The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience

Re: Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant https://www.interfaith.org/forum/252317-post29.html

Bob,

With all friendliness, you're the one not listening, nor reading what's presented to you. If you don't want to make the effort, that's fine, but it leaves one at the mercy of Haifan disinformation.

"...back-biting and suspicion." My speculation would be, once one forges a will for one's own benefit, alls that left as a defense is to slander Ruth White and the 1600 plus other people who objected and left, as a "besotted woman," "notorious covenant-breakers." 

Incidentally, according to "I, Brian," https://www.interfaith.org/forum/251840-post14.html "...please note this is an interfaith forum.... This is not about making judgements about specific faiths, trying to extoll one over another, and especially not about trying to diminish any specific faith here."

So my question to you and him is why is he, "I, Brian," you, and others, silent when Lunitik and others have used basically the Iranian Shiite tactics of practicing Islamic “takfir,” labeling people “kafir” or infidels, and issuing fatwas, denying the very existence of other Bahais and denominations, all indicative of the worst in the Shiite Islamic heritage of the Bahai Faith—practices Baha’u’llah specifically repudiated, teaching tolerance of different religious views, largely congruent with modern Western custom. Nothing could be more diametrically opposed to the modern democracy of Western civic and legal order than the jihad the Haifan Baha’is are conducting.

In terms of government, see Abdu'l-Baha's suppressed 'Treatise on Leadership' translated by Juan Cole at Treatise on Leadership (Suppressed, like Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant, because it contains a vision of the Bahai Cause utterly different from the theocracy of Shoghi Effendi's clique.)

The "covenant breaker" mentality is clearly exhibited in the following link on Interfaith, which Wil had noticed and remarked on at https://www.interfaith.org/forum/250807-post71.html - ...namely Covenant Breaker website? It's been used in this thread.

Juan Cole, a professor at the University of Michigan, who was driven out of the Haifan Baha'i Faith by its heresy hunters, explains what's involved with the witch hunts quite well:


"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." 

Re: Baha'i backbiting 2/23/99

Re: Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant https://www.interfaith.org/forum/252277-post27.html

Sen McGlinn's not credible for reasons I have explained elsewhere:

Review of Church and State: A Postmodern Political Theology. Sen McGlinn. University of Leiden, 2005.
The Globe Blog Archive Church and State. Sen McGlinn.

and 

Sen McGlinn & FG - A 1996 Conversation, Censored.... 
Sen McGlinn & FG - A 1996 Conversation, Censored...

As in the past, none of his arguments in the cited passage holds water. Like the Haifan Baha'is after the false will and testament was supposedly pieced together, conveniently "hidden underground," the Covenant, throughout the Star of the West and all early Bahai publications, does not refer to the bogus document, but the publicly delivered, repeatedly published, Address Upon the Covenant of 1912, which is emphatically not an "announcement" of the fraudulent will, an anachronistic subterfuge if there ever was one. 

Hearsay and falsehood have long been the Haifan Baha'i way of "proving" its specious creed, while avoiding at all costs an independently probating and authentication of it, since it can't be done, then or now. 

They have every civic and religious right to follow and worship it, if they wish; there is no reason why other Bahais must, who can use the independent investigation of truth that Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha guaranteed them.

Abdul-Baha's Interpretation of Baha'u'llah's Teachings is a broad, open, loving Covenant of God with humanity, and it is articulated in simple language, in his 1912 Address Upon the Covenant. It is universal, moderate, predicated on pluralistic spiritual democracy, based on a separation of church and state, not tyranny, and emphasizes the universality, the non-creedal and non-exclusivism of religious truth.

Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant
Abdu'l-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant

An Analysis of Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant
Comments on Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant

Re: Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant https://www.interfaith.org/forum/252259-post25.html

You really don't understand the history of the supposed "trademark" of the generic word Bahai. Ruth White and Ahmad Sohrab's books cover it in detail. And the US Federal Courts brought it up to date when they ruled,

Opinion, Judge Sykes, p 14-15: "Considered in light of these First Amendment limitations on the court’s authority, certain aspects of the 1966 injunction are troubling. The decree declares that “there is only one Baha’i Faith,” that Shoghi Effendi was its last Guardian and none has come since, and the National Spiritual Assembly was its representative and “highest authority” in the United States and was “entitled to exclusive use of the marks and symbols of the Faith,” including the exclusive use of the word “Bahá’í.” Declarations of this sort push the boundaries of the court’s authority under Kedroff and Presbyterian Church. In church property disputes (trademark suits obviously qualify), the First Amendment limits the sphere in which civil courts may operate. When a district judge takes sides in a religious schism, purports to decide matters of spiritual succession, and excludes dissenters from using the name, symbols, and marks of the faith (as distinct from the name and marks of a church), the First Amendment line appears to have been crossed" (boldface added).

List of Documents in case

Your arguments are those of the Haifans. I suggest you do more homework since your sources "stink"; enough that you don't merely repeat the opinions the Haifans regularly feed the uninformed.

Re: Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant https://www.interfaith.org/forum/252239-post22.html

I respect your right to your own opinions and have striven not to say anything that might offend you, while being true to my conscience, study, and reflection.

How ironic that it's actually what many consider to be the UHJ that has broken Baha'u'llah's covenant, along with its followers, most of whom do not even have a clue about the actual history and teachings of Abdul-Baha prior to his death.

I invite you to seek truth, independently, as Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha taught. Consider, it is only after Abdul-Baha's death that that teachings was reversed...

Jenabe Fazel Mazandarani. Universal Religion
Jenabe Fazel Mazandarani, Universal Religion

Re: Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant https://www.interfaith.org/forum/252218-post20.html

You repeat the usual reasoning and arguments of the Haifan Baha'is, but add nothing new. Much of your comments reflect the Shiite structure of thinking that Shoghi Effendi dragged back into the teachings despite Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha's repudiation of such ideas. 

I invite you to read Abdul-Baha's actual covenant of 1912 and ponder its implications:

Abdu'l-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant
Abdu'l-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant

An Analysis of Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant
Comments on Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant

Re: Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant https://www.interfaith.org/forum/252174-post18.html

Lunitik,

I respect your conscience and feel for you and your experience, with love and compassion.

I've read many Sufi books, recently and through the years. With all respect, Baha'u'llah's teachings are deeper and more profound than those from a Sufi pir. His claim is that of a Manifestation of God... His appointment of his son Abdul-Baha as the Interpreter of his teachings gave the Master a special station and ability to bring his father's teachings into the modern world. 

Although other Bahai denominations have done what human beings always have with the Divine Light, subjugated it to a political power symbol, as Arnold Toynbee and others have so rightly pointed out, as Baha'u'llah did in The Tablet of the Holy Mariner, the Master's authoritative vision of the Bahai Cause remains, renewed in the teachings of the Reform Bahai Faith. 

I invite you to investigate it at 

About the Reform Bahai Faith
About the Reform Bahai Faith

Re: Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant https://www.interfaith.org/forum/252161-post16.html

Incidentally, Bob, since you bring up the Orthodox Baha'is and so forth, you might want to read the following article from The Chicago Tribune:


Federal appeals court rules in favor of splinter Baha'i group
November 25, 2010 8:12 PM

Federal appeals court rules in favor of splinter Baha'i group - Chicago Breaking News

Re: Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant https://www.interfaith.org/forum/252158-post15.html

Bob,

After you finish that stage of your reading and research, please read my books: 

"The Universal Principles of the Reform Bahai Faith"
Reform Bahai Press, 2008. 148 pages. Kindle, ePub. 2008.
Reform Bahai Press

"Letters from the American Desert." Kindle, ePub. 2008.
Reform Bahai Press

You might even start with "Letters from the American Desert." I recommend the ebook edition, ePub or Kindle.

Re: Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant https://www.interfaith.org/forum/252145-post13.html

I respect your observation about the Catholic/Orthodox Church, and I agree fully with you.

Are you rummaging "around the Internet" on Wikipedia? It's a completely controlled and distorted source of information on Baha'i, as are the majority of books published by the Wilmette Baha'i publishing company.

It's possible that the UU "Unitaran Baha'is" are a bogus group. There are people supposedly involved with them who have definitely been false identities in the past. I leave it up to you to assess them at your own risk. I have never seen any corroborating evidence that the "UU Baha'is" are actually accepted or sponsored by the Unitarian Universalists.

The "unenrolled" appear credible, usually. I don't believe, though, that they're very intellectually astute, nor consistent, indeed, in my opinion, naive, for many seem to think they're going to change the Haifan denomination, which is entirely corrupt by its wielding power for decades over its little kingdom of blind followers.

I mentioned earlier here on Interfaith that Abdul-Baha had used the term the "Universal House of Justice" for as long as a decade prior to his death in 1921, as did the early Bahais in the US and Canada. My memory had failed, then, Baha'u'llah himself had used it, too, in his Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Book of Laws, basically Bahai Shariah, from which he has "removed from the Book" all of the negative things about Islam, jihad, burning books, infidels, etc. 

In my opinion, Baha'is of other denominations have every right to establish their own Universal House of Justice. While I do not personally find the claims of BUPC persuasive, they are my fellow American citizens and Bahai brothers and sisters. I have exchanged views with a few of them in the past, and all were cordial. The US Federal Courts were right in protecting their and other Bahais' rights. I invite you to consider that the fact that it was necessary for the Federal courts to do so might be worth reflecting on and speaks volumes, as the phrase has it, about the denomination that filed the lawsuit.

Being well known is not proof of anything, nor is having the most Bahai members indicative of anything whatsoever, let alone the truth. Religious history is replete with many examples, many of which apply in the current Bahai context. The argument you advance was the Haifan Baha'i argument that was wisely repudiated by the Federal Courts, *three* times.

You cite a lot of hearsay off the Internet, and speculation, but it's quite probable that much of it is Haifan disinformation. I encourage you to speak directly with members of the Baha'i denominations concerned, if you're genuinely interested and a person of goodwill.

The US Federal Courts have ruled repeatedly upholding the First Amendment against the Shiite fascists and criminals who deceive and brainwash people into believing in their false will and testament and seek to destroy other Bahai denominations and individuals, through the courts, online, and in other ways, like the Scientologists.
List of Documents in case 

You've completely misjudged me. I suggest reading the 150 megabytes of documentation on my Bahai Censorship site: 

The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience

After doing that, read the 400 megabytes of books and information on 
the Reform Bahai Faith
Reform Bahai Faith

Re: Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant https://www.interfaith.org/forum/252125-post11.html

I'm not sure Bruce is being *positive* here. Anyone else notice it? It's okay, though, it doesn't bother me. I respect his conscience. He has a right to it, one which I defend, as we all should.

The seven million number is highly inflated, as suggested above, for instance in the case of India and elsewhere. See False Statistics for Baha'i Membership in the USA, India, & Elsewhere (updated August 2010)
False Statistics for Baha'i Membership in the USA, India, & Elsewhere

Slandering the smaller Bahai denominations haven't made them go away after 80 years for very good reasons. The Haifans don't have the truth. Deceived and brainwashed believers, of any denomination, Eric Hoffer's "true believers," don't change a thing.

Again, as I cited here elsewhere, Denis MacEoin, an outstanding British scholar and man of integrity, demolishes Udo Schaefer's Making the Crooked Straight at Denis MacEoin Reviews Making the Crooked Straight H-Bahai, 2001

I do agree with the notion that Abdul-Baha asserted that the Bahai Cause would "survive and endure." In that regard, Baha'u'llah too emphasized symbolically that after a schism his Faith would endure, in The Tablet of the Holy Mariner, https://www.omphaloskepsis.com/ebooks/pdf/mariner.pdf

Compare the repeatedly published and emphasized 1912 Covenant with these three crucial statements by Abdul-Baha published prior to his death in the Star of the West November 23, 1920, p 243:

"In New York City, July, 1912, Abdul-Baha said to several believers: 'Any one quoting me must have authority written either with my own hand, or Tablets signed with my seal. Otherwise these statements do not belong to me. Every instruction, every teaching that I desire to spread I will write with my own hand. You must know this generally. Never accept any statement without my writing which is signed and sealed--any statement."

"In Egypt, in August, 1913, Abdul-Baha stated (Mirza Ahmad Sohrab interpreting): 'When in America I repeatedly said that no one must believe one word said by another regarding any commands, teachings or statements made by me unless they can produce the same in writing over my signature."

"That which has come forth from the Center of the Covenant you must take fast hold of. That which issues from my lips and that which is written with my pen is the Reality. With this you can irrigate the vineyard of God. With this you can make the tree of the Cause of God become verdant. Through this Name the Kingdom of God will be spread all over the world. Through this the Sun of Reality will shine. Through this the clouds of Mercy will pour down. Whosever utters a word you must ask: 'Where is the authority of the Center of the Covenant? Show it.' Without this you must not listen to him. If an angel comes down from heaven and has no authority from the Center of the Covenant, you must require his authority. Otherwise the vineyard will become withered and dry. This is the reality."

For Reform Bahais, it is clear that the Will of God is to preserve His Faith in the long run. Despite the unprobated, unauthenticated "covenant," the true Covenant of Abdul-Baha still exists and is working its positive effect in the world and among the followers of his father's teachings.

Hope this helps.

Re: Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant https://www.interfaith.org/forum/252122-post10.html

Yes, Bob, let's "start over," as you said in the other thread, and highlight the positive. Since truth is positive, I observe,

1) Some have even argued less than a few million, with about ten thousand in India. You do the math on the actual percentage of 2 million.... By the way it used to be THREE MILLION, but widespread criticism of the deception brought it down some years ago. For reliable statistics, see ravi.kumar, former Baha'i NSA member of India
Google Groups

2) Disinformation is a Baha'i forte... You might want to reassess your trust in any source, especially on the Internet, even if it purports to be neutral Haifan, if you're interested in truth. There's a long history of disinformation.

3) Ditto. 

4) Whatever account you're relying on is incorrect in numerous ways. And there's much more history involved than you realize or the Haifans want you to know.

5) Ditto. Getting all this from Haifan sources? Talk to the Orthodox Baha'is, and others, if interested at, Open Directory - Society: Religion and Spirituality: Baha'ism


On the postive side, please reread Abdul-Baha's actual 1912 covenant at the start of this thread. You may find it thoroughly documented as authentic by Google's scanning of the copies of the Star of the West magazine at 

Star of the West - Bahá'í Temple Unity, National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of the United States and Canada - Google Books

Abdul-Baha's Address Upon the Covenant was first published in Star of the West, November 23, 1912, 9-10; again, a mere year later in Star of the West, November 23, 1913, p. 234-9; and just before his death, emphasizing the importance of the 1912 Covenant exactly when Bahais needed to recall Abul-Baha's guidance the most, in Star of the West November 23, 1921. The reader may corroborate independently this publishing history of the Address Upon the Covenant since the entire 1912 to 1913 and 1920 to 1921 volumes of Star of the West can be download directly from Google Books. 

Similarly, on a positive note, As far back as 1929 early Bahais were publicly emphasizing the importance of the Address Upon the Covenant. See Ruth White, Appendix to Abdul-Baha and the Promised Age, 1929, and her comments on this passage, bottom of the first page. Also see, Star of the West, Vol. VII, No. 15. p. 139: "When the Universal House of Justice is organized...." Comments on Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant

Ruth White book at Ruth White

Hope this helps.

Re: Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant https://www.interfaith.org/forum/252081-post7.html

Re: Afghan Supreme Court rules Bahai Apostates

I, Brian:

"Ruth White, you obviously believe very passionately about your position, and that is to be respected.

However, please note this is an interfaith forum - we're here to gain inputs from people of all different faiths. This is not about making judgements about specific faiths, trying to extoll one over another, and especially not about trying to diminish any specific faith here.

This, however, seems to be your remit.

In which case, I can only politely inform you that this thread will need to be closed and that I don't expect any more threads or posts which seek only to undermine another faith, not matter how sincere your arguments are intended.

If you wish to take the position of "Reform Baha'i" and provide your own personal insight in general discussion topics based on this, then that will be all well and good.

However, as to your comments on Shogi Effendi and the "Haifan Baha'is" - you've made that point clear, we've heard, but we're moving on now. It's entirely your decision as to whether you wish to validate your position by remaining with us in the manner of interfaith dialogue as stated."
https://www.interfaith.org/forum/251840-post14.html


Dear I, Brian,

I'm surprised to return from a little holiday to discover your post. Sorry if you've taken offense!

I'm responding here in this thread because I'm able to, since the one you addressed me in seems to be "closed." 

I'm glad you respect passion, but I prefer reason, logic, and evidence, which is why I have been very careful to *document* my arguments and thoughts. To reduce my posts to "passion" doesn't seem quite fair to me, if you don't mind my saying so. I invite you to read the suppressed history of the Bahai Movement and the relevant documents, if you haven't. 

I believe it's also fair to point out that the apparent members of the Haifan Baha'i denomination here have not provided much, if any, evidence that they've seriously read and considered the sources I've cited, such as Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant, published repeatedly in the Star of the West, the only Bahai magazine of the time, from 1910 to 1921, and central to the unfolding of the Bahai Cause in the West.

I do apologize if you feel I've been too vigorous in expressing my opinions. Alas, we human beings do believe things, and inevitably others think otherwise. I have tried to be broad and open minded, as in my discussion with Radarmark, mentioning Fritjof Schuon, Fox, the Quakers, and other Perennialists. https://www.interfaith.org/forum/250452-post30.html

I assure you that my posts do not "seek only to undermine another faith." Quite the contrary. As with Christianity, Islam, what have you, knowing the *actual* history is essential, and where there is significant divergence on what that history was, in any faith, I would think thoughtful minds would want to know it so that they might weigh the matter for themselves, not merely accepting the duplicities of the Vatican or the local imam. 

I don't claim to have the exclusive truth about the Bahai teachings, but I know the version most people accept as representative of it is not based on Abdul-Baha's actual interpretation of Baha'u'llah for the modern world. That may not matter to you, but it does matter. As a sincere believe of any faith, or most, I believe I have a duty to not hide the Light under a basket. I'm not afraid to hear the opinions of other Bahais or of non-Bahais hearing the criticism Haifans have of the Reform Bahai Faith. I ask only for what John Milton aptly put into words, "Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties." I recall the Roman Forum was open to different opinions.

Nevertheless, I'll try harder not to hurt the feelings of others, while inviting others to make an effort too. 

Best wishes.

Re: Afghan Supreme Court rules Bahai Apostates https://www.interfaith.org/forum/251783-post11.html

Source, from Ruth White:

"The reader may ascertain for himself ... in THE WORLD ALMANAC for 1931 on page 391. There he will find that in 1916 the number of Bahais in the United States and Canada was listed as 2,884. But since this group became papists under Shoghi Effendi their numbes have diminished to 1,247 under his "Guardianship" [1,637 left]." 

Ruth White

Re: The Fraudulent Will and Testament, Covenant https://www.interfaith.org/forum/251527-post4.html

Hearsay, even from Munírih Khánum, is still hearsay. 

Societies with respectable systems of law and order require wills to be probated, *proven* to be legitimate and authentic. It is entirely in character for criminals *not* to want wills probated, nor independently authenticated, especially when, as in the case of Shoghi Effendi, he both *translated* the purported will and was the major *beneficiary* of it!

In this context, thoughtful people concerned about justice, might want to reflect that Shoghi Effendi, when he "translated" Nabil's 70 page narrative of the early history of Babism, transformed it into a volume of several hundred pages. Only an authenticated will would prove that he didn't do so with Abdul-Baha's purported last testament. Shoghi Effendi always evaded and schemed against authentication.

Note Ruth White's observations,

"Shoghi Effendi ignored my request for permission to send a handwriting expert to Haifa to examine the original document."

"Therefore as all indications are overwhelmingly in favour of the belief that this alleged will, which was undated, unwitnessed, unprobated and unstamped by the government, is fraudulent, and especially as this belief is backed up by the report of Dr. C. Ainsworth Mitchell showing it to be fraudulent, I am confident that you will take the final step and have the document examined and make a report so that these victims may no longer be defrauded by Shoghi Effendi Rabanni, who claims to be the successor of Sir Abdul Baha Abbas, and that restitution may be made tome, and to many others, from whom large sums have been obtained under the false pretences."

"This alleged will is undated, unwitnessed, unprobated, and unstamped by the Government. It also contradicts the intent that its alleged maker held during his lifetime. For the alleged will commands people to obey Shoghi Effendi as if he were God, and to pay a tax to him. This is the motive of the fraud—money and power."

Re: The Fraudulent Will and Testament, Covenant https://www.interfaith.org/forum/251415-post2.html

Responding to a question regarding Munírih Khánum, I would note, as I've already quoted, Ruth White on Abdul-Baha's "family, with the exception of his wife and sister...."

"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."

"...partly nullified the great universal teachings."

https://www.interfaith.org/forum/251399-post127.html

"Ahanu" seems to have a predilection for putting words in other people's mouths and then turning them to his own purposes. I would stick with the words of Ruth White. The burden of proof regarding whether or not the purported will and testament is authentic rests with the Haifan Baha'i denomination.

The overwhelming evidence as discussed in the "Website Suggestion" thread, citing,

Dr. C. (Charles) Ainsworth Mitchell's Report on the Writing Shown on the Photographs of the Alleged Will of Abdul-Baha. 1930. Certified Copy from the Library of Congress.
Dr. C. Ainsworth Mitchell, Report on the Writing Shown on the Photographs of the Alleged Will of Abdu'l-Baha

and citing,

Ruth White
Ruth White

clearly demonstrates substantial "prima facie" reasons for further investigation of the authenticity of the questionable document, especially since both Shoghi Effendi and the family of Abdul-Baha benefited monetarily from it but refused and denied all efforts to determine its reliability. 

Since 1921, throughout the decades, significant reasons have only continued to mount to call the "will and testament" into question.

For further details, see,

Abdu'l-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant
Abdu'l-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant

An Analysis of Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant
Comments on Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant

Re: Afghan Supreme Court rules Bahai Apostates https://www.interfaith.org/forum/251781-post10.html

"I do not care..." I respect your conscience. I do care.

"Old joke." It's not a joke. The one you cite seems callous and insensitive of Mrs. Lincoln's pain and suffering and that her husband was murdered.

The Interpretation of Abdul-Baha defines Baha'u'llah's Teachings for the modern world, not the fraudulent will and testament of the corrupt uhj, elected in a non-democratic system, unlike what was proscribed by Abdul-Baha. We're not imitating them; they're imitating, while perverting and destroying, the historical form demonstrated in word and deed by Abdul-Baha. Their "identity" is not the Bahai Faith, which existed in the West for over two decades before Shoghi Effendi and his family took it over.

"All that the court ruling you cite is saying..." False. The US Federal Courts repeatedly affirmed the right of other Bahai denominations to exist:

Judge Diane S. Sykes: "Clearly raises some constitutional concerns."
Judge William J. Bauer: "How about Reform Bahai?"

From Judge Sykes' Opinion:

p 7: False finding of "fact" by Judge Austin in 1966 

p 13: "...civil authorities may not make judgments about religious controversies when deciding church property disputes. Kedroff, 344 U.S. at 116. (The church-autonomy principle recognized in Watson “must now be said to have federal constitutional protection as a part of the free exercise of religion against state interference.”)." 
"Building on Kedroff, the Supreme Court held in Presbyterian Church that “the First Amendment severely circumscribes the role that civil courts may play in resolving church property disputes.” 

p 14-15: "Considered in light of these First Amendment limitations on the court’s authority, certain aspects of the 1966 injunction are troubling. The decree declares that “there is only one Baha’i Faith,” that Shoghi Effendi was its last Guardian and none has come since, and the National Spiritual Assembly was its representative and “highest authority” in the United States and was “entitled to exclusive use of the marks and symbols of the Faith,” including the exclusive use of the word “Bahá’í.” Declarations of this sort push the boundaries of the court’s authority under Kedroff and Presbyterian Church. In church property disputes (trademark suits obviously qualify), the First Amendment limits the sphere in which civil courts may operate. When a district judge takes sides in a religious schism, purports to decide matters of spiritual succession, and excludes dissenters from using the name, symbols, and marks of the faith (as distinct from the name and marks of a church) [boldface added], the First Amendment line appears to have been crossed." 

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
Public Access to Oral Argument recordings,Opinions
08-2306 : Nat'l Spiritual v. Nat'l Spiritual
2 02/20/2009 02/20/2009 Oral Argument
3 11/23/2010 11/23/2010 Opinion (SYKES)

List of Documents in case https://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/do...yr=08&num=2306

"One person's opinion..." False. The historical record shows that many left the Bahai Movement because of the fraudulent will and testament, given the fact that it changed the entire nature of Abdul-Baha's Interpretation for the modern world:

"The reader may ascertain for himself ... in THE WORLD ALMANAC for 1931 on page 391. There he will find that in 1916 the number of Bahais in the United States and Canada was listed as 2,884. But since this group became papists under Shoghi Effendi their numbes have diminished to 1,247 under his "Guardianship" [1,637 left]." 

" I am an outsider..." I don't know that for a fact; nor have the time nor inclination to investigate whether that's true. In Haifan Baha'i cyberspace, such claims have often proven false upon scrutiny. See Good Cop/Bad Cop, 
CAUTION *** Psychological War Zone *** Newcomers __
CAUTION *** Psychological War Zone *** Newcomers

You have not investigated the evidence beyond a cursory level, apparently since you "don't care." 

"You ARE a breakaway group..." False. They are the group that broke away from Abdul-Baha's open, liberal, universal, progressive Interpretation, which emphasized true religion "cannot be organized." They wanted to organize it for power, money, and control. That's what the Haifans are all about. Your relativism, not caring about the truth of the matter, is negatively influencing your perception, in my view, with all respect. 

"Vitriol..." You clearly don't know much about the Haifans, or you've been duped by them, or one of them using a false identity. For the tip of the iceberg, see the following, then click to the homepage for more:

"The Bahai Technique":
The Baha'i Technique - Slander & Shunning  - Coercive Methods used in the Baha'i Faith - "According to the direct and sacred command of God we are forbidden to utter slander." --Abdu'l-Baha

Shunning & Slander > Menu
Baha'i Shunning > Menu - Slander & Shunning - Coercive Methods used in the Baha'i Faith

"...why do you WANT them to associate with you?" We don't. Bahais of all other denominations merely want their Constitutional right of Religious Freedom... which is exactly what Haifans have tried to deprive other Bahais of since 1921, following their Papist, Shiite distortion of Baha'u'llah's Teachings.

Hope this helps...

Re: Afghan Supreme Court rules Bahai Apostates https://www.interfaith.org/forum/251753-post8.html

Covering for Moojan Momen? His attacking and slandering people as "apostates" suits you just fine? Ad hominem is what you've indulged in; I presented the *published* evidence of what Momen passed off on a reputable academic journal as "scholarship." It's no surprise the Haifan Baha'is would want to hide that fact, as they have sought to conceal their acts against other Bahai denominations in the US Federal courts...

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
Public Access to Oral Argument recordings,Opinions
08-2306 : Nat'l Spiritual v. Nat'l Spiritual
2 02/20/2009 02/20/2009 Oral Argument
3 11/23/2010 11/23/2010 Opinion (SYKES)

List of Documents in case https://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/do...yr=08&num=2306

Re: Afghan Supreme Court rules Bahai Apostates https://www.interfaith.org/forum/251732-post6.html

Does that mean we're in agreement on 

"Slanderous Vilification" = The Baha'i Technique - Ad Hominem, Libel,
Slander, Demonize, Scapegoat, Ostracize, Shun, Banish, Backbite, 
Defame, Vilify, Discredit, Smear, Revile, Suppress, Attack, Bully, 
Intimidate, Threaten, Malign, Blackball, Deceive, Coerce, Silence, 
Harass... etc., etc... through the US Courts, driving out university professors, on and on...

Not to mention a FRAUDULENT will and testament, the fact of its CRIME, fobbed off as the Master's for over 80 years, on a naive, uninformed, gullible flock of eager believers... 

Shunning > Menu
Baha'i Shunning > Menu - Slander & Shunning - Coercive Methods used in the Baha'i Faith 

Compare "The Bahai Technique" - Slander & Shunning
The Baha'i Technique - Slander & Shunning  - Coercive Methods used in the Baha'i Faith - "According to the direct and sacred command of God we are forbidden to utter slander." --Abdu'l-Baha

And it's clear what other crimes have been committed in the dark, have not yet made to the light of day... sounds and acts like Shiism.

Re: Afghan Supreme Court rules Bahai Apostates https://www.interfaith.org/forum/251710-post4.html

Here's a link to Moojan Momen's ‘Marginality and Apostasy in the Baha'i Community.’" Pages 384-393. I invite the reader to read or skim for him or herself. I "strongly suggest" there isn't any difference between the way accusations of apostasy are used in Islam and in the Haifan interpretation of the Baha'i Faith. "One Baha'i writer" is a prevarication. Many Haifan Baha'is think the same way and *treat* Baha'is and non-Baha'is like "apostates" despite their misrepresentations otherwise: Marginality and Apostasy in the Baha'i Community

Note that "apostate" occurs 129 times in Momen's paper. Again, his fervor demonstrates it is *exactly* the same as in Islam, because the Haifan Baha'i essentially reverted to Shia Islam under the imamate of Shoghi Effendi. Momen's article is libelous and the editors where appalled and abashed that they had had the poor judgement to let it slip by and publish it, when I exchanged emails with them regarding my own "Response to Takfir," which was published in the same academic journal, Religion, in a subsequent issue: 

"A Response to Takfir." Moojan Momen's Takfir & Slanderous Vilification:
"Marginality and apostasy in the Baha'i community." Religion.
Volume 37, Issue 3, September 2007, Pages 187-209.
FG, A Response to Takfir, Religion 38 No 4 2008, Moojan Momen

The US Federal Court cases in the 7th District of Northern Illinois are highly relevant because the judges had the wisdom to recognize that what the Wilmette Haifan Baha'i denomination was attempting to do violated the US Constitution and rights of the Bahai members of the several different interpretations of Bahai. Extensive details accessible at The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience Essentially, it's the fact that the US Courts are real courts concerned about justice and individual conscience, unlike the fanatical courts of Afganistan, whose sense of "justice" the Haifan universal house of "justice" basically shares, issuing its own "fatwas" against "apostates" and "covenant breakers."

Sure it would be wonderful if the Haifan Wilmette universal house of justice and Baha'is were to adopt say a civil rights stance and recognize minority Baha'i denominations but such is not the case. 

What you're saying is that you don't believe a free, open, uncensored forum on the Internet is the 
"proper venue" to discuss the fact that a Haifan Baha'i scholar who is highly respected by the Haifan community has published an article in a prestigious religious studies journal in London, "Religion," that smears and reviles **FIFTEEN** different people, including citizens of the United Kingdom, as *apostates* for expressing their own opinions and ideas, on and off the Internet, ideas which differ in various degrees from the doctrines of the uhj. I believe a free, open, uncensored forum on the Internet is the *perfect* place to exchange ideas with my fellow citizens in the USA and people throughout the world. The less a forum is controlled by a religious theocracy or its minions the better in my opinion. 

The US Courts certainly listened to both sides of the cases before them and they rendered their verdict: 

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
Public Access to Oral Argument recordings,Opinions
08-2306 : Nat'l Spiritual v. Nat'l Spiritual
2 02/20/2009 02/20/2009 Oral Argument
3 11/23/2010 11/23/2010 Opinion (SYKES)

List of Documents in case

Re: Afghan Supreme Court rules Bahai Apostates https://www.interfaith.org/forum/251660-post3.html

Much of what you say ignores the hypocrisy and double standards implicit in Haifan Baha'i denouncing of other Bahais as "covenant breakers" and apostates. Further, though the terms change from Shia Islam, the *function* remains largely the same. Most Baha'is and non-Bahais fail to perceive and realize that fact, though many ultimately experience the reality. For decades of such abuse of conscience, see 

Shunning > Menu
Baha'i Shunning > Menu - Slander & Shunning - Coercive Methods used in the Baha'i Faith 

Compare "The Bahai Technique" - Slander & Shunning
The Baha'i Technique - Slander & Shunning  - Coercive Methods used in the Baha'i Faith - "According to the direct and sacred command of God we are forbidden to utter slander." --Abdu'l-Baha

Afghan Supreme Court rules Bahai Apostates https://www.interfaith.org/forum/251631-post1.html

"Non-Muslim minority groups, particularly Christian, Hindu, Sikh, and Bahai groups, which together constitute approximately 1 percent of the population, were targets of discrimination and persecution. The minority Shia community continued to face discrimination from the majority Sunni population. Authorities detained at least two converts from Islam to Christianity during the reporting period, although both have since been released. Television programming led to increased negative public opinion and suspicion of Christian activities and targeted violence and harassment against Christians, including converts from Islam. The Afghan Supreme Court ruled that membership in the Bahai Faith constituted blasphemy and that Muslims who convert to the Bahai Faith are apostates. Local Hindu and Sikh populations continued to encounter problems in obtaining land for cremation and harassment during major celebrations."

allAfrica.com: Africa: Executive Summary of Individual Country Reports (Page 1 of 2)

Recognizing Bahais aren't alone in terms of religious persecution in Afghanistan, I find it interesting that the Afghan Supreme Court rules Bahais are blasphemers and apostates, exactly what Haifan Bahai "scholars" have long done against Bahais of other denominations and conscience. 

Here's the likely scenario, judging from past cases: The Wilmette-Haifan nsa, after repeatedly trying to destroy other Bahai denominations in the US Federal Courts, and after such Bahais as Moojan Momen libeled 15 Bahis in the London academic journal "Religion," the nsa and the uhj will appeal to the US State Department to protect its rights to religious freedom and conscience in Afghanistan, running ads in the New York Times and media beating its breast, bewailing how innocent it is, though nary word about its hypocrisy... 

‘Marginality and Apostasy in the Baha’i Community’ (Religion 37 [2007] 187–209. Response to it from some of the maligned: Responses to Apostacy

Re: Website Suggestion https://www.interfaith.org/forum/251391-post126.html

The last few paragraphs clearly quote Ruth White's references to Munírih Khánum:

"For his family, with the exception of his wife and sister..."

"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."

"...partly nullified the great universal teachings."

Ruth White
Ruth White

I'm a member of the Reform Bahai Faith. We don't follow the cult practices of the Haifan denomination, like "takfir," identifying and denouncing others as infidels (kufir) and apostates, taqlid, "blind obedience," issuing fatwas, and so forth. All that started with the fraudulent will and testament of Shoghi Effendi and his family... Abdul-Baha clearly taught such reprehensible tactics were things of the past.

Re: Website Suggestion https://www.interfaith.org/forum/251384-post124.html

So you imagine no human being is above suspicion? That evidence shouldn't be independently evaluated by reliable authorities, such judges and elected officials that represent the best interest of the community?

It is a fact that Abdul-Baha did not provide for any way of support for Munírih Khánum after his death. Much of the family was worldly and corrupt, as Ruth White observed and describes below:

FROM Correspondence between the High Commissioner of Palestine and Ruth White, regarding the alleged Will of Sir Abdul Baha Abbas. By Ruth White March, 1932:

"I have submitted the photographs of the alleged will to Dr. C. Ainsworth Mitchell, the renowned English handwriting expert; and editor of The Analyst, at 85 Eccleston Square London, S.W.1. and his report shows that this document is fraudulent. No part of it was written by Abdul Baha, although Shoghi Effendi, and the family of Sir Abdul Baha assert that every word of its ten pages was written by Sir Abdul Baha. Shoghi Effendi ignored my request for permission to send a handwriting expert to Haifa to examine the original document.

"...all of Abdul Baha's family share in the tax that is derived from the powers granted in this alleged will."

Ruth White. Abdul Baha's Questioned Will and Testament. Beverly Hills: White, 1946:

"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.""

"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).


Ruth White

Re: Website Suggestion https://www.interfaith.org/forum/251380-post122.html

"Assumptions." The evidence that Shoghi Effendi and his family subverted the interpretation of Abdul-Baha is not based on "assumption." It's based on documentary evidence, which the subverters have always tried to ignore and discredit, in much the same way that you have thus far done throughout this thread so far.

"Unproven conspiracy theory." I have not used the expression "conspiracy theory" nor "innuendo." That's a common way apologists use to attempting to discredit someone when they can't refute the ideas and evidence against them. It's basically a form of *ad hominem.* 

"Single handwriting expert." Another attempt to discredit Dr. C. Ainsworth Mitchell, of the British Museum, not an insignificant institution, especially back in the 1920s. You seem to suggest there should be more than one analysis but the fact remains that Shoghi Effendi and the illegitimate house of justice based on the forgery have always prevented further examination of the document, because he and they obviously knew and know its bogus. 

"Any conclusions must be "provisional." Dr. Mitchell's phrasing and careful qualification is that of a reputable scientist, not someone unqualified from the street merely spouting opinions. That's why his opinion was and remains significant. That's why his extensive research in forensic science, including the analysis of ink, paper, and technical details of forgery remain respected by professionals within the legal community and continue to be cited in academic circles and court room proceedings, as can be verified easily by anyone at Google Scholar:

[CITATION] C HAPTER II OILS AND FATS
CA Mitchell - Recent Advances in Analytical Chemistry, 2007 - Barton Pr
Related articles
[CITATION] Cordage and Cordage Hemp and Fibres
P Kilgour - 2008 - Read Books
Related articles
Medico-Legal Society Centenary Dinner
M Brahams - Medico-Legal Journal, 2001 - mlj.rsmjournals.com
... 1927–28 Sir William Willcox KCIE CB CMG MD FRCP 1928–33 The Rt Hon Lord Riddell
1933–35 Sir Bernard Spilsbury FRCP 1935–37 C Ainsworth Mitchell DSc FRIC 1937–39 The
Rt Hon Mr Justin Humphries 1939–42 G Roche Lynch OBE MB BS FRIC ... 
BL Direct
[CITATION] The Mammoth Book of Murder and Science
R Wilkes - 2000 - Running Press
Library Search

"C. Ainsworth Mitchell" - Google Scholar

"Animus." The allegation that Ruth White or anyone else who believes the purported will is bogus is merely motivated by "animus" against the so-called "guardian," a Shiite imamate essentially, is once again a tactic of avoidance and obscuring what's at issue. It attempts to conceal and defend the crime committed by basically smearing the person, once again, against the person, ad hominem.

Ninety years after the crime, Ruth White's testimony and evidence remains and endures, so I for one would not call that unsuccessful at all. Quite the reverse. Knowledge of the crime continues to spread, especially as many people, in many countries, continue to realize there is something very fundamentally wrong about what claims to be the "Baha'i Faith."

Re: Website Suggestion https://www.interfaith.org/forum/251370-post120.html

The Report was written by Dr. C. Ainsworth Mitchell, not Ruth White. A full text transcription is now available at Dr. C. (Charles) Ainsworth Mitchell's Report on the Writing Shown on the Photographs of the Alleged Will of Abdul-Baha. 1930. Certified Copy from the Library of Congress.
Dr. C. Ainsworth Mitchell, Report on the Writing Shown on the Photographs of the Alleged Will of Abdu'l-Baha

"all those years ago"
The truth doesn't age or become out of date; that's why it's the truth, no matter how many people are deceived into falsehood.

I've carefully reread Radarmarks' comments: 

"But juding from objective material from academic sources the burden of proof is clearly the Bahai's (the Haifa-UCJ, NSA type). Why? There are just too many objective sources indicating some divergence from the texts of the Bahá'u'lláh."
Website Suggestion

I believe what he said was quite clear, and I believe I responded clearly to him. I'll leave it to Radarmark to correct me, if he thinks I misconstrued his meaning, which was basically that there are reasons for the "burden of proof" lying upon Baha'is of the Haifan persuasion.

That perspective is reminiscent, even essentially the same, as Ruth White's statement that the burden of evidence constituted a "prima facie" case for further legal scrutiny.

Re: Website Suggestion https://www.interfaith.org/forum/251334-post118.html

As Ruth White wrote, on June 5th, 1931, to the High Commissioner of Jerusalem, Palestine, 

"Your report that the photographs examined by the handwriting expert to whom I submitted these (Dr. Mitchell) have been verified as accurate reproductions of the original document, in conjunction with the report of Dr. Mithcell make a prima facie case of fraud against those who have used this alleged will as a basis of soliciting money from the public, and you will hence recognize the necessity of further action on your part." 

In my view, Radarmark is quite right, "There are just too many objective sources indicating some divergence...." That's essentially what "prima facie" means, sufficient legal evidence to indicate a basis necessitating further investigation. 

Readers might want to reflect carefully on the nature and claims of a religious denomination that evades and denies such conclusions and evidence for well 80 years, including slandering and attempting to discredit a widely recognized forensic expert such as Dr. Mitchell.

Re: Website Suggestion https://www.interfaith.org/forum/251332-post117.html

I'm not sure what you mean by "bits and pieces." All Documents Deposited by Ruth White at the Library of Congress are now also in text format on this page:
Ruth White

The PDF copy is the same link, available from the Ruth White page.

Incidentally, Dr. C. Ainsworth Mitchell's Report is now also available in text format athttps://reformbahai.org/CAMitchell_Report.html

Re: Website Suggestion https://www.interfaith.org/forum/251226-post115.html

No problem in my view regarding H... I understand you were just being illustrative.

Yes, in terms of the PDF, all the documents that Ruth White deposited with the Library of Congress in 1931 or '32 are included this single PDF file:

Ruth White Collection, Library of Congress, 1930
https://reformbahai.org/images/WhiteLCDocs.pdf

Much of the evidence of the imposition of a false will and testament upon the Bahai Cause is contained in these documents, along with Ruth White's books, and some other documentary information, especially the Star of the West volumes prior to his death and his 1912 Address Upon the Covenant, available here on the Interfaith Bahai Forum:

Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant

Re: Website Suggestion https://www.interfaith.org/forum/251223-post112.html

You're quite right that according to the British Museum document expert,

“That is to say, the writing does not agree with the hypothesis that it was all written by one person.”

“A minute comparison of the authenticated writing with the writing on every page of the alleged will . . . has failed to detect in any part of the will the characteristics of the writing of Abdul-Baha, as shown in the authenticated specimens.” -- Dr. C. Ainsworth Mitchell, 1930.
Dr. C. Ainsworth Mitchell, Report on the Writing Shown on the Photographs of the Alleged Will of Abdu'l-Baha

Had the case gone to court in 1930, what people know of as the "Baha'i Faith" would be very different today. 

All jumping aside, I didn't mention Hitler nor do I think the comparison apt. It is a crime in all Western jurisdictions to pass off a fraudulent will and last testament, depriving the rightful heirs of their inheritance. That the crime went unadjudicated does not mean it went undetected, by Ruth White, Dr. Mitchell, and others, while it's ramifications continue to disrupt the Faith of Baha'u'llah even to today. Often in this world it has taken many decades for justice to win out over evil. 

I do agree with your conclusion. There are indeed many indications of wrong-doing surrounding the purported will and testament and its divergence from everything Abdul-Baha said and did in public and private throughout his ministry, as Ruth White indicates in her books. The burden of proof was placed squarely on Shoghi Effendi by Ruth White and Dr. Mitchell. Shoghi Effendi's response was to evade and avoid, as the letters Ruth White deposited at The Library of Congress clearly documented, especially the two following Mitchell's Report:

Ruth White Collection, Library of Congress, 1930
https://reformbahai.org/images/WhiteLCDocs.pdf

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of the issues involved.

Shoghi Effendi saying, and your saying, and every Haifan Baha'is since Shoghi saying, does not determine that it isn't a forgery. All the hearsay in the Haifan Baha'i tradition does not prove it's not a forgery. 

That's why courts don't rely on hearsay. They probate and authentic will and testaments, unlike the bogus one Haifans call a "covenant."

Re: Website Suggestion https://www.interfaith.org/forum/251195-post108.html

Already given it to you but like Shoghi Effendi you're trying to ignore it. 

Abdu'l-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant
Abdu'l-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant

An Analysis of Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant
Comments on Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant

Ruth White. Abdul Baha's Questioned Will and Testament. 
Beverly Hills: White, 1946. 
https://www.reformbahai.org/WhiteABQWT.pdf

Dr. C. (Charles) Ainsworth Mitchell. Report on the Writing Shown on the Photographs of the Alleged Will of Abdul-Baha. 1930. Certified Copy from the Library of Congress.
Dr. C. Ainsworth Mitchell, Report on the Writing Shown on the Photographs of the Alleged Will of Abdu'l-Baha

Ruth White Collection, Library of Congress, 1930
https://reformbahai.org/images/WhiteLCDocs.pdf

I invite readers to consider a book by another Bahai who came basically to the same conclusion:

Hermann Zimmer, A FRAUDULENT TESTAMENT Devalues the Bahai Religion Into Political Shoghism. World Union for Universal Religion and Universal Peace, Free Bahais, 1973.
https://reformbahai.org/images/Herman..._Testament.pdf

As Ruth White observed, the overwhelming burden lied with Shoghi Effendi and his criminal family to prove the so-called "will and testament" was legitimate. He couldn't because it was false, and he knew it. So he resorted to slandering Ruth White and all of the early Bahais who realized he was departing from the teachings of Abdul-Baha, in his attempt to create a Shiite imamate, though using the Western sounding "administration," while the function remained, and remains, the same.

Re: Website Suggestion https://www.interfaith.org/forum/251184-post102.html

What was weak was Shoghi Effendi's response to Ruth White when she and other early Bahais figured out what his family and he had done. Evading her charge confirmed it. Shoghi Effendi's "evidence" for the authenticity of the purported will and testament was and is the weakest link in the chain of lies, distortions, and half-truths advanced by him and subsequently deceived and brainwashed Baha'is. Ruth White, others, and I have always maintained that it was quite possibly that initially the forgery was the work of his family. Either way, the spurious document is nothing like the teachings of Abdul-Baha, whether in public or private. 

The analysis of handwriting has been and remains recognized by the courts as a valuable forensic tool. That you dreg up a quotation to the contrary doesn't change that fact. Mitchell and Ruth White go beyond that. 

Dr. C. (Charles) Ainsworth Mitchell. Report on the Writing Shown on the Photographs of the Alleged Will of Abdul-Baha. 1930. Certified Copy from the Library of Congress.
Dr. C. Ainsworth Mitchell, Report on the Writing Shown on the Photographs of the Alleged Will of Abdu'l-Baha

Ruth White
Ruth White

An Analysis of Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant
Comments on Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant

NOTE WELL, What's purported to be Abdul-Baha's will and testament has never been probated or authenticated independently of those who were and are its beneficiaries.

Re: Website Suggestion https://www.interfaith.org/forum/251158-post100.html

It's false to characterize criticism of criminal acts as ad hominem. You might want to look up the meaning. But one of the oldest tactics of apologists, when confronted with a truth they cannot handle, is to try to change the subject: 

"No lawyer or judge would in the United States or Western countries, indeed much of the world, would consider a purported, unprobated will and testament authentic, especially when it was translated by the very person who was its beneficiary, as Ruth White observed, Shoghi Effendi!

Forgery masked as the will of Abdul-Baha..."

Re: Website Suggestion https://www.interfaith.org/forum/251135-post98.html

...sic.

Ludicrous... No lawyer or judge would in the United States or the Western, indeed much of the world, would consider a perported, unprobated will and testament authentic, especially when it was translated by the very person who was its beneficiary, as Ruth White observed, Shoghi Effendi!

Forgery masked as the will of Abdul-Baha...

NOTE WELL, What's purported to be Abdul-Baha's will and testament has never been probated or authenticated independently of those who were and are its beneficiaries...

Ruth White Collection, Library of Congress, 1930
https://reformbahai.org/images/WhiteLCDocs.pdf

Re: Website Suggestion https://www.interfaith.org/forum/251056-post94.html

To repeat, in my response to Sen McGlinn's mistaken attempt to discredit Dr. C. Ainsworth Mitchell's Report, I point out briefly the key fact:

What's purported to be Abdul-Baha's will and testament has never been probated or authenticated independently of those who were and are its beneficiaries.

No court of law would permit such a bogus "will and testament" to stand. 

The documents Ruth White placed in the national archive of the Library of Congress unequivocally demonstrate that Shoghi Effendi was a calculating criminal, part of a criminal takeover of the Bahai Cause:

Ruth White Collection, Library of Congress, 1930
https://reformbahai.org/images/WhiteLCDocs.pdf

You seem to be impressed with what Sen McGlinn presents as scholarship. I urge you to look more closely and critically. Here again is a link to my review of his Church and State:

Church and State. Sen McGlinn.
The Globe Blog Archive Church and State. Sen McGlinn.

Re: Website Suggestion https://www.interfaith.org/forum/251030-post92.html

Wil,

The Haifan ideology has always held that it alone has the Truth. Following the Shiite interpretations of Shoghi Effendi, especially takfir, declaring a Muslim/Bahai has departed from the Faith, Haifan Baha'is aren't, shall we say, constitutionally capable of respecting the conscience of other Bahai believers, though Abdul-Baha taught, "The conscience of man is sacred and to be respected." Haifans, though most Western ones don't realize it, actually operate in the worst intellectual and spiritual framework of Islam, which Baha'u'llah Himself had specifically rejected and reformed into a moderate, universal Faith.

The three Haifan responses to your completely rational question is highly indicative of all of the above.

In the view of Reform Bahais, all of the several Bahai denominations largely share the broad, universal teachings of Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha, revere largely the same corpus of writings, though select ones have been dropped out by the Haifans, those which clearly contradict their theocratic interpretation.

I believe it's fair to say that Abdul-Baha's Interpretation of Baha'u'llah's Teachings for the modern world was much more along the lines of the Quakers, Theosophy, Sufis, and Unitarian Universalists, than the Shiites and Sunnis, the califate or the papacy. He also emphasized "spiritual democracy," meaning a separation of church and state.

My review on my blog of Sen McGlinn's book might help in this context: 

Church and State: A Postmodern Political Theology. Sen McGlinn. University of Leiden, 2005. 432 pages
The Globe Blog Archive Church and State. Sen McGlinn.

Incidentally, Reform Bahais do teach, as do Bahais of other denominations. Here I am talking with people at Speakers Corner, Hyde Park, London, UK July 26, 2009 
https://reformbahai.org/Speakers_Corn...London_UK.html

The Haifan Baha’i administration, while publicly hiding behind a facade of liberalism, essentially practices Islamic “takfir,” labeling people “kafir” or infidels, and issuing fatwas, denying the very existence of other Bahais and denominations, all indicative of the worst in the Shiite Islamic heritage of the Bahai Faith—practices Baha’u’llah specifically repudiated, teaching tolerance of different religious views, largely congruent with modern Western custom. 

Nothing could be more diametrically opposed to the modern democracy of Western civic and legal order than the jihad the Haifan Baha’is are conducting.

By brainwashing the ordinary Western Baha'i into blind obedience, taqlid, betraying Abdul-Baha's promise of "independent investigation of truth," Shoghi Effendi concocted a deceitfully oppressive Shiite "world order" upon the pernicious foundation of the fraudulent will and testament.

In my response to Sen McGlinn's mistaken attempt to discredit Dr. C. Ainsworth Mitchell's Report, I point out briefly the key fact:

What's purported to be Abdul-Baha's will and testament has never been probated or authenticated independently of those who were and are its beneficiaries.

All of McGlinn's arguments are variations of the same old calumnies that the Haifans have always used to smear Dr. Mitchell and Ruth White, following Shoghi Effendi's despicable example. They are not any more convincing coming from a supposedly excommunicated Haifan, namely Sen McGlinn, trying to redeem himself with his masters than when Mirza Sohrab essentially did the same thing, though with more subtlety.

McGlinn concedes in his attack on Mitchell that "I am not a forensic handwriting expert" and knowing a language is irrelevant to forensic experts. His assumptions about what Mitchell did are merely that.

McGlinn's other tactics are unseemly and entirely in keeping with those widely used by members of the Haifan denomination based on the fraudulent will and testament.

Again, the attempts to discredit Dr. Mitchell and Ruth White have relied on, for over 75 years, slander and ad hominem and are no more convincing now than they have ever been. Note the pervasive attempt to shift, from Mitchell's conclusion and his call for an examination of the original, to the man himself. Classic ad hominem.

I ask the reader to reflect on the fact that Dr. Mitchell remains one of the most respected forensic researchers of the 20th century and is still quoted and cited by academics and legal experts. His professional integrity is beyond question as is, and was, his ability to assess the authenticity of the purported will itself. As the document curator for the British Museum, Dr. Mitchell used techniques and methods still widely used and recognized, whether or not one has a command of the language being scrutinized. Knowledge of a language in and of itself has never been the essential for handwriting experts, and informed people know that to be a fact. Those who seek to conceal the act of forgery hope to confuse the uninformed about what is involved. See the link at the bottom to one of his books available online.

Ruth White placed Dr. Mitchell's signed Report on the Writing Shown on the Photographs of the Alleged Will of Abdul-Baha with the Library of Congress in 1930. Certified copy below.

A bibliography of Dr. C. Ainsworth Mitchell's published work is available from the Library of Congress at the bottom of this page.

Mitchell was singularly qualified to judge the authenticity of the purported will of Abdul-Baha:


"In England, C. Ainsworth Mitchell was a public analyst interested primarily in questioned documents and the chemistry of inks during the early twentieth century" (25).

Introduction to Forensic Sciences. William G. Eckert.
Published 1997 CRC Press. Legal Reference / Law Profession. 390 pages. ISBN 0849381010

The authenticity of my quotation from the Introduction to Forensic Sciences above, regarding Dr. C. Ainsworth Mitchell, may be verified by Previewing the book and selecting page 25. On Amazon.com: Amazon.com: Online Shopping for Electronics, Apparel, Computers, Books, DVDs & more

"Documents And Their Scientific Examiniation" (1920) Author: C. Ainsworth Mitchell, Date 1920
Documents And Their Scientific Examiniation : C. Ainsworth Mitchell : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive
[can be downloaded in full]

Professional genealogist Will Johnson's webpage on Dr. C. Ainsworth Mitchell:
Charles Ainsworth Mitchell - RoyalWeb

Will Johnson to a fundamentalist Baha'i who dismissed Dr. Mitchell:
From: "wjhonson" wjhonson@aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.bahai
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 10:36 PM
Subject: Re: 4-20-07 - Ruth White. Abdul Baha's Questioned Will and Testament.
>
> That's a bit disengenuous to his memory. Charles Ainsworth Mitchell
> wrote several books in which he details pencil, ink, writing styles,
> etc. It wasn't a hobby, he was a professional in this type of
> analysis.
>

Link to Library of Congress SEARCH for your own confirmation: Library of Congress Online Catalog

Re: Website Suggestion https://www.interfaith.org/forum/250964-post82.html

Here's the key passage by Sohrab,

"Abdul Baha had never in speech or writing given the slightest indication that there would be a successor to himself. On the contrary, a number of addresses delivered by him on various occasions had made the opposite impression." The Will and Testament of Abdul-Baha (61). Mirza Ahmad Sohrab
Mirza Ahmad Sohrab

Many of Sohrab's comments and books should be read in the light of his attempting to make tactical amends with, or influence, Shoghi Effendi, who "excommunicated" him, as Shoghi Effendi had done with his own entire family. Ruth White and Dr. C. Ainsworth Mitchell went much deeper into what had gone wrong after Abdul-Baha's death, but Sohrab throws light upon various Bahai problems of the time, such as freedom of religious conscience, of which many such problems continue today for other Bahai denominations based upon the fraudulent will and testament of 1921. It is not clear what Sohrab's real motivation was.

Given subsequent Bahai history, it is clear Sohrab also failed to understand the wisdom and very profound change in religious form and conduct that Abdul-Baha taught when he repeatedly stated the Bahai Movement could not be organized. Abdul-Baha's Teaching runs entirely contrary to what people usually think of as "religion," and is still today a profoundly challenging paradox for many seekers and Bahais.

Ad hominem is an attack on the person. I would appreciate it if members of the Bahai denomination located in Haifa, Israel, would refrain from personal attacks and address ideas. For others, for the history of that approach by Haifan Baha'is, see The Baha'i Technique - Slander & Shunning The Baha'i Technique - Slander & Shunning  - Coercive Methods used in the Baha'i Faith - "According to the direct and sacred command of God we are forbidden to utter slander." --Abdu'l-Baha

Wil, 

I'm afraid that's what may have happened. I apologize to people on the forum since I accidentally posted the same message a few times. 

On technical level, the message at the end of the posts then, just flashed by, so I wasn't sure what the message even said.

Perhaps "I, Brian" made a relevant comment at post #62: "Firstly, my apologies - a couple of posts ended up in the moderation queue for some reason, now approved."

I believe I have the hang of this Forum now and shall endeavor to do better.

Best.

Re: Website Suggestion https://www.interfaith.org/forum/250949-post79.html

"Doctrinal control" has been called "review" since after 1921. It's a very comprehensive, oppressive censorship that has regularly even changed the facts of history to suit its own version of events. For instance, Nabil's account of early Babi history was a mere 70 pages; Shoghi Effendi turned it into several hundred pages of largely fiction. Denis MacEoin is especially insightful in that regard. 

I have a long interest in the Sikhs, going back to the early 1990s, and have attended services at Gudwaras on three occasions. Kabir's poems are especially important to me. You'll understand I consider myself a friend of the Sikhs when I say that actually they have had a history too of struggling for understanding and unity. Harjot Oberoi's book "The Construction of Religious Boundaries: Culture, Identity, and Diversity in the Sikh Tradition" (Chicago UP, 1994) is a particularly good account of it all. Alas, Sikhs too are human.

I fully share your view of the "exclusional or triumphalist" impulse. THAT is the problem of institutional, organized religion, according to Abdul-Baha's true interpretation of Baha'u'llah's teachings: 

""This movement is not an organization—it is the realization of a new spirit. The foundation of that spirit is the love of God; and its method, the love and service of mankind. Many who have never heard of this revelation teach its laws and spiritual truths. These people are performing what Baha'u'llah hath commanded though they never heard of him." 

Your citing American Indians speaks so well to the problem. As someone who lived on a reservation in Arizona for two years, I really appreciate your anecdote, which evokes warm and human memories for me. Those are the Indians I knew on a personal level too. I would add, though, as many observe, the Australian Aborigines, African traditional religions, and other non-doctrinal, non-creedal peoples and conceptions of transcendence also have the same universal perspective. 

Religion isn't the Judeo-Christian-Islamic attempt to separate the sheep from the goats. Unfortunately, the Haifan Baha'is reverted to the Shiite mold under Shoghi Effendi's false "covenant," a creed that has already destroyed many individuals and families.

The British scholar Denis MacEoin's review of Schaeffer's Making the Crooked Straight discusses its many flaws and Baha'i fanaticism. Denis MacEoin Reviews Making the Crooked Straight H-Bahai, 2001

Denis MacEoin, Crisis in Babi and Baha'i Studies Bulletin, (British Society for Middle Eastern Studies), Vol. 17, No. 1 (1990), pp. 55-61. https://fglaysher.com/bahaicensor...%20Studies.pdf

Denis MacEoin, A Few Words in Response to Cole's 'Reply to MacEoin.' British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 18, No. 1 (1991), pp. 86-87. https://fglaysher.com/bahaicensor...%20MacEoin.pdf

Professor Juan Cole on Denis MacEoin
Making the Crooked Straight - Reviewed by Denis MacEoin posted on H-Bahai, 2001

Re: Website Suggestion https://www.interfaith.org/forum/250789-post69.html

Like many subject areas, the Bahai pages on Wikipedia are completely corrupted and biased by the Haifan "editors" who long ago took control of every page they consider necessary "to protect the faith." Wikipedia is essentially a propaganda platform for the Wilmette-Haifan denomination. Use at your own risk.

Re: Website Suggestion https://www.interfaith.org/forum/250785-post68.html

To understand the real history of the Bahai Cause in the Western world, it is necessary to read the works of Ruth White and Ahmad Sohrab. They are available on the Reform Bahai Faith website, under Early Reform Bahais, Reform Bahai Faith 

Bibliography

Ruth White, Appendix to Abdul-Baha and the Promised Age, 1929. ("Is the Bahai Organization the Enemy of the Bahai Religion?") https://reformbahai.org/images/WhiteOEBR.pdf

Ruth White Collection, Library of Congress, 1930 https://reformbahai.org/images/WhiteLCDocs.pdf

Ruth White, Bahai Leads Out of the Labyrinth. Universal Publishing Company, 1944. 259 pages. (pages 257, 258, 259 restored) https://reformbahai.org/images/WhiteBLOL.pdf

Ruth White. Abdul Baha's Questioned Will and Testament. Beverly Hills: White, 1946.https://reformbahai.org/images/WhiteABQWT.pdf

Dr. C. (Charles) Ainsworth Mitchell - Certified Copy from the Library of Congress: 
Dr. C. Ainsworth Mitchell, Report on the Writing Shown on the Photographs of the Alleged Will of Abdu'l-Baha 

Selected Bibliography of works by Ahmad Sohrab:

Mirza Ahmad Sohrab. Broken Silence: The Story of Today's Struggle for Religious Freedom.
New York: Universal Publishing, 1942. Entire Book PDF https://reformbahai.org/images/SohrabBrokenSilence.pdf

Mirza Ahmad Sohrab. Abdul Baha's Grandson: Story of a Twentieth Century Excommunication. New York: Universal Publishing for The New History Foundation, 1943. Reprinted. H-Bahai: Lansing, Michigan, 2004. 
Abdu'l-Baha's Grandson 

Mirza Ahmad Sohrab. The Will and Testament of Abdul Baha, An Analysis. New York: Universal Publishing, 1944.https://reformbahai.org/images/SohrabWTAB.pdf

See also McDaniel v. Mirza Ahmad Sohrab, 27 NYS 2d 525 - 1941
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...dt=20000000002

Re: Website Suggestion https://www.interfaith.org/forum/250782-post67.html

Haifan Baha'is regularly violate the First Amendment rights of the Reform Bahai Faithand other Bahai denominations. Basically, their argument is often like a Catholic saying, "Be wary, they're Protestant," implying Protestants are heretics. The Reform Bahai Faith does not represent itself as the Baha'i Faith of Wilmette, Illinois, and Haifa, Israel. The very word "Reform" clearly indicates that fact, as does, for instance, Reform Judaism being different from Orthodox Judaism. 

Notice the Haifan Baha'is here imply we do not have a Constitutional right to our own religious conviction, which we do, as do Christians of various denominations. Violating another religion's or someone's Constitutional rights is not "helpful." It's a crime under Federal Law. The content if their argument is "distasteful" to people of various open-minded religious and non-religious conviction, for it fails to demonstrate respect or tolerance of opinions other than the person's own opinion. In so far as that is the case, their remarks are spiteful. They express religious hatred.

Shoghi Effendi was the fanatical leader of the Wilmette-Haifan Baha'is and was actually the beneficiary of the 1921 fraudulent will and testament, forged by either himself or possibly his family. Again, it was judged as fraudulent by the distinguished document expert of the time at the British Museum in London, Dr. C. (Charles) Ainsworth Mitchell. See Dr. Mitchell's "Report on the Writing Shown on the Photographs of the Alleged Will of Abdul-Baha." 1930. Certified Copy from the Library of Congress.
Dr. C. Ainsworth Mitchell, Report on the Writing Shown on the Photographs of the Alleged Will of Abdu'l-Baha

None of the remarks here offer anything other than usual, typical equivocations of Shoghi Effendi, who like a coward evaded and hid from the pen of Ruth White, slandering her behind her back to the Baha'i flock of docile and malleable personalities as a "besotted woman," a misogynist slur, comparable to his referring to his brother's wife as a "low-born Christian woman." Such reprehensible tactics and opinions came from the pen of the "guardian" of the Haifan Baha'is.

If you would like to know more about the Reform Bahai Faith, please read About the Reform Bahai Faith at About the Reform Bahai Faith

Again, the US Federal Courts ruled *three* times against the Wilmette-Haifan Baha'i Faith from 2006 to 2010, in its attempt to destroy in court several Baha'i denominations, including the Reform Bahai Faith, which is specifically mentioned in the oral testimony before the Court on 02/20/2009. List of Documents in case

For obvious reasons, the Haifans have been obsessed with trying to keep knowledge of the lawsuit off the Internet, on all Baha'i forums that they control or influence.

Their open, unmitigated contempt for the US Constitutional rights of the Reform Bahai Faith and other Bahai believers is blatant and undeniable. All freedom-loving people should be concerned about their duplicity and power-hungry theocratic drive for control and domination.

FG
Member of the Reform Bahai Faith
Reform Bahai Faith

Re: Website Suggestion https://www.interfaith.org/forum/250647-post58.html

Sure, more than welcome. Often in human history the majority is wrong. Martin Luther and countless came to that conclusion about Catholicism, the Shiites about the Sunnis, vice versa, and so on. Majority in and of itself means nothing, can and has throughout history been indicative of cunning and deceit. 

Speaking as a Bahai since 1976, having spent decades reading the voluminous Bahai writings and books, watching, discerning, and experiencing deeds from words, I believe the historical record clearly demonstrates Abdul-Baha had a profoundly different vision of Baha'u'llah's teachings from what has evolved under the spurious will and testament and Shoghi Effendi. All of the objections of Arthra are the typical ones of Haifan Baha'is, repeatedly by rote for decades, from Shoghi Effendi, who clearly exhibited the tell-tale cunning of the guilty when it came to Ruth White. Artha's claims are covered in my piece, 

An Analysis of Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant


In terms of the Sunni/Shiite split, I believe I have read that the issues are religious as well as social and political. Ibn Khaldun, often considered the most important Muslim historians, in his Introduction to History, chronicles and argues that under Muawiya and others, the princes took over Islam, subverting it into basically a political power symbol. That's what has often been argued happened to Christianity under Constantitine. It is what has happened to the Bahai Movement under Shoghi Effendi. 

Again, most of the Haifan Baha'is have been completely deceived and brainwashed into believing an entirely false version of the early Bahai events during Abdul-Baha's lifetime, so that many Baha'is are well meaning but in the dark, without knowing it. The entire "covenant breaking" mentality that has been inculcated into them prevents them from seeking the truth of their own tradition. Instead, unsuspectingly, they accept the half-truths and distortions concocted by Shoghi Effendi and others who benefited monetarily and otherwise from the forged document. 

Much of all this is explained in more detail and relevant documents linked to at 

An Analysis of Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant

Re: Website Suggestion https://www.interfaith.org/forum/250582-post53.html

Sure, more than welcome. Often in human history the majority is wrong. Martin Luther and countless came to that conclusion about Catholicism, the Shiites about the Sunnis, vice versa, and so on. Majority in and of itself means nothing, can and has throughout history been indicative of cunning and deceit. 

Speaking as a Bahai since 1976, having spent decades reading the voluminous Bahai writings and books, watching, discerning, and experiencing deeds from words, I believe the historical record clearly demonstrates Abdul-Baha had a profoundly different vision of Baha'u'llah's teachings from what has evolved under the spurious will and testament and Shoghi Effendi. All of the objections of Arthra are the typical ones of Haifan Baha'is, repeatedly by rote for decades, from Shoghi Effendi, who clearly exhibited the tell-tale cunning of the guilty when it came to Ruth White. Artha's claims are covered in my piece, 

Google "An Analysis of Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant"

In terms of the Sunni/Shiite split, I believe I have read that the issues are religious as well as social and political. Ibn Khaldun, often considered the most important Muslim historians, in his Introduction to History, chronicles and argues that under Muawiya and others, the princes took over Islam, subverting it into basically a political power symbol. That's what has often been argued happened to Christianity under Constantitine. It is what has happened to the Bahai Movement under Shoghi Effendi. 

Again, most of the Haifan Baha'is have been completely deceived and brainwashed into believing an entirely false version of the early Bahai events during Abdul-Baha's lifetime, so that many Baha'is are well meaning but in the dark, without knowing it. The entire "covenant breaking" mentality that has been inculcated into them prevents them from seeking the truth of their own tradition. Instead, unsuspectingly, they accept the half-truths and distortions concocted by Shoghi Effendi and others who benefited monetarily and otherwise from the forged document. 

Much of all this is explained in more detail and relevant documents linked to at 

Google "An Analysis of Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant"

Re: Website Suggestion https://www.interfaith.org/forum/250570-post51.html

Sure, more than welcome. Often in human history the majority is wrong. Martin Luther and countless came to that conclusion about Catholicism, the Shiites about the Sunnis, vice versa, and so on. Majority in and of itself means nothing, can and has throughout history been indicative of cunning and deceit. 

Speaking as a Bahai since 1976, having spent decades reading the voluminous Bahai writings and books, watching, discerning, and experiencing deeds from words, I believe the historical record clearly demonstrates Abdul-Baha had a profoundly different vision of Baha'u'llah's teachings from what has evolved under the spurious will and testament and Shoghi Effendi. All of the objections of Arthra are the typical ones of Haifan Baha'is, repeatedly by rote for decades, from Shoghi Effendi, who clearly exhibited the tell-tale cunning of the guilty when it came to Ruth White. Artha's claims are covered in my piece, 

An Analysis of Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant
Comments on Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant

In terms of the Sunni/Shiite split, I believe I have read that the issues are religious as well as social and political. Ibn Khaldun, often considered the most important Muslim historians, in his Introduction to History, chronicles and argues that under Muawiya and others, the princes took over Islam, subverting it into basically a political power symbol. That's what has often been argued happened to Christianity under Constantitine. It is what has happened to the Bahai Movement under Shoghi Effendi. In Shia and Sunni, there are significant spiritual and religious nuances involved too, which is the same for Reform Bahais and the other Bahai denominations.

Again, most of the Haifan Baha'is have been completely deceived and brainwashed into believing an entirely false version of the early Bahai events during Abdul-Baha's lifetime, so that many Baha'is are well meaning but in the dark, without knowing it. The entire "covenant breaking" mentality that has been inculcated into them prevents them from seeking the truth of their own tradition. Instead, unsuspectingly, they accept the half-truths and distortions concocted by Shoghi Effendi and others who benefited monetarily and otherwise from the forged document. 

Much of all this is explained in more detail and relevant documents linked to at 

An Analysis of Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant
Comments on Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant

Re: Website Suggestion https://www.interfaith.org/forum/250535-post47.html

I'm a newcomer here, so I have the 10 post limit prohibiting links. 

Here's my account of "9 Bahai Denominations" from which I've removed the links:

The Orthodox Baha'i lawyer Jeffrey Goldberg in his Response to the 2006 lawsuit that is currently being brought against other Bahai denominations in the Courts of Illinois rightly points out that there are now 9 denominations of the Bahai Faith. (I believe there has now evolved a 10th Baha'i denomination.)

"There are at least nine organizations now existing and operating at some level that practice a denomination of the "Bahá'í" religion (Goldberg Decl., Para. 51; Schlatter Decl., Para. 18-21). One is not a Bahá'í because of which denomination one belongs to, one is a Bahá'í because of the system of set of beliefs and doctrines one holds. The NSA's own web site defines a Bahá'í in this manner (Schlatter Decl., Para. 43)."

Nine Denominations (10):

Four Orthodox Bahai denominations, believing Charles Mason Remey was the successor to Shoghi Effendi.

1) Orthodox Bahá'í Faith (the OBF Respondents, following Joel B. 
Marangella); 
2) Bahá'ís Under Provisions of the Covenant (the other Respondents, 
following Leland Jensen); 
3)Tarbiyat Bahá'í Community (formerly known as Orthodox Bahá'ís Under the 
Regency) (Rex King group); 
4) Bahá'ís Under the living Guardianship 
(Donald Harvey as the third 
Guardian and Jacques Soghomonian as the fourth Guardian), an organization 
that is the successor to the Remey NSA; 

Three denominations believing that the 1921 unprobated will & testament of Abdul-Baha is a fraudulent document and that Abdul-Baha did not appoint Shoghi Effendi or anyone else as a successor, but that he looked forward to a "spiritual democracy, not a theocracy," with ultimately an elected Universal House of Justice.
5) Reform Bahai Faith
6) Free Baha'is 
7) Unitarian Baha'is 

One denomination believing in the authenticy of the unprobated, unauthenticated will and testatment of Abdul-Baha, which they believe appointed in 1921Shoghi Effendi as a guardian, a Shiite mullah or pope-like figure controlling a theocratic world order.

8) The Bahá'í Faith or Bahá'í World Faith (the Movant NSA) - (AKA Haifan Baha'is)

One denomination believing the next Manifestation of God is imminent, rather than appearing in a thousand years as prophesied by Baha'u'llah.

9) John Carre (followers of Alif a Third Manifestation of God - the third 
letter of the Greatest Name)
THE SPIRITUAL FOUNDATION OF SOCIETY 
AN ISLAND OF HOPE
TARIQAT


10) I would add a 10th denomination. The so-called "unenrolled Baha'is" or "indepdendent Baha'is" who in some sort of quixotic dream await the uhj to wake up or reform itself into the liberal, sane, moderate religion that both Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha clearly taught and envisioned, yet who, in their implicit exemplification of Abdul-Baha's Teaching that the Bahai Movement cannot be organzied, essentially follow, partway, the practice of the Reform Bahais, who realize that the only course now open at this historical juncture is to renew and return to the Example and Interpretation of the Center of the Covenant, the 1912 Covenant, the authentic Covenant of Abdul-Baha.

For those unfamiliar with the Haifan nsa's attempt to deprive other Bahais of their first amendment rights of liberty and freedom of religious conviction, I urge you to read the documents involved on both sides at

Jeffrey Goldberg has further annotated a few of the nine denominations mentioned above:

"NSA-UHG = The National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States Under the Hereditary Guardianship. This was the entity against whom the 1966 Judgment was entered -- the NSA under Mason Remey --.

PNBC = The Provisional National Baha'i Council of the United States - the national governing body of the Orthodox Baha'i Faith (OBF) and one of the entities the Wilmette NSA brought into court.

SIBC - This is the Second International Baha'i Council. Involved in the action brought by the Wilmette NSA, the SIBC was the governing body of the Jensen group. This has nothing to do with the OBF. The SIBC also was the name of an unrelated body under Mason Remey of the same name.

BPUPC - Baha'i Publishers Under the Provisions of the Covenant - One of the entities the NSA brought contempt charges against and it is related to the Jensen/ Chase group and not to the OBF."

For a historical perspective, see the documents at Lawsuit by Wilmette NSA Against Other Denominations

One can only hope the Court will be wise enough to understand what is truly involved. [which fortunately it did, in its November 2010 Opinion, available on the Internet via "The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience"; Google it or "9 Baha'i Denominations" for links.

Hope this helps give you the larger picture of Bahai. Most people who are only familiar with the Haifan Baha'is and their books and sources don't know anything about the others... for obvious reasons.

James Naylor, the Quaker? Wouldn't kiss the hand of George Fox! I like the spirit!

Google "Reform Bahai Faith" for the web site, under Early Reform Bahais > Ruth White. Skim down to the link to what is her most important book:

Ruth White. Abdul Baha's Questioned Will and Testament. Beverly Hills: White, 1946. 

There are a lot of extracts from it on that web page, if you want to read or skim first. 

Similarly, under Early Reform Bahais, Ahmad Sohrab, Julie Chanler, Janebe Fazl, C. Ainsworth Mitchell's Report, read or skim to your interest.

The integrity of soul of the first three was proven when the Haifan Baha'i imam Shoghi Effendi declared them kuffar, infidels...

I, Brian,

I think your system for categorizing religions makes perfect sense. Prove it, over time... The Haifan Baha'is are always trying to get in the big league, while not informing people of the realities documented at The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience Google, "The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience"

Well, yes, Bahais of all denominations consider Baha'u'llah the Promised One of all religions and traditions, though some minds tend to emphasize infallibility more than others in whatever religion. His son Abdul-Baha was appointed the Interpreter and Center of his Covenant, and it was he who brought the Bahai teachings into the modern world, to Europe, England, and the USA. Baha'u'llah had emphasized the progressive nature of religion in his writings, that religion evolves and changes, and Abdul-Baha understood the lesson, moderating and moving even further away from the Islamic milieu, which Baha'u'llah had already done in terms of Islam and Babism, the latter the early forerunner of sorts of Bahai, but very fanatical and violent in some regards. 

Anyway, by the time Abdul-Baha spoke at the Friends Meeting House in London in 1913, he had found and developed a highly universal vision of religious oneness and unity. When he died in 1921, his family and lesser minds, not up to that of the Master, reverted basically to their Shiite past, creating a type of imamate they called the "guardian" under a spurious will, driving out thousands of early Bahais who had embraced the more universal, less organized and oppressive vision of Abdul-Baha. Ruth White was foremost in opposing the institutionalization that led away from Abdul-Baha's highly universal and moderate interpretation. She wrote several books that preserve the record of events, etc. The Reform Bahai Faith web site has all her books available on it, if interested, under Early Reform Bahais.

Like all of the institutionalized Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, the usurpers of the Bahai Movement or Cause, created a creed, calling it a Covenant, judged a forged document by the previously mentioned document expert at the British Museum, C. Ainsworth Mitchell. It has always been recognized by careful readers as not characteristic of Abdul-Baha's own words and deeds, a clear departure for many reasons. Part of the Haifan Baha'i reversion to the Shiite tradition was to drag back in "takfir," the stigmatizing and repudiation of "infidels," all of that kind of thing so reminiscent of the worst in all religious traditions, in order to take control, weed out the people capable of actually thinking, and so forth. The very long history of the rotten fruit of this supposedly "Baha'i" doctrine is also documented on the Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience site.

In my view, all these things are present here in the discussion in this thread.

 

---

 

---

 

NEW >> Reform Bahai Faith Forum https://www.interfaith.org/forum/250118-post1.html

After the US Federal Courts ruled, on December 29, 2010, for the THIRD TIME, against the lawsuit filed by the Wilmette Baha'is against Bahais of other denominations, the Wilmette Baha'is appear to have managed to destroy the Topix Forum, in one way or another, that Bahais of several other denominations had used for over three years to discuss the lawsuit against them. Google "true seeker orthodox bahai" for details.

This type of fanatical tactic is exactly what Wilmette-Haifan Baha'is have done for many decades, as extensively documented on various websites. That the Wilmette Baha'i nsa would demonstrate such unmitigated contempt for the ruling of the Federal Court system, probably through Baha'is working in one way or another under the so-called "Continental Board of Counsellors" for "protection and propagation," should give thoughtful people reason for serious concern. For further incidents:

Google "Comments posted to The Chicago Tribune Forum"

PDF copies of pages on Topix documenting nearly 4,600 (4,626+) posts to that forum, from Google's cache copies as of July 9, 2011, have been preserved at the link above:

Baha'i rift_ Baha'is upset with Orthodox Baha'i Faith - Topix1
Baha'i rift_ Baha'is upset with Orthodox Baha'i Faith - Topix6
Baha'i rift_ Baha'is upset with Orthodox Baha'i Faith - Topix215 (documents 4,626+)
Baha'i rift_ Baha'is upset with Orthodox Baha'i Faith - Topix229
Baha'i rift_ Baha'is upset with Orthodox Baha'i Faith - Topix230

See also Thread Orthodox believers can call themselves...

....

For those unfamiliar with the record of Wilmette-Haifan Baha'is online and elsewhere, Google "The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience"

Re: Website Suggestion https://www.interfaith.org/forum/250452-post30.html

I agree. Exactly. That's basically the interpretation of Abdul-Baha too. Reform Bahais don't accept any creed because they're always used to coerce people, for example, the bogus "covenant" or "will and testament" of Haifan Baha'is. 
Abdul-Baha publicly delivered his authentic covenant in 1912 in New York. It's
been suppressed ever since his death.

""one religion" (and I believe that is what Schuon and Fox are getting at)."

Fritjof Schuon and other Perennialists are right on target in my personal opinion. A metaphyscian with a universal perspective, Schuon was actually also a Sufi, as Seyyed Hossain Nasr, another Perennialist, explains in his recent book on Islam. I've read several of their books and find them very compatible to what I find in Abdul-Baha's own open, universal vision of the unity of the religions. Nasr describes some of the Perennialists, though, as Muslims, essentially, and that one must become Muslim, in an exclusive sense, to follow the correct spiritual path. Bahai really isn't a secret platform for Islam, except for some Shiite Iranian Baha'is, but is on the journey beyond all the historical pasts toward a universal Form, one we are all seeking together, in my view.

Most presentday Baha'is have little to no knowledge about the early years of Abdul-Baha's actual teachings and interpretation of what he called the Bahai Movement or Cause. That's reflected in some of the comments here. He died in 1921 and it was only then that a fraudulent will and testament was used by his family to take control of the religion, reverting significantly back to their Iranian Shiite heritage, as I've already suggested. Although both Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha had repudiated such negative practices in Islam as takfir, denouncing others as infidels, and taqiyya, dissimulation and lying, for the "good of the Faith," Shoghi Effendi brought all that kind of thing back, moving away from universalism to exclusivism, in his pursuit of a Bahai theocracy, which Abdul-Baha had clearly rejected, emphasizing a "spiritual democracy."

If interested, my "A Response to Takfir" was published in a London journal, Religion 38 No 4 2008. Just google the title. 

Ruth White was an early Bahai who rejected the unprobated, unauthenticated
will and testament, wrote several books about it, and hired the foremost
forensic researcher of the time at the British Museum to examine the purported will. He declared it a forgery in 1930. google "Dr. C. Ainsworth Mitchell" She's been loathed by Haifan Baha'is ever since... 

Re: Website Suggestion https://www.interfaith.org/forum/250363-post22.html

Wil,

Abdul-Baha, the son and appointed interpreter of Baha'u'llah's teachings, taught a universal conception of the nature of interfaith understanding and identity when he said, speaking in England, "You can be a Bahai-Christian, a Bahai-Freemason, a Bahai-Jew, a Bahai-Muhammadan." 

Similarly, he emphasized that it was not "organized" religion but an "attitude" or frame of mind and is important and that followers of all faiths can have it: 

"The sun of truth rises in each season from a different point of the horizon—today it is here, yesterday it was there, and tomorrow it will appear from another direction. Why do you keep your eyes eternally fixed on the same point? Why do you call yourselves Christians, Buddhists, Mohammedans, Bahais? You must learn to distinguish the sun of truth from whichever point of the horizon it is shining! People think religion is confined in an edifice, to be worshiped at an altar. In reality it is an attitude toward divinity which is reflected through life." 

There are several Bahai denominations. (Google "9 Bahai Denominations") The other Baha'is here are members of the Baha'i denomination located in Haifa, Israel, which follows a very exclusive interpretation of the Bahai teachings that was imposed in 1921, attempting to create essentially a Catholic-like or Shiite imamate. They've basically reversed the open, universal teachings of Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha into a political power symbol, as so many religion have done throughout history.

Abdul-Baha brought his father's faith into the modern world in an open, universal form, emphasizing that one does not even have to be a "member" to be a Bahai! reformbahai dot org for further details.

Re: Website Suggestion https://www.interfaith.org/forum/250013-post7.html

The membership statistics are grossly inflated for the Haifan Baha'i denomination. That's a fact that's widely recognized by many people, Bahai or otherwise. See for instance,

Google "Estimates of the Baha'i membership" on religioustolerance dot org

Google False Statistics for Baha'i Membership in the USA, India, & Elsewhere 

The U. S. Federal Courts Ruled *Three Times* against Wilmette, Haifan Baha'is, who were trying to deprive other Bahai denominations of their First Amendment rights to religious freedom: 

November 23, 2010 - Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals rules against Haifan Baha'is of Wilmette, Illinois. A link to the Court's own Opinion in the case is available online. Google Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience

I don't believe any Bahai denomination belongs in the first rank of the major religions while it says one thing in public and behaves the way the Wilmette-Haifan Baha'is do in the dark.

Re: Afghan Supreme Court rules Bahai Apostates https://www.interfaith.org/forum/251813-post13.html

"You are using identifying marks which, whether you like it or not, have become the hallmarks of the larger organization which you ought not to wish to, and have no right to, confuse yourself with. "

False. They all existed long before they fobbed off their fraudulent will and testament on the gullible and uninformed.

"That was never even a question..."

You might want to spend more time than you have in researching the Haifan Baha'is through sources other than their own.

"You have not presented anything more than "cursory" evidence, which I tell you is seriously unconvincing."

Enjoying yourself?

"I have no opinion about whether their reading of the original interpretation is or isn't valid."

That definitely explains a lot. I suppose every forum has a troll or two who gets his kicks this way.

"As a group, you are a break-off from the larger body."

It doesn't sound as though you've read a single word thus far.

"Shunning." 

Please review everything posted above, including the links, especially in terms of actually reading...

"variants of "Universal House of Justice"" 

You're repeating their falsehoods and smears. Abdul-Baha referred to the Universal House of Justice existed for more than a decade before the Haifans usurped it and other such terms. Most Baha'is don't do the reading either to realize the fact, which is exactly what the Haifans rely on.