The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience

"Neither [Abdul-Baha] nor Baha'u'llah had given the slightest intimation that they intended to appoint an hereditary guardianship. In fact everything that they had said or spoken indicated the opposite intention.

 

"I also did a great deal of recollecting of events that had happened during our two visits to the home of Abdul-Baha, where I had an opportunity to see him in relation to his family and his "in-laws." The deductions that I made confirmed what Abdul-Baha had so often said--that the spiritual relationship was the real kinship, and not the physical. For his family, with the exception of his wife and sister, were the average types with a strong bent toward organized religion, whereas Abdul-Baha was universal, "super-racial and undogmatic." The world was his family. His loving care for his universal family was evident throughout his life, but at no time was it more evident than during the first world war and directly after it. He personally supervised vast agricultural projects at Tiberias and Adassieh, and he rationed and distributed the products that he cultivated, thereby saving thousands from starvation" (28-29).

"It is important for those who are interested in the Bahai Religion to free themselves from the idea that the family of Abdul-Baha is a "Holy Family." In fact his family, and "in-laws," with the exception of his wife and sister, were somewhat materialistic, and viewed the religion more or less as a little family affair with a strong bent toward organization. For years they have indoctrinated, more or less, the pilgrims who visited the home of Abdul-Baha, myself included, with this conception of religion. This partly nullified the great universal teachings. The result was that when Abdul-Baha passed from this world in November, 1921, some of his family, who had laid the ground-work for organization through these pilgrims while he was alive, hastened to establish it more firmly when he died. All this resulted in making the Bahai Movement, under the dictatorship of Shoghi Effendi, an organization which for narrowness and bigotry has no parallel in history except in the dark ages" (31).

DELETED from H-Bahai version [ Abdul-Baha emphasizes that "Hands of the Cause" "is only a verbal expression" and that He definitely did not intend to "Appoint" anyone versus a theocracy:

"Not until three years had elapsed after the alleged will had been read in 1922, were copies of it finally distributed, and then only to "old and recognized believers." I was among those who received a copy. But my stand continued to be one of "watchful waiting." This stand on my part caused me no embarrassment, inasmuch as I had never been a member of the Bahai organization, (Spiritual Assemblies of the Bahais). I knew that belonging to them meant conforming to the group repression and being shorn of the universal attitude which Abdul-Baha said is the essence of the Bahai Cause" (40).

"In May 1926 the National Spiritual Assembly of Bahais incorporated the Bahai Cause, made the alleged will part of the by-laws, and proclaimed it an article of faith that Shoghi Effendi as the Guardian of the Bahai Cause must be obeyed in all things. The alleged will had never been examined by handwriting experts. by the powers granted in the alleged will, the Guardian collected large sums of money, and sent out various pleas for this purpose" (40).

"As Mr. Mountford Mills was one of the "well known Baha'is" who had gone to Palestine shortly after the passing of Abdul-Baha, I wrote to him asking him to give me what information he could concerning the alleged will. Mr. Mills, by the way, drew up the by-laws of the Bahai Cause, than which nothing could be more un-Bahai. although he is an exceptionally fine man, that did not interfere with his blindness. Just after he had drawn these by -laws, my husband and I had an interview with him, in which he said that the had recently finished reading 'Christianity Past and Present' by Charles Guignebert, and that if he had read it before drafting those by-laws the history of the Bahai Cause would have been different. In other words Mr. Mills deeply regretted his action" (45).

DELETED from H-Bahai version [Of these four excisions from the H-Bahai copy of White's book, this one is the most incriminating. In it she emphasizes that Abdul-Baha always maintained that Bahais should require his signature for verification of the authenticity of his Tablets and pronouncements, which would have applied all the more to something as important as a purported will and testament. She also quotes on the previous page Abdul-Baha applying this injunction even to Shoghi Effendi and his brother Ruhi]:

"Dr. Mitchell not only spent months examining the enlarged specimens submitted to him, but he examined minutely every line of the ten photographs of the alleged will, and his conclusion is that it is not written throughout by the same person. This fact, in addition to others, indicates that the will is spurious, especially if we bear in mind that Shoghi Effendi, and the Spiritual Assembly of Bahai's, assert that every word of it is written in the hand of Abdul-Baha. Also if we bear in mind that it is undated and unwitnessed, and that it contradicts the teachings that both Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha gave during their lifetimes--that the Bahai Cause is a spiritual democracy and not a theocracy. The appointment of an hereditary guardianship contradicts this" (69).

"Dr. Mitchell's report also shows that none of the handwriting of the alleged will is the same as the authentic specimens of Abdul-Baha's handwriting that were submitted to him" (69).

"Most persons are unaware of the fact that handwriting experts use modern inventions that measure the slants, the spaces, and the tremors of writing so accurately that it makes the difference between two specimens of different writing overwhelmingly apparent, when these are enlarged, even though one of the specimens may be so clever a forgery of the other as to appear identical to the naked eye" (69-70).

"Those Bahais who assert that they are familiar with the handwriting of Abdul-Baha, and have compared it with the writing of the will, and have found them identical, reveal the fact that they are either totally unaware of the science used by the best handwriting experts, or else fear has prompted them to assert their belief in the authenticity of the will--fear of being excommunicated if they so much as question the document. This science that the best handwriting experts use is so mathematically accurate that any number of experts using these modern inventions will arrive at the same results" (70).

"I have already referred to the extreme care that Abdul-Baha showed in regard to letters purporting to be from him, sent or brought to this country. The following instance shows that he was even more careful to make certain that any Tablet or document of his relating to important public matters was properly translated and authenticated before it was sent out. He wrote a Tablet to the Secretary of the Court for Durable Peace, at the Hague, on December 17, 1919, and he considered it necessary to have four men translate it. These four men were Shoghi Effendi (Rabbani), Dr. Zia M. Bagdadi, Mirza Lotfullah Hakim, and Dr. J. E. Esselmont. This Tablet was signed Abdul-Baha Abbas, and was published in the Star of the West (Bahai Magazine), August 1, 1920, with the four names of the translators and witnesses."

"The quadruple witnessing of this Tablet, written two years before Abdul-Baha passed from this world, make it evident that he did not consider Shoghi Effendi careful enough, or efficient enough, to translate the Table to the Court of Durable Peace without the help of three other men. Is it likely, then, that at this very time and authentic will of Abdul-Baha's, of infinitely greater importance than this Tablet to the Hague, should lay hidden in the earth, undated and unwitnessed, in which this same Shoghi Effendi was appointed sole guardian of the Bahai Cause, with more potential power and wealth than asking and pope combined? And that later this same will was translated by the one person only, the beneficiary himself--Shogi Effendi. Is this in accordance with Abdul-Baha's super-carefulness?" (70-71).

"Abdul Baha said that if an angel from heaven comes down and tries to change the teachings of Baha'u'llah, do not believe him. Shoghi Effendi has changed them by pronouncements and actions which are in direct contradiction to Bahai teachings--above all he has changed the very character and fundamental principle of the Cause by putting a theocracy, which the founders said it was not [boldface in original], in place of the spiritual democracy which they said, over and over again, it is. The following instances show what acceptance of the alleged will has done to the blind followers of its rules."

"Mr. Horace Holley, as spokesman for Shoghi Effendi, made this statement in 1925: 'The individual conscience must be subordinated to the decisions of the elected Spiritual Assembly.'" [boldface in original]

"This statement strikes at the very foundation of the Bahai Cause, as one of its cardinal teachings is that man must have freedom of conscience. Among dozens of instances that could be given of Abdul-Baha's statements on this subject is the following: '... the conscience of man is sacred and to be respected . . . '" (73-74).

"We can see from the foregoing that Abdul-Baha emphasized the necessity of man's being able to exercise freedom of conscience, as Baha'u'llah did" (75).

"During the lifetime of Abdu'l Baha the attempts of the National Spiritual Assembly of Baha'is to organize the Bahai Religion were held in abeyance, but after he passed from this world, under the dictates of Shoghi Effendi, they swung it into an organization the like of which has not been seen since the dark ages. They tried to exercise the power over the Bahai world that Baha'u'llah said would be vested in the SUPREME TRIBUNAL of the future world governments. In order to enforce this power they excommunicated those who would not accept their pronouncements, and twice the members of the National Assembly sued at law in order to try and prevent other Bahaies from promulgating the religion which they held in common; but, fortunately, they lost both these suits. Judge Valente, reprimanding them, reminded them of the Bill of Rights, which grants freedom to every man to practice his religion unmolested. All of this the reader can learn in the ensuing pages" (76).

[Ruth White quotes Abdul-Baha]: "The worst enemies of the Cause are in the Cause and mention the Name of God. We need not fear the enemies on the outside for such can be easily dealt with. But the enemies who call themselves Friends and who persistently violate every fundamental law of Love and Unity are difficult to deal with in this Day. . . ."

"This last paragraph applies overwhelmingly to the activities of Shoghi Effendi, and the National Spiritual Assembly of Baha'is. They have violated the principles of brotherhood and unity because of their inversions of the Bahai teachings. These inversions are all the more tragic of this particular time when the world has been made receptive, through much suffering, to the great universal principles of the Bahai Religion. Two prophecies of Baha'u'llah have been so accurately fulfilled--the discovery of Atomic Power, and the embryonic Supreme Tribunal as manifested in the United Nations Organization that we would do well to consider the third--the possible destruction of our planet unless we circumvent this threatened fate by a balanced spiritual civilization" (84-85).

"This matter of freedom of conscience is the most important part of the Bahai Teachings. God has given man free-will, and no earthly priestcraft nor dictatorship must interfere with man's using that free-will in matters of faith and the inner relationship between the soul and God. This is the meaning of the spiritual democracy of which Abdul-Baha so often speaks--religion percolating through all the affairs of our daily life, and an ideal political government coming into existence as the result of the change of man's nature and belief."

"This is just the twist that the present leaders of the Bahai organization have tried to give to the Universal Message of Baha'u'llah."

"There are many other wholly un-Bahai edicts that Shoghi Effendi and the National Spiritual Assembly of Bahais have issued beside these two that follow: ". . . the individual conscience must be subordinated to the decisions of the Spiritual Assembly, ... and: '. . . individual Bahai effort without due consultation is foredoomed to failure" (87-88).

"Everyone of these edicts are inversions of the Bahai Teachings, as given to the world by the Founders of the Cause."

"In saying that recognized Bahais must not vote in any election based on a party system Shoghi Effendi and his hierarchy have set up what might be considered a government within each government in every country where there are enough of his followers. Over that government he is supreme dictator. His subjects must pay taxes to him (tithes) and he forbids his followers to vote on national and civic affairs. All his edicts no matter how un-patriotic, or how much in violation of the universal principles of the Bahai Religion, must be obeyed under threat of excommunication."

"This revival of excommunication is a horrible inversion of the Bahai teachings--the Revelation for which Baha'u'llah suffered imprisonment for twenty-five years, and Adbu'l-Baha for forty years--the Cause for which twenty thousand martyrs sacrificed their lives to establish freedom of conscience and to unite all mankind regardless of religion, race or country. The idea of excommunication is impossible in the world envisaged by Baha'u'llah" (89-90).