear in his explanation of this:

“The statement in the Will of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá does not imply that the Hands of the Cause of God have been given the authority to overrule the Guardian.’Abdu’l-Bahá could not have provided for a conflict of authority in the Faith. This is obvious, in view of His own words, which you will find on page 13 (p. 11 of 1944 U.S. edition) of the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. “The mighty stronghold shall remain impregnable and safe through obedience to him who is the guardian of the Cause of God. It is incumbent upon…the Hands of the Cause of God to show their obedience, submissiveness and subordination unto the guardian of the Cause of God, to turn unto him and be lowly before him. He that opposeth him hath opposed the True One…etc.”

Baha’i News, February 1955

So, as far as my not “understanding” what the Aghsan is, if I am failing in this…maybe you could enlighten me seeing you seem to have a firm grasp on the meaning of the Covenant as you have thus far shown….

As far as the first born son, this is implicit in the Will and I don’t understand how people are able to read the W&T and not read these words:

“Thus, should the first-born of the Guardian of the Cause of God not manifest in himself the truth of the words:– “The child is the secret essence of its sire,” that is, should he not inherit of the spiritual within him (the Guardian of the Cause of God) and his glorious lineage not be matched with a goodly character, then must he,(the Guardian of the Cause of God) choose another branch to succeed him.”

(Abdu’l-Baha, The Will and Testament, p. 12)

This is the law of “primogeniture”, the inheritance goes to the first born son. In the case of Shoghi Effendi, he did not have any children so he is instructed in the W&T to “choose another branch”. “Branch” is translated as “Aghsan” which are the male heirs to Baha’u’llah. Mason Remey was Abdu’l-Baha’s Adopted son, everyone knew this including Shoghi Effendi so he chose Mason “another branch” whom he placed at the head of the IBC, which was the UHJ in its first stage of development. The reason people do not want to accept this “round about” way of Mason being appointed is not that they deny Mason, its that they don’t want God’s Plan as God’s Plan has always been contrary to the whims and wantings of people’s expectations.

Neal Chase Ben Joseph Aghsan is the Guardian, has been in the Plan since the beginning to be the Guardian and it will be people who have gone against this plan who will go down in history as having been on record, attacking, denying, rejecting, openly disputing with, and contending with the Guardian and the Divine Plan of God. I am not particular as to what I believe. I don’t care what other people think. I just want to know the truth and I don’t care what that means. If it means giving up family and friends or old ideas and concepts or belief systems than that’s what I’ll do. Sounds like some are just stuck in denial. If anything comes against their forms of belief, they deny it, giving false, unresearched and uneducated statements betraying their lack of understanding themselves. The Aghsan lineage of the male heirs of Baha’u’llah continues to this day and will continue for the next five hundred thousand years.
Victor

Another question for Victor,

How do you determine that a “son” is adopted? Did Abdu’l-Baha formally adopt Mason or did he simply just call him son or “Aghsan”. Couldn’t that just be an affectionate way of telling him he was part of the spiritual family? Also, did Pepe formally or legally “adopt” Neil Chase?
I need more details to figure out your argument. Janice

Doris wrote:

“Pepe was NEVER the Guardian.

You clearly you do not understand the meaning of Aghsan; you do not understand that the Guardianship does not automatically pass to a son even if he is the only son; and you do not understand that 9 Hands of the Cause must approve the appointment.

Neal Chase is not Aghsan, he was not appointed by a living guardian, he was not ratified by the Hands, and he is NOT, NEVER HAS BEEN, AND NEVER WILL BE GUARDIAN of anything but his own swollen ego.

That is the truth.”

Dear Doris,

The Master’s sacred Will and Testament uses the word “assent” not approve, a very different meaning, and a very different purpose, which requires interpretation and interpretative application, which power of interpretation sans-Guardian Baha’is and their leaders do not possess. Nine Hands of the Cause did not assent to Shoghi Effendi’s appointment because it arrived directly from the Master. The appointment of Shoghi Effendi’s successor did not need assent because there could not possibly be any confusion over the irrefutable fact that the Master’s Will and Testament identifies the “sacred head” of a Universal House of Justice to be none other than a Guardian of the Baha’i Faith.

It is interesting that you refer to the fact that the Hands “must” give their assent to the Guardian’s choice of his successor as if you recognize that that is a living, active, vigorous Instruction of Abdu’l-Baha’, currently in force, which it in fact is, and yet sans-Guardian Baha’is believe that His command concerning that “assent’ is dead, lifeless, and obsolete. In the Heterodox Baha’i organization that sacred Instruction of the Center of the Baha’i Covenant has never been in force, has never been obeyed and never will be obeyed or put into practice.

Cordially,
Ross

Pepe was NEVER the Guardian.

You clearly you do not understand the meaning of Aghsan; you do not understand that the Guardianship does not automatically pass to a son even if he is the only son; and you do not understand that 9 Hands of the Cause must approve the appointment.

Neal Chase is not Aghsan, he was not appointed by a living guardian, he was not ratified by the Hands, and he is NOT, NEVER HAS BEEN, AND NEVER WILL BE GUARDIAN of anything but his own swollen ego.

That is the truth. Doris

“if it is true that Mason was, in fact, the adopted Aghsan son of ‘Abdu’l-Baha, and if that fact were to be generally accepted, then I should not be able to refuse being his only possible successor…. The fact will always remain that if the Baha’i Faith must have a Guardian to progress, then only Mason Remey could have fulfilled that role, and Mason Remey intended me as his successor…”

And yes, it was true. Mason was the only Aghsan who qualified to be the Guardian and this was in the Plan from the beginning. None of the other claimants to the Guardianship after Mason ever claimed to be Aghsan, and thus they are immediately eliminated from consideration. Only one person fulfilled this position. This was Pepe. He asserts this in his letter that Mason had intended for him to be his successor. Pepe was Mason’s only son. Pepe acknowledged his Guardianship in other letters and referred to himself as a “do-nothing” Guardian in occultation. There are only two criteria. he must be an Aghsan (son) and be appointed. Anything added to this is outside the criteria the W&T delineates. This is the “Straight Path” that is tread by the faithful. The “faithful” are those who do not rebel against the designated lineage and try to establish added or false criteria. When Pepe passed on in 1994 the mantle of Guardianship passed from Pepe to Pepe’s adopted son, Neal Chase ben Joseph Aghsan bringing the natural line of David and Baha’u’llah grafted back into the tree. It doesn’t make any difference what anyone says. The fact that Pepe was the only son of Mason makes him the only one who can be Mason’s successor. To go with any other plan or design or path or theology is going against the designated Aghsan lineage which is the Lineage of David that is promised in the Book of Psalms to last for as long as their is life on this planet. There have always been those who have continually attacked and denied the Throne of David, but the Throne continues to this day despite them. If the people do not want the Promised Everlasting Covenant then that is no skin off my nose. I believe everyone can believe whatever they want. But what I usually end up believing is that which is true. That which is in conformity to the revealed writings and the fact that the Guardianship of the House of Justice is confined to the Aghsan lineage of Baha’u’llah in the Will & Testament. If the Guardianship continued after the death of Shoghi Effendi, who else could have fulfilled this role? Mason was the only one for the fact that he was Aghsan. Mason might have appointed others, but Mason had only one son, Pepe. Its really easy if you think about it. If people could accept the Straight Path this would be a very powerful point of unity. But people are silly. They are suspicious, jealous, envious, and so the attacks and rejection of the Aghsan lineage and the Throne of David continue. C’est la vie
Victor

Victor wrote:
How do you explain the above quoted letter?

Where on earth does that letter show that Pepe was Guardian???? Quinn

How do you explain the above quoted letter?
Victor

Doris, I am aware of the letter Susan talks about. But you are essentially correct, Pepe never became a Bahaì, much less the Guardian of the Bahaì Faith.

Perhaps Victor is unaware of other letters Pepe sent out bitterly complaining that Leland Jensen was trying to force a station upon him that he did not want.

The idea of Pepe as Guardian came from nowhere but the imaginings of Jensen and, later, Chase.

Joel Bray Marangella at least had a brief claim before Remey withdrew the appointment. Chase has nothing. Quinn