Baha’i Justice

I would guess then, that since Marangella was appointed by Mason, he must have considered him an Aghsan or he would not have been able to appoint him. Why is he not the rightful Guardian in your eyes. Janice

Belief in the Everlasting Covenant as exemplified in the Will & Testament of Abdu’l-Baha is belief in the fact that the Guardianship continues through the Aghsan lineage. Again, there are two criterion and two criterion only; that he is a son (Aghsan) and that he is appointed. Period. Nothing else. This is the way the Throne line has existed for three thousand years. It is prophesied in the bible that the Gentiles would inherit the Kingdom and that this would be the “times of the Gentiles” being fulfilled. That is, that there would be a time that the Throne line (Kingship) would be inherited by Gentiles (non-Jewish) and this time has come and gone and a “natural branch” (Jew) was grafted back into the Tree.

Pepe adopted and appointed Neal Chase in the same style and manner that Abdu’l-Baha adopted Mason. He announced publicly to everyone calling him “MY SON” and as Abdu’l-Baha says as quoted in Mason’s diaries:

‘Abdu’l-Baha to his only son Mason Remey:

“I have adopted you as my son [Persian: aghsan]. You have to appreciate this favor very much indeed. One should see that you are living according to the requirements of this sonship. You should be aware of your responsibilities. My prayers will help you. I always pray for you.”
(‘Abdu’l-Baha to Mason Remey, cf.“The Diaries of Mason Remey”, Folio 2, “A Pilgrimage to the Holy Land: Reminisces of the Master, 1921”, pp. 127-129. New York Public Library Collection)

So Abdu’l-Baha counsels Mason that being his son took on certain “requirements”
and “responsibilities”, these of course being the fact that Mason is “Aghsan” now and that means he would end up being the only candidate for the job of Guardian and Abdu’l-Baha knew this and knew that it would be a huge test for the believers, but it would only be those believers who would not deviate a hairs breadth from the promise of the Guardianship through the Aghsan lineage who would pass this test. The test of there always having to be a Guardian is over, Mason told the believers in Washington that that test was over but now it would be a test of who the Guardian is. Two criteria. Son, appointed. Mason had only one son through adoption, at the passing of Mason that would mean there is only one choice as to who could be Mason’s successor, his son. Period. this is the “Straight Path” of God’s Divine Will. Any deviation from this path through excuses and reasonings and theologies is not the Straight Path of the Covenant. Pepe addressed Neal as his “Son” in the same way as Abdu’l-Baha addressed Mason and at the passing of Pepe, there is only one choice as to Pepe’s successor and this would be the only one who fulfills the requirement of being a son in the same context as that of Abdu’l-Baha and Mason and this is Neal Chase.
Victor

Pepe was Italian? Wouldn’t it have been necessary to follow the laws of the land in the activation of an adoption in that land? I find the story about how Abdu’l-Baha “adopted” Mason very endearing. It confirms even stronger that Mason indeed was someone to be trusted and listened to. But, the adoption of Neal Chase by Pepe is a little far fetched. Had they ever even met? Janice

Neal Chase was adopted according to these same requirements. In letters addressed to Mr. Chase, Pepe referred to him as his son and asked of Neal if it was ok to adopt him for the purpose of succession. After the passing of Pepe, Mr. Chase was called by the executor of Pepe’s estate and was given tokens of his inheritance that again, symbolized the passing of this line of succession.
Victor

“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