Critique of Adib Taherzadeh’s Book – “THE COVENANT OF BAHÁ’U’LLÁH”

A CRITIQUE REVEALING ERRONEOUS STATEMENTS AND INTERPRETATIONS PERTAINING TO THE CONTINUITY OF THE GUARDIANSHIP IN ADIB TAHERZADEH’S BOOK: “THE COVENANT OF BAHÁ’U’LLÁH”

The author of this book has devoted thirty-six chapters, 441 pages and three appendices to the subject of the Covenant of Bahá’u’lláh. While the first thirty-three chapters and 376 pages provide an exhaustive and well-written exposition, with a few exceptions, covering for the most part, the early history of the Faith and the various fruitless attempts to subvert the Covenant of Bahá’u’lláh, it will be clearly shown in this critique that the author, particularly in Chapter thirty-four, has, in an effort to prove that the Guardianship of the Faith came to an end with the passing of Shoghi Effendi, and to validate the authenticity of a man-made and sans-Guardian administrative organization that has been substituted for the divinely-conceived Administrative Order delineated by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in His Will and Testament, has made erroneous interpretations of this sacred and immutable Testament and utterly false statements concerning the Guardianship which will be clearly exposed and which shockingly reveal, his repudiation of the most important provisions of the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. Moreover, he has also made statements that are at complete variance with the statements and writings of Shoghi Effendi, the first beloved Guardian of the Faith, concerning the continuity of the Guardianship in the World Order of Bahá’u’lláh and the essential and irreplaceable role of the Guardian in that “Most Great Order” as the Head of the Faith, the infallible “expounder of the words of God” and the “sacred head and the distinguished member for life of the Universal House of Justice.” For these reasons, and his rejection of the appointed successors of Shoghi Effendi, Adib Taherzadeh sadly has become a flagrant violator and an enemy of the very Covenant of which he has obviously fancied himself a leading authority, champion and defender. While this critique covers only Chapter thirty-four of his book, those readers, who have completed this review will readily perceive the obvious falsity of certain statements appearing in the remaining two chapters of his book.

It soon becomes glaringly apparent as one reads the writings of Taherzadeh in which he maintains that the provisions of the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá pertaining to the matter ot succession are, in effect, no longer applicable, that he has shamefully repudiated the most important provisions of this sacred Document penned by the”master-hand of its perfect Architect,” — ‘Abdu’l-Bahá — and most significantly, in a spiritual sense, actually a jointly authored Document which, as explained by Shoghi Effendi in his work: “The Dispensation of Bahá’u’lláh,” is to be considered “the inevitable offspring resulting from that mystic intercourse between Him Who communicated the generating influence of His divine Purpose and the One Who was its vehicle and chosen recipient,” thereby becoming the “Child of the Covenant — the Heir of both the Originator and the Interpreter of the Law of God.” Furthermore, the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá has been described by Shoghi Effendi, as co-equal in its sacredness with the Most Holy Book of Bahá’u’lláh — the Kitáb-i-Aqdas — stating that these two sacred Documents ” are not only complementary but they mutually confirm one another, and are inseparable parts of one complete unit.” in consequence of which, the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá is nothing less than a part of the explicit Holy Text. As Shoghi Effendi has further pointed out, these sacred Documents are “the twin repositories of the constituent elements of that Sovereignty” “which the Baha’i teachings foreshadow.” From the foregoing, it is clear that all of the provisions of the Will and Testament, including those pertaining to the Guardianship will remain applicable and endure unaltered for not less than a full thousand years.

Not only does Taherzadeh reveal his own evident and incomprehensible loss of faith in and repudiation of the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá but, tragically enough, that of Rúhíyyih Khánum, the widow of Shoghi Effendi, as well, in quoting her words in the opening pages of chapter thirty-four contained in two cablegrams that were dispatched to the Bahá’í world following Shoghi Effendi’s sudden and unexpected passing in London, England. For these cablegrams reveal the surprising and almost inexplicable fact, although expressed in an indirect way by her, that she, too, believed the Guardianship of the Cause of God had come to a premature end with his passing, an institution which she had so devotedly, steadfastly and consistently supported in deed and acclaimed in word in her writings during his 36 year ministry. Proof that Rúhíyyih Khánum obviously believed that the Guardianship had ended becomes evident when one considers carefully the words of both her initial cable to the Bahá’í world on 4 November 1957 announcing the passing of Shoghi Effendi and the text of the cable that followed, as quoted below:

“Shoghi Effendi beloved of all hearts sacred trust given believers by Master passed away sudden heart attack in sleep following Asiatic flu. Urge believers remain steadfast cling institution Hands lovingly reared recently reinforced emphasized by beloved Guardian. Only oneness heart oneness purpose can befittingly testify loyalty all National Assemblies believers departed Guardian who sacrificed self utterly for service Faith.”

The following additional cable was dispatched by Rúhíyyih Khánum concerning funeral arrangements:

“Beloved all hearts, precious Guardian Cause of God, passed peacefully away yesterday after Asiatic flu. Appeal Hands, National Assemblies, Auxiliary Boards, shelter believers, assist meet heartrending supreme test. Funeral our beloved Guardian, Saturday, London. Hands, Assembly, Board members, invited attend. Any press release should state meeting Hands shortly Haifa will make arrangements to Bahá’í world regarding future plans. Urge hold memorial meetings Saturday.” [punctuation added for clarity]

The following significant critical and disturbing facts can be gleaned from the wording of the above cables:

The believers are urged in the first cable quoted above to “cling to the institution of the Hands.” There is no mention of the believers rallying around Shoghi Effendi’s successor, even though his identity has not yet been revealed, for the believers had every reason to firmly believe that Shoghi Effendi had appointed his successor in view of the sacred obligation imposed upon him to do so under the terms of the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. Could there be any doubt on the part of the believers that Shoghi Effendi had discharged this responsibility with the same complete fidelity to that divinely-conceived Document that he had demonstrated throughout his ministry, for this Document delineates the irreplaceable and essential dual role that is assigned to the Guardian of the Cause of God. Indeed, it was this vital dual role that was first emphasized by the Greatest Holy Leaf, Bahíyyih Khánum, sister of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, following the ascension of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, in her cablegram sent to the Baha’i world on the 16th of January 1922 in which she announced: ” In Will Shoghi Effendi appointed Guardian of Cause and Head of House of Justice.” And when the believers had the opportunity later to read the text of the Will and Testament for themselves they learned that in the Administrative Order outlined therein the Guardian was identified as the “Center of the Cause,” invested with the sole right of Interpreting Baha’i Holy Writ and designated as “the sacred head for life” of the Universal House of Justice. It was equally clear that this Will made it incumbent upon the Guardian to appoint his successor “in his own life-time” (i.e. not by testamentary document) thus assuring that the institution of the Guardianship would never be deprived of the presence of a living Guardian, even for an instant, throughout the entire Dispensation of Bahá’u’lláh and the identity of his successor would never have to await the opening of a will.

The second cable states that the Hands assembled in Haifa “will make arrangements to the Bahá’í world regarding future plans.” The preparation of “future plans” is not a function assigned to the Hands of the Cause under the provisions of the ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s Testament. Such plans would be formulated either by National Spiritual Assemblies for their respective countries or by Shoghi Effendi’s successor in the same manner as Shoghi Effendi had done in his assignment of tasks and goals under the two Seven Year Plans carried out by the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States and in the Ten-Year Global Crusade that followed in which all of the National Spiritual Assemblies of the Bahá’í world were assigned specific goals in accordance with Shoghi Effendi’s faithful implementation of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s Tablets of the Divine Plan. The fact that no mention is made of the next Guardian performing this role further reveals that Rúhíyyih Khánum, although not revealing this belief directly, was already convinced that Shoghi Effendi, as far as she was concerned, had left no successor and, incredibly as it may seem, that she considered the terms of the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá with respect to the matter of succession null and void only 36 years after the inception of the Administrative Order which the “master-hand of its perfect Architect” had fashioned.

How are we to account for this obvious abandonment of the Guardianship, by his widow so soon after his passing and before she and her fellow-Hands had, as announced in her cable, gathered in Haifa and determined if Shoghi Effendi had left a will appointing a successor as the believers expected, especially considering the fact that she had written works herself during the ministry of Shoghi Effendi stressing the absolute essentiality of the Guardianship to the Faith as a continuing institution? Was it because she knew there was no son to inherit the Guardianship? For unlike those believers who had speculated over the years that Shoghi Effendi had a son, secretly raised and prepared to be his successor, she was, the only one in the Bahá’í world at the time of Shoghi Effendi’s passing who definitely knew that there was no substance to such rumors and that there was no son to inherit the Guardianship. At the same time, she shared the knowledge with the other believers that there were no male descendants from the blood line of Bahá’u’lláh who had remained loyal to the Covenant and it was they whom most of the believers had been led to believe were the only other individuals eligible to inherit the Guardianship due to the erroneous interpretation placed on the applicable terms of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s Testament, about which more will be discussed later. Or could it have been that she was convinced the Guardianship had ended because she thought that Shoghi Effendi would certainly have confided in her, as his wife, the identity of anyone whom he had chosen as a successor and, as he had not done so, there was no successor? If she had held this belief, she had failed to consider the possibility that there may have been a valid reason why Shoghi Effendi had not revealed to her openly the identity of the one whom he had chosen as his successor which would now become clear after his passing.

There was a very good reason why Shoghi Effendi could not have confided in Rúhíyyih Khánum the identity of the one whom he had chosen as his successor, for had he done so, he would have clearly revealed to her, albeit in an indirect way, that his ministry and life was destined to soon come to an end as the one whom he had appointed to succeed him “in his own life-time” some six years before his passing was a man already approaching his eighties and therefore his accession to the Guardianship at a very advanced age would of necessity have to take place in the near future (as, in fact, it did). Shoghi Effendi knew that Rúhíyyih Khánum would never be able to sustain the foreknowledge of his passing which would be imminent had he made known to her the identity of his successor nor, for that matter, would the believers throughout the world have been able to cope with this knowledge, as the prospect of his early death, if they had actually believed it was impending, would have completely paralyzed them in their work for the Faith from that time onward. Rúhíyyih Khánum, herself, confirmed this when she stated in her book titled: “The Guardian of the Bahá’í Faith” published in 1988:  “I could never have survived the slightest foreknowledge of the Guardian’s death.“

It should be mentioned, however, that in making this statement Rúhíyyih Khánum had surprizingly forgotten that when this writer was in Haifa on pilgrimage in 1952 Shoghi Effendi had alluded so clearly at the dinner table one evening in her presence that his passing was near at hand and had stated the reason therefore so clearly, that she jumped up from the table and in tears rushed out of the room. From the foregoing, it may be seen that Shoghi Effendi was faced with the problem of appointing his successor “in his own life-time” under the terms of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s Will in such a way that, although it had to be done openly, yet the appointment had to remain concealed from the believers in order to spare them the shock, trauma and consternation that would inevitably ensue if they were to realize that the one whom he had chosen as his successor clearly indicated that his passing was imminent. As his ministry drew to a close Shoghi Effendi resolved this problem so ingeniously that not only did the appointment of his successor, even though it had been made openly, remain undiscovered during the few concluding years of his ministry but unfortunately remained unperceived by all of the believers after his passing until his successor disclosed the manner in which his appointment had been effected in a Proclamation issued to the Bahá’í world some two and a half years after Shoghi Effendi’s passing.

Most importantly, it should be borne in mind, that the believers could not point to a single word in Shoghi Effendi’s writings that indicated anything but a continuation of the Guardianship down through the centuries to come of the Dispensation of Bahá’u’lláh. This is very evident, for example, when one reads “The Dispensation of Bahá’u’lláh” which has been referred to as his testament as well as his other works and notably his historic messages to the Bahá’í world especially during the period 1950 – 1957 in which, for example, he mentioned in his message of 27 November 1954 “the construction in the course of successive epochs of the Formative Age of the seats of such divinely appointed institutions as the Guardianship . . .” Additionally, there were the Haifa pilgrim notes of the outstandingly successful pioneer in Latin America, Gayle Woolson, in which she records that Shoghi Effendi had stated when asked by a fellow-pilgrim about a son: “Everything that is written in the Will and Testament will be fulfilled. The Bahá’ís must not be anxious about this.“

Whatever the beliefs held by the believers throughout the world, all of us at the time of Shoghi Effendi’s passing, without exception, had unquestionably forgotten or were ignorant of the provisions of the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá which clearly and definitely precluded the use of a will and testament not only by Shoghi Effendi but the use of such an instrument by all future Guardians, as well, in naming their successor. For the explicit terms of the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá state: “It is incumbent upon the guardian of the Cause of God to appoint in his own life-time him that shall become his successor, that differences may not arise after his passing.” (the phrase “in his own life-time” being, of course, redundant if a written will, to be opened after a Guardian’s passing, had been intended by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá as a will obviously can only be written in one’s life-time). A student of the Will and Testament will also note other clauses which conclusively prove that the Guardian must appoint his successor while still living in a similar manner to that employed by the ancient Kings of Israel such as King David when he publicly appointed Solomon as his successor while he was still reigning.

Forgetful or ignorant, as the case may have been, of the above provision in ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s Testament, the Bahá’í world unfortunately universally anticipated that the question of succession would be clarified by Shoghi Effendi in a will and testament, the contents of which they expected would be revealed when the then 27 Hands of the Cause assembled in Haifa, as announced by Rúhíyyih Khánum in the cable quoted above. The Hands as well as all of the Bahá’ís also completely ignored the fact that the terms of the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá do not call for the convening of an assemblage of the Hands of the Cause, following the passing of a Guardian, for the purpose of opening a will left by him identifying the one whom he has appointed as his successor. The fact that no such assemblage or conclave, as they later labelled it, is called for under the terms of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s Testament should have alerted the Hands to the fact that the reason why ‘Abdu’l-Bahá had never provided for such a conclave in His Will and Testament was that there was no need for such a gathering following the death of a Guardian as every Guardian-to-be under its provisions would invariably be appointed and be made known prior to the passing of his predecessor. Had this realization dawned upon them they may have decided to re-examine the provisions of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s Testament and discovered that they had overlooked the clear provision in that Document which requires the Guardian to appoint his successor in his own life-time, and reached the inevitable conclusion that if Shoghi Effendi had appointed his successor during his ministry as required, and that he had obviously done so in such an indirect and veiled manner that both Rúhíyyih Khánum and the Hands, as well as all of the believers throughout the world had failed, at the time, to perceive the manner in which this appointment had been effected and the identity of his successor.

Sadly, however, it is obvious that this re-examination never took place and the Hands and all of the believers continued to hold to their false belief that a will and testament penned by Shoghi Effendi would be found. The falsity of this belief, however, should have become obvious following the results of the first conclave held by the Hands in ‘Akká only nine days following his interment when they announced to the Bahá’í world that their search for a will left by Shoghi Effendi had been fruitless. The persistent failure of the believers to perceive that a will would never have been the instrument used by Shoghi Effendi to appoint his successor is confirmed in Mr. Taherzadeh’s book wherein he states: “Almost the entire Bahá’í community expected that the Will and Testament of Shoghi Effendi would announce the appointment of a successor to himself, as the Wills of Bahá’u’lláh and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá had done” And he goes on to say that: “the Bahá’ís of the world waited anxiously for news of this from the beloved and trusted Hands of the Cause, but when the news finally came, it was that the Guardian had left no Will”

In view of the false belief held by the entire Bahá’í world that Shoghi Effendi would leave a will appointing his successor it was then a shocking revelation that no will and testament had been left by Shoghi Effendi. Should the Hands and the rest of the believers have then immediately concluded that the Guardianship had come to a premature end?

Did not such a hasty conclusion constitute a incomprehensible loss of faith in the sacredness, immortality and immutability of the sacred and divinely-conceived Will and Testament of ‘Abdu‘l-Bahá and result not only in their repudiation of this Document but of the writings of Shoghi Effendi, as well, who had extolled this Document as “the Charter of the New World Order” of Bahá’u’lláh and “His greatest legacy to posterity?” And more than this, had he not acclaimed it as the very “Child of the Covenant” and, as such, a divinely-conceived Document that should be considered, as discussed earlier, not only the Will of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá but that of Bahá’u’lláh, as well, and complementary to and inseparable from Bahá’u’lláh’s Most Holy Book — the Kitáb-i-Aqdas—and consequently a part of the explicit Holy Text? In the light of this knowledge, how could they have concluded that the joint Authors, in a spiritual sense, of this mighty Instrument Who, Themselves, had suffered such treachery, perfidy and infidelity at the hands of Their closest relatives, would in framing this sacred Document under divine guidance so completely ignore this past history of disloyalty as to include in Their Will a provision that would be so restrictive on the matter of succession that it would doom to certain extinction the highest institutions of the future World Order of Bahá’u’lláh? Would not the inclusion of such a restriction pertaining to the appointment of the Guardian’s successor in the Will and Testament make the continued existence of these highest institutions of “this Most Great Order” in the future centuries that lay ahead contingent upon the highly uncertain prospect that there would always be either a spiritually qualified son of the incumbent Guardian of the Faith or a descendent from the blood line of Bahá’u’lláh, who was a declared believer loyal to the Covenant and endowed with the requisite qualifications set forth in the Will, available for appointment as his successor?

Certainly, the believers could point to no evidence in the writings and cablegrams of Shoghi Effendi to indicate that he had interpreted the Will and Testament to impose such a restriction as the Hands of the Cause had placed on the appointment of his successor. Quite the contrary was the case. Knowing that there were no longer any relatives of the blood line of Bahá’u’lláh who had remained loyal to the Covenant, Shoghi Effendi’s writings and cablegrams still emphatically and repeatedly projected the existence of the institution of the Guardianship as an essential and irreplaceable institution and one of the “twin pillars” delineated in ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s Will that supported the “mighty Administrative Structure” of the Faith for as long as the Dispensation of Bahá’u’lláh endured. Could the Hands now continue to completely ignore all that Shoghi Effendi had written concerning the immutability and immortality of the Will and Testament and the future of the Guardianship or should it not have been apparent to them that their interpretation of the term “another branch” as used in the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá did not limit the Guardian’s choice of a successor, in the absence of a qualified son, to a descendant of Bahá’u’lláh, at all, but had to have another meaning which could only be a spiritual one?

Indeed, could not the Hands (with a single exception) have also perceived that to cling to the fallacious belief that Shoghi Effendi had been unable to appoint a successor, would have made him a party to the complete destruction of the very institutions he had so laboriously and faithfully reared during his ministry in conformity with the sacred Mandate of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and would have placed him in the position of refuting such announcements as the one in which he had hailed the historic achievement that had taken place “at the World Center of the Faith, where, at long last the machinery of its highest institutions has been erected, and around whose most holy shrines the supreme organs of its unfolding Order, are, in their embryonic form unfolding” ? (30 June 52 cable to the Bahá’í world)

If an alternative scenario had unrolled in which the Hands had realized that they had been wrong in their belief that only a descendant of Bahá’u’lláh could inherit the Guardianship and had opened their minds to the possibility that Shoghi Effendi had been able to appoint as his successor someone during his ministry, other than a descendant of Bahá’u’lláh, who had obviously remained unrecognized, a different outcome may have resulted. They then would certainly have undertaken a careful, unbiased and thorough review of the significant acts taken and announcements made by Shoghi Effendi during his ministry with the keen anticipation of ascertaining the manner in which Shoghi Effendi had appointed his successor prior to his passing in such a way that his identity, in spite of being openly announced, as required, had been so obscured as to remain unperceived, both at the time of his appointment as well as after his death, and of hopefully discovering in this review the identity of the second Guardian. At the culmination of this review they may have surprisingly discovered that the second Guardian was actually one of their own number and in their very midst. Had they been successful in this endeavor and joyously welcomed the second Guardian, the Bahá’í Administrative Order would have remained intact as delineated by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and a substitute provisional body would never have been illicitly established to take the place of the Guardianship, a body which they formed completely outside the provisions of the Will and Testament, comprising nine of their number, whom they would label “The Custodians of the Faith” and to which they would assign direction of the affairs of the Faith pending the election of a sans-Guardian and, therefore, headless Universal House of Justice at Ridván 1963.

Mr. Taherzadeh does not recognize this tragic failure on the part of the Hands of the Cause, much less that of the other believers in the Bahá’í world, to look for Shoghi Effendi’s successor and surprisingly, as late as 1992 when he wrote his book, still continued to ignore or overlook the clear provision in ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s Testament requiring the Guardian to appoint his successor “in his own life-time” and still clung to the view that only a descendant of Bahá’u’lláh could inherit the Guardianship. As a result, he attempts to justify the fact that Shoghi Effendi left no will with such explanations as it “was due to the circumstances of his ministry and of his life,” or that he “did not have any worldly possessions” or, more significantly, in the absence of a son to inherit the Guardianship, he had not been able to appoint a successor as “there was not a single Ghusn [although Shoghi Effendi does not use the word “Ghusn” anywhere in his translation of the text of the Will] who was faithful to the Cause of God” because “every one of the descendants of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá had been declared Covenant-breakers.” In this statement, Taherzadeh, reveals his continued misinterpretation of the terms of the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá wherein, in the absence of a spiritually qualified son to inherit the Guardianship, the Guardian must “choose another branch to succeed him” contending that the word “branch” (originally translated by Shoghi Effendi with a lower case “b” in the 1944 edition of the Will) limits the Guardian’s choice of a successor solely to a descendant of Bahá’u’lláh and in his misguided effort to support this false argument he changes the word “branch” to “Branch” and cites the singular form of the Persian word for Branch: “Ghusn” (although Shoghi Effendi in his writings uses the term “Aghsan,” the plural form of “Ghusn,”to refer solely to the sons of Bahá’u’lláh and not to His other relatives (as shown on page 239 of his book titled: “God Passes By”). Furthermore, in the text of the Will and Testament Shoghi Effendi translates ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s reference to him as “the chosen branch” and not “The Chosen Branch” as cited by Taherzadeh which further proves that Taherzadeh has attempted to make it appear that only a relative from the blood-line of Bahá’u’lláh is eligible to inherit the Guardianship and thus place an unwarranted restriction on the Guardian’s alternative choice of a successor that is not, in fact, substantiated by the terms of the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá.

Mr. Taherzadeh in his attempt to further justify his position that Shoghi Effendi was unable to appoint a successor incredibly points out what he considers to have been a deficiency in the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l- Bahá as he states that: “Since the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá did not indicate the course to be taken should there be no Ghusn (Branch) to succeed Shoghi Effendi, the resolution of this question did not fall within the domain of the Guardianship; it was the prerogative of the Universal House of Justice to find a solution. This is probably the main reason why Shoghi Effendi did not make any statement about his successor.”

In considering the prerogatives of the Universal House of Justice to make a decision concerning the question of the Guardianship it would be well to reiterate that Shoghi Effendi equated the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in its sacredness and immutability with Bahá’u’lláh’s Most Holy Book, the Kitáb-i-Aqdas stating that the Aqdas and the Will and Testament are “not only complementary but they mutually confirm one another and are inseparable parts of one complete unit.” The Will and Testament, therefore, is indisputably a part of the “explicit Holy Text” whose laws and provisions are immutable and destined to endure for not less than a full thousand years— the promised duration of the Dispensation of Bahá’u’lláh. Incredibly, however, Taherzadeh and those who think like him would have the reader believe that only 36 years after the inception of the Administrative Order formally delineated in this divinely-conceived Holy Text—the Will and Testament—which Shoghi Effendi has “acclaimed as the inevitable offspring resulting from that mystic intercourse between Him [Bahá’u’lláh] Who communicated the generating influence of His divine Purpose and the One Who was its vehicle and chosen recipient” [‘Abdu’l-Bahá] —its major provisions pertaining to the Guardianship has already become null and void and that because “‘Abdu’l-Bahá had not indicated the course to be taken in the event that there was no Ghusn to succeed Shoghi Effendi it was the prerogative of the Universal House of Justice to find a solution.”

It is quite unbelievable that Taherzadeh would state that ‘Abdu’l-Bahá did not foresee the possibility that there would be no Aghsan to succeed Shoghi Effendi and for this reason had not indicated the course of action to be taken in this event. Instead of questioning a lack of foresight, as he sees it, that is found in the provisions of the Will and Testament, a Document which, as already pointed out Shoghi Effendi has described as a jointly authored Testament reflecting the expressed Will of Bahá’u’lláh as much as that of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and a part of the explicit Holy Text, one would have thought that he would have questioned and reconsidered his own interpretation of the terms of the Will and Testament which he believed restricted the choice of the Guardian’s successor to an Aghsan (a term which it has been shown previously he also has misinterpreted).

As evidence of the complete falsity of Taherzadeh’s statement concerning the prerogative of the Universal House of Justice to resolve the question of the termination of the Guardianship, the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá states that this body “enacteth all ordinances and regulations that are not to be found in the explicit Holy Text”. . . matters that are not expressly recorded in the Book. . . and bear upon daily transactions. .” Therefore it is clear that the Universal House of Justice, much less the headless one that has now been established, has no authority to enact any ruling on the matter of succession. It is obvious, too, that once the Guardianship has been terminated, as he believes is now the case, there is no way to re-establish the Guardianship.

After recounting the “furious tempest” of Covenant-breaking that raged throughout the ministry of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in which every believer had been “severely tested” and the similar situation that had existed following the ascension of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in which the “provisions of His Will and Testament were violated” Taherzadeh contends that “after the passing of Shoghi Effendi, however, circumstances were different.” . . . “This is because there was no Will and Testament; Shoghi Effendi had gone and left the believers on their own.” Yet, he goes on to say that “the whole Bahá’í community over the entire surface of the globe remained loyal to the Cause and its institutions.” He does not explain, however, how such loyalty to the three highest institutions of the Bahá’í Administrative Order would be maintained on a continuing basis over the future centuries to come when the Guardianship as an essential institution occupied by a living Guardian as the Head of the Faith and the sole interpreter of Bahá’í holy Writ would no longer be at the head of the Faith and when two of the remaining highest institutions, as delineated by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in His Testament, would likewise become non-existent as future Hands could only be appointed by a living Guardian, and the Universal House of Justice would not be able to function as an infallible institution without the Guardian presiding as its “sacred head and the distinguished member for life.” Nor does he recognize the fact that such an institution minus the Guardian as its Head (as has now been established) can be anything more than an illicitly established, deformed, incomplete and fallibly functioning substitute for the divinely-ordained institution delineated by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in His Will and Testament.

In order to understand many of the observations and comments that follow, it is essential to quote at least a few passages from the one and only Proclamation that Shoghi Effendi issued during his ministry which at the time was not even recognized as a proclamation (and still has not been by the sans-Guardian Bahá’ís) because it had been sent in cablegram form and even though it had opened with the words: “Proclaim to National Assemblies of East and West weighty epoch-making decision of formation of first International Bahá’í Council, forerunner of supreme administrative institution . . .” [i.e. Universal House of Justice] It was in this momentous Proclamation that the Hands had overlooked in their obvious failure to re-examine the communications from Shoghi Effendi that they would have found the key leading to the discovery of the identity of Shoghi Effendi’s successor. For in this Proclamation they would have noted that, among other things he enumerated, the “present adequate maturity of nine vigorously functioning national administrative institutions throughout Bahá’í World, combine to induce me to arrive at this historic decision marking most significant milestone in evolution of Administrative Order of the Faith of Bahá’u’lláh in course of last thirty years.” [i.e. since the passing of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá]. To dispel any notion that this International Council was a temporary body but, in fact, the Universal House of Justice, albeit in embryonic form, he stated: “Nascent Institution now created . . .further functions in course of evolution of this first embryonic International Institution, marking its development into officially recognized [International]Bahá’í Court, its transformation into duly elected body, its efflorescence into Universal House of Justice . . . would assume “” and he had significantly addressed this Proclamation to the subordinate institutions of this supreme body—the National Spiritual Assemblies—throughout the world and not to the Bahá’í world at large as he did in many of his communications. To further stress the significance of this historic decision, a decision whose tremendous significance was, strangely enough, overlooked, not only by the Hands but by the entire body of the believers during the remaining seven years of his ministry and following his passing, Shoghi Effendi went on in this cable to express in superlative terms the importance of this decision in the following words: “Hail with thankful, joyous heart at long last the constitution of International Council which history will, acclaim as the greatest event shedding lustre upon the second epoch of Formative Age of Bahá’í Dispensation potentially unsurpassed by any enterprise undertaken since inception of Administrative Order of Faith on morrow of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s Ascension, ranking second only to glorious immortal events associated with Ministries of Three Central Figures of Faith . . .” In the very next cable to the Bahá’í world that Shoghi dispatched on 2 March 1951 as a follow-up to this Proclamation he stated: “Welcome assistance of the newly-formed International Council, particularly its President, Mason Remey, and its Vice-President, Amelia Collins . . .” (emphasis added).

Teherzadeh quotes the first letter dispatched by the Hands to the Bahá’í world following their first conclave in ‘Akká in which is found the following excerpt: “Shoghi Effendi has laid the foundations of the world order of Bahá’u’lláh through the appointment of Hands of the Cause and likewise the appointment of the International Bahá’í Council, the institution destined to evolve into the Universal House of Justice.” In the paragraph that follows this quotation, however, these Hands proceed to completely ignore the establishment of the International Council and its tremendous significance, as proclaimed by Shoghi Effendi, in announcing that they “have constituted a body of nine Hands to serve at the Bahá’í World Center,” a body not called for in the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and to which they give the name “Custodian Hands of the Faith” and to which they arrogate authority for directing the affairs of the Faith, an authority that the Will and Testament confers solely upon the Guardian of the Faith, justifying this assumption of authority on the basis that Shoghi Effendi had referred to them in the last cablegram that he had dispatched to the Bahá’í world one month before his passing as the “Chief Stewards of Bahá’u’lláh’s embryonic World Commonwealth.” They failed to consider, however, that the Institution of the Hands of the Cause, now additionally identified by Shoghi Effendi as the Chief Stewards of Bahá’u’lláh’s World Commonwealth, would in the absence of a future Guardian to appoint future Hands, faced certain extinction as the present Hands died out, and there would no longer be Hands to fulfill the role as “Chief Stewards” of Bahá’u’lláh’s future World Commonwealth” following its emergence from its embryonic state as had been obviously envisaged by Shoghi Effendi. This cablegram also provided further proof indirectly that Shoghi Effendi did not interpret the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá to limit his appointment of a successor to a male descendant of Bahá’u’lláh, as contended both by the Hands at the time and Teherzadeh in this book, as it had been known not only by Shoghi Effendi but it had been common knowledge that these descendants had long since been found wanting in their loyalty to the Covenant of Bahá’u’lláh.

Significantly, too, the Hands had overlooked the fact that, in this cablegram´which Shoghi Effendi had addressed to the Bahá’í world one month before his passing, he had referred to the “five Hands, [Rúhíyyih Khánum, Mason Remey, Leroy Ioas, Amelia Collins, Ugo Giachery] who in their capacity as members of the International Bahá’í Council, are closely associated with the rise and development of the institutions of the Faith at its World Center. . .” Why, one may well ask, did the Hands not realize it was now the International Bahá’í Council which had the right to exercise authority over its subordinate National Spiritual Assemblies throughout the world? For, had not Shoghi Effendi acclaimed the formation of this Council as “the most significant milestone in the evolution of the Administrative Order of the Faith” and stated as one of the reasons for making his historic decision to “at long last” establish this Institution had been “the present adequate maturity of nine vigorously functioning national administrative institutions.“? Therefore, the International Bahá’í Council—this “Nascent Institution“— was unquestionably the supreme legislative Institution in the Bahá’í Administrative Order, albeit in embryonic form, as, indeed, were the National Spiritual Assemblies, themselves (ultimately to be designated National Houses of Justice) and it was this International Council and not their man-made body—the so-called Custodian Hands—that the Hands had created outside the provisions of the Will and Testament that should have been permitted to exercise administrative authority over these national institutions. And this authority they had assumed in spite of the fact that the “obligations“ of the Hands according to that Testament are clearly not administrative at all but are “to diffuse the Divine Fragrances, to edify the souls of men, to promote learning, to improve the character of all men and to be, at all times and under all conditions, sanctified and detached from earthly things.“

Had the Hands permitted the International Bahá’í Council, as the embryonic Universal House of Justice to emerge from the inactive embryonic state in which it had been carefully maintained by Shoghi Effendi during his ministry and assume an active function as the supreme legislative institution of the Baha’i Administrative Order the following results may have taken place:

• It may have dawned on them that as the Head of the Universal House of Justice can only be the Guardian of the Faith and as Shoghi Effendi had appointed Mason Remey as the embryonic head of this embryonic Institution he was Shoghi Effendi’s appointed successor.
• They would have found further confirmation of this fact in remembering the following words of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá: “the embryo possesses from the first all perfections . . . all the powers—but they are not visible, and become so only by degrees.“
• They would have further taken note of the fact that Shoghi Effendi had never activated this Council as a functioning body during the remaining seven years of his ministry, as Rúhíyyih Khánum confirms in stating that “its members received their instructions from him individually” (cited on p. 323) And additionally he had appointed Rúhíyyih Khánum as the “chosen liaison” between himself and the Council (message of 8 March 1952) thus further precluding any semblance of the assumption of the Presidency, himself.
• With the foregoing in mind, they would have come to the inescapable conclusion that Mason Remey had been the embryonic second Guardian of the Faith awaiting birth, as it were, into active life upon Shoghi Effendi’s passing.
• They would then have certainly marvelled at how ingeniously Shoghi Effendi had appointed his successor “in his own life-time” as required under the terms of the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in such an unanticipated manner and so contrary to their preconceived ideas that, although this appointment had actually been announced openly, it had been purposely obscured by Shoghi Effendi to preclude the consternation and turmoil that would have certainly ensued if they had realized that Shoghi Effendi’s successor was to be a man more than twenty years his senior with the frightful, unthinkable, and unbelievable implications that were to be drawn from this fact.

Shoghi Effendi’s appointment of a successor had, therefore, remained unrecognized by all of the believers, during the concluding years of Shoghi Effendi’s ministry including even Mason Remey, himself, who alone, as the new-born Guardian of the Faith, finally came to this realization more than two years following the passing of Shoghi Effendi. It was only then, for the first time, that he perceived the connection between his appointment as President of the International Bahá’í Council and the Guardianship and realized that Shoghi Effendi had used this means to appoint him as his successor and, for this reason, only then proclaimed it to the Bahá’í world at Ridván 1960.

In the remaining pages of this review, statements made by Adib Teherzadeh will be quoted under the heading of “A.T. STATEMENT:” followed by “COMMENT” on the part of this writer.

A.T. STATEMENT: “All the believers turned to the Hands of the Cause of God, and every national and local Spiritual Assembly declared their loyalty to that body.”

COMMENT: Keeping in mind that the Bahá’í Administrative bodies throughout the world had been informed by the Hands following their first conclave in ‘Akká that “no successor to Shoghi Effendi could have been appointed by him”, it is understandable that these Assemblies certainly considered that they had no other place to turn and consequently, prior to the receipt of the proclamation of the second Guardian at Ridván 1960, the above statement is true with the single notable exception of the Local Spiritual Assembly of Lucknow, India, which in a statement dispatched to Haifa, dated 18 November 1958, comprising seven remarkable paragraphs declared its unshakeable faith in the essentiality, “unique power” and the “supreme authority” of the Guardian of the Faith and “resolved that the activities of this LSA be suspended til the appointment of the next Guardian of the Faith.’” And in a final paragraph reiterated: “L.S.A. Lucknow in animated suspense til the consecration of the Guardian on His vacant throne.“

However, Taherzadeh’s statement is not true following the receipt of Mason Remey’s Proclamation at Ridván 1960, a copy of which the National Spiritual Assembly of France was fortunate enough to directly receive. This writer can attest to the reaction of this National Assembly upon its receipt, having been President of that body at the time. As a result of considering the completely rational and valid statements presented in Mason Remey’s momentous Proclamation, and undertaking a careful restudy of pertinent writings, followed by prayer and due consultation, that Assembly, ignoring an edict that had been dispatched by the so-called Custodian Hands in Haifa to all NSA’s to reject him out of hand, voted to recognize Mason Remey as Shoghi Effendi’s rightfully appointed successor. As for the other NSA’s throughout the world, it is not known whether any of them received a copy of the Proclamation directly but Mason Remey had addressed his Proclamation to the National Bahá’í Convention convened in Wilmette, Illinois at Ridván 1960 in anticipation that the newly elected National Spiritual Assembly of the United States would distribute his Proclamation (written, of course, in English) to all of the National Spiritual Assemblies throughout the world which would then, when necessary to do so, translate it in the language of their respective countries and make distribution in turn to their Local Spiritual Assemblies. As this Proclamation was never distributed by the NSA of the United States or by the so-called Custodian Hands to other NSA’s due to their rejection of Mason Remey as the second Guardian of the Faith, the Bahá’ís at large throughout the world, with but a very few exceptions, never became apprized of the contents of Mason Remey’s Proclamation and therefore remained in complete ignorance of the explanations provided therein that completely validated his accession to the Guardianship. This situation has largely remained the same to this day, only changing recently to the extent that those comparatively few believers residing in countries where the personal ownership and use of computers has been possible and who have established links to the internet are able to read Mason Remey’s Proclamation for the first time and gain access to extensive information about the true facts concerning the continuation of the Guardianship from “Home Pages” posted on the internet in the name of the “Orthodox Bahá’í Faith.

A.T. STATEMENT: The greatest achievement of the Hands in this period [1957 -1963] is that they did not deviate a hair’s breath from the teachings and guidance of Shoghi Effendi” and that “they handed over the Cause of God, pure and unadulterated, to the elected body of the Universal House of Justice in 1963 . . .

COMMENT: It should be obvious to anyone who has read the material contained in the previous pages above that nothing could be further from the truth. For it is crystal clear that not only had the Hands (with the exception of one Hand) deviated from Shoghi Effendi’s writings but they actually had repudiated, in effect, everything that he had written about the essentiality of the Guardianship and the future irreplaceable role of the Guardian in the World Order of Bahá’u’lláh by their shameful abandonment of this Institution. And by what stretch of the imagination, in the light of this fact, could it be said that “they handed over the Cause of God, pure and unadulterated,” permanently mutilated as it had become, sans-Guardian, with the Institution of the Hands destined to die out and the future prospect of an illicitly established headless, deformed and fallible so-called Universal House of Justice acting as a substitute Head of the Faith?

A.T. STATEMENT: This period [from the passing of Shoghi Effendi until the election of their “Universal House of Justice” in 1963] witnessed the emergence of a new brand of Covenant-breakers, headed by Mason Remey, who had himself been appointed a Hand of the Cause of God and was one of the signatories of the first declaration of the Hands issued after the passing of Shoghi Effendi.

COMMENT: Of particular note in the above statement is Teherzadeh’s obviously purposeful omission of the fact that Mason Remey had been appointed by Shoghi Effendi not only as a Hand of the Cause (in the first contingent of twelve living Hands appointed on 24 December 1951) but more importantly had been appointed prior to that, in his historic Proclamation of 9 January 1951, as the President of the International Bahá’í Council—the embryonic Universal House of Justice. Although choosing to ignore the tremendous importance of Mason Remey’s appointment as the President of this Council, (not to mention its implications) he displays no appreciation whatsoever of the import of Shoghi Effendi’s Proclamation establishing an Institution acclaimed by him as “the most significant milestone in the evolution of the Administrative Order” of the Faith” as discussed earlier. It should be crystal clear, in view of the forgoing, that it is not Mason Remey, the unrecognized second Guardian of the Faith, who was the Covenant-breaker but ironically enough, Adib Taherzadeh, himself, who by his abandonment of the Guardianship has demonstrated his own lack of Faith in the indestructibility of that mighty Covenant and the immortality of “the Child of the Covenant”—the divinely-conceived Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá—the immutable provisions of which pertaining to the Guardianship, he would have the reader believe, have now become null and void. What is also apparent from his statement is that the Hands and the illicitly formed Universal House of Justice have come up with a perverted definition of Covenant-breaking so as to be able to accuse as Covenant-breakers those who steadfastly support the continuity of the Guardianship in conformity with the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, a Document which makes it very clear that loyalty to the Covenant is defined in no other terms but an undeviating loyalty to the “Center of the Cause” who is none other than the Guardian of the Cause of God. While Shoghi Effendi retained the exclusive right during his ministry of declaring a believer a Covenant-breaker the Hands of the Cause, in addition to the Guardian, will be authorized to exercise this authority in the future, at such time as may be determined to be appropriate by a future Guardian, (e.g. when the world-wide population of Bahá’ís has so greatly increased that it is impracticable for the Guardian alone to identify Covenant-breakers) as the Will and Testament states that: “so soon as they [the Hands] find anyone beginning to oppose and protest against the guardian of the Cause of God” they must cast him out from the congregation of Bahá and in no wise accept any excuse from him.“

It is therefore obvious that as the Guardianship of the Faith has come to an end for these sans-Guardian Bahá’ís, the “Center of the Cause” identified by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá as a term applying solely to the Guardian of the Cause of God is no longer applicable. They then have had to come up with a redefinition of the meaning of Covenant-breaking to accommodate this term to the man-made and disfigured administrative system they have substituted for the divinely-conceived Administrative Order delineated in the Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. Accordingly, they have perverted the meaning given to Covenant-breaking by applying this term to any believer who does not believe in the termination of the Guardianship and does not pledge loyalty to their so-called Universal House of Justice as a substitute Head of the Faith and Center of the Cause, a body which, although illicitly formed, headless and therefore incomplete, as previously pointed out, has also additionally arrogated unto itself the “powers,” the “authority,” the “rights and prerogatives” vested by the Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá solely in the Guardian of the Faith. In the light of this transgression, consider the following words of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá as found in His Testament: “what transgression is more grievous than attempting to destroy the Divine Edifice. breaking the Covenant, erring from the Testament, falsifying the Holy Text . . . “

A.T. STATEMENT: At that time [following the passing of Shoghi Effendi] there were some believers who thought that the Faith must always have a Guardian. This belief was partly due to the following statement by Shoghi Effendi in The Dispensation of Bahá’u’lláh: (Here he quotes a passage beginning on page 55 and ending on page 56 of the Fifth edition of this work printed in the U.S.A in 1947)

COMMENT: To support his position that the Guardianship has ended, Taherzadeh selects excerpts totalling not more than a page out of the more than 14 pages devoted by Shoghi Effendi in the Dispensation of Bahá’u’lláh to the subject of the “Administrative Order” with the obvious objective of showing that, although Shoghi Effendi’s writings, even in this brief excerpt, bear eloquent testimony to the essentiality of the Guardianship, there is a statement made by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá that Shoghi Effendi quoted which he seems to think bolsters his contention that, if there is no son to inherit the Guardianship, the termination of this Institution had been foreseen as a possibility by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá as He has stated in one of His Tablets that the hereditary principle “has been invariably upheld by the Law of God” and “In all the Divine Dispensations the eldest son hath been given extraordinary distinctions. Even the station of Prophethood hath been his birthright.“

If, however, the Guardian has no son or one endowed with the requisite qualifications specified in the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, consider the following statements made by Shoghi Effendi found on this same page which attest to the essentiality of the Guardianship to the World Order of Bahá’u’lláh and which he certainly would not have made if he shared Taherzadeh’s interpretation of the terms of the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá to so limit the choice of his successor as to consign the institution of the Guardianship to future certain extinction, which, indeed, Taherzadeh and those who think like him believe has already taken place only 36 years after the inception of the Administrative Order. In this same passage of the Dispensation that has been quoted by Taherzadeh one will find the following statements that attest to the essentiality of the Guardianship as stated by Shoghi Effendi:

“. . . these twin institutions [ i.e. the Guardianship and Universal House of Justice] of the Administrative Order should be regarded as divine in origin, essential in their functions and complementary in their aim and purpose.”

“Acting in conjunction with each other these two inseparable institutions administer its affairs, co-ordinate its activities, promote its interests, execute its laws and defend its subsidiary institutions.”

“Divorced from the institution of the Guardianship the World Order of Bahá’u’lláh would be mutilated . . .”

“Without such an institution the integrity of the Faith would be imperilled, and the stability of the entire fabric would be endangered . . . and the necessary guidance to define the sphere of the legislative action of its elected representatives would be totally withdrawn.“

A.T. STATEMENT: When it became clear that Shoghi Effendi had not appointed a successor to himself . . . some Bahá’ís . . . insisted that a second Guardian must be created. Mason Remey, an ambitious individual, became the candidate, and with constant encouragement by a few equally ambitious men he claimed in 1960 that he was the successor of Shoghi Effendi.

COMMENT: There has never been a more unjust statement made about a person than to accuse Mason Remey of being ambitious. Even if he had asked Rúhíyyih Khánum to confirm this accusation who had known him from the time of her youth she would certainly have refuted such a patently false accusation, whatever else she might have said about him. Had Mason Remey been ambitious the very last thing that he would have done is to have issued his Proclamation in 1960 at the advanced age of 86 informing the Bahá’í world of the unconventional manner in which he had inherited the Guardianship with the certain prospect that he would be immediately rejected, vilified and vehemently denounced not only by his fellow-Hands but by a majority of the believers, as well, who by this time had been thoroughly conditioned by the Hands to a sans-Guardian Faith. On the contrary, if he had been ambitious, he certainly would have desired that the organization that had been set up by the Hands following the passing of Shoghi Effendi be maintained in the status quo. He already occupied the highest and most prestigious position in the Faith having been appointed President of the International Baha’i Council, as already pointed out, even though the full significance of this appointment had not been perceived at the time, even by himself, as also previously discussed. Additionally, he had been appointed a Hand of the Cause in the first contingent of twelve Hands appointed by Shoghi Effendi in December 1951 and had, together with them, received world-wide exposure to the believers throughout the world and enjoyed from them unprecedented respect, notoriety and prestige as they had taken a prominent part in and had been appointed as Shoghi Effendi’s representatives at Intercontinental Conferences (a specific Hand being acting in this capacity at a particular Conference) that had been organized and convened according to the plans of Shoghi Effendi in various countries of the world as a part of the Ten Year Global Crusade inaugurated in 1953. Moreover, upon the passing of Shoghi Effendi his fellow-Hands had chosen him from their number to be one of the nine so-called “Custodians of the Faith” who, according to their plans, as already discussed, they had chosen to direct the affairs of the Faith until the election of a sans-Guardian Universal House of Justice scheduled to take place at Ridván 1963.

It had been while he was a member of the body of this so-called “Custodians of the Faith” in Haifa during a period of some two and a half years that he exhorted them on an almost daily basis not to repudiate the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá by abandoning the Guardianship, as recounted in detail in the Diary he maintained titled: “Daily Observations of the Bahá’í Faith Made to The Hands of the Faith in the Holy Land,” He also addressed three wonderfully written appeals to all of his fellow-Hands in which he made the same arguments against the abandonment of the Guardianship and in which he also reminded them of the fruitless verbal appeals he had made of the same nature during their yearly conclaves held in ‘Akká. Excerpts from one of these appeals attesting to this fact are quoted below:

“This appeal to the Hands of the Baha’i Faith I present here in a series of assertions treating of various aspects of my argument for the acceptance of the Guardianship of the Faith . . . The main arguments presented in this appeal I made in our second and third conclaves at Bahji but under the high emotional tension of those conferences I doubt if my thoughts got over.”

“You will remember the plea that I made before you one and all who were assembled in the second Bahji Conclave of the Hands of the Bahá ‘ í Faith in November 1958—my plea that for the safety and for the protection of our Faith that the office of the Guardianship of our Faith be wanted by us Hands of the Faith as much as possible—for the protection of our Faith

“This suggestion urged by me and by me alone before that conclave was turned down unitedly by the twenty four of the twenty five of us present standing firmly against considering the suggestions that I urged. “

“But rejected as my thoughts were then, nevertheless I feel that I must continue to urge this same stand for your reconsideration and present it again before our next or third Bahji Conclave of the Hands of the Faith. This conviction is so very strongly fixed within my mind and very soul that I can take no other stand although I stand thus singly and alone with the body of Hands against me.”

As they had turned a deaf ear to all of these exhortations and appeals, he knew full well the kind of reception he could expect to his Proclamation from these faithless Hands who had become by this time firmly entrenched in their new found authority and power and stubbornly convinced that the Guardianship of the Faith had forever ended. He was aware, too, of the massive opposition he would inevitably face and the rejection he could anticipate as the result of a campaign that they would surely launch against him to influence, as they in fact did, the National Spiritual Assemblies throughout the world, the Local Spiritual Assemblies, in turn, and the believers at large to reject his Proclamation out of hand. What conceivable ambition could he then have harbored knowing that as soon as he issued his Proclamation he could expect to face, in the few remaining years left to him, this overwhelming opposition, hostility and rejection on the part of the Hands, the administrative institutions of the Faith and most certainly the vast majority of the believers throughout the world. On the contrary, it took the greatest courage, a sublime devotion to and an unshakeable faith in the indestructible Covenant of Bahá’u’lláh and a supernal fidelity to the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá to take this lonely and unaided stand in proclaiming his Guardianship of the Faith, knowing, as he did so, that he would become a victim of the combined, massive and overwhelming forces that would certainly be marshalled and relentlessly arrayed against him.

For the benefit of those new believers unfamiliar with the meritorious services to the Faith of Mason Remey for half a century, let us consider some of his unsurpassed accomplishments since his acceptance of the Faith as a young man around the turn of the century when a student at the Beaux Arts in Paris. These services included the authorship, publication and distribution to libraries throughout the world of some of the earliest books written about the Faith, teaching endeavors undertaken in many countries of the world during his numerous trips on behalf of the Faith encircling the globe, the preparation of architectural designs of Bahá’í Temples that have been constructed in several countries throughout the world, the preparation of the architectural design for the Temple to be built in the future in Tihran, the preparation of architectural designs for the imposing and magnificent International Archives building erected on Mount Carmel and the Western Pilgrim House in Haifa for the accommodation of Bahá’í pilgrims, the preparation of the architectural design, as the chosen architect by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, of the Bahá’í Temple that is to be built in the future on Mount Carmel and finally his multiple services at the World Center of the Faith after his move to Haifa, where, in addition to being the President of the International Bahá’í Council, he was invariably called upon to be Shoghi Effendi’s representative at official State functions. He was unquestionably the most outstanding living male Hand of the Cause and it was obviously for this reason that Shoghi Effendi had requested Mason Remey to move to Haifa in 1950 from his home in Washington, D.C. , informed him that henceforth he was to make Haifa his permanent home and appointed him the President of the International Bahá’í Council in preparation for the future pre-eminent role he would play as Shoghi Effendi’s appointee. Certainly, no believer had been more highly eulogized by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá than Mason Remey. The following three excerpts chosen from the Tablets of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá will alone suffice to prove the blatant falsity of Taherzadeh’s statement as to his alleged ambition and attest to his exalted character:

“Praise be unto God, that the model of the Mashrekel Azkar made by Mr. Bourgeois was approved by his honor, Mr. Remey, and selected by the Convention. His honor, Mr. Remey is, verily of perfect sincerity. He is like unto transparent water, filtered, lucid and without any impurity. He worked earnestly for several years but he did not have any personal motive. He has not attachment to anything except to the Cause of God. This is the spirit of the firm and this is the characteristic of the sincere.” (Star of the West, Vol.11, No.9)

“O thou son of the Kingdom,

Thy letter was received . . . In brief, I am greatly pleased with thy conduct and thy behavior. Praise be to God, thou are freed from these limitations and imaginations, hast no purpose save the diffusion of the divine fragrances and art ever restless and active. Thou art day and night striving to hoist the resplendent banner and to cause the shining morn to illumine all regions. . . . (Star of the West, Vo1.11, No. 8)
“O thou who art rejoiced by the Divine Glad Tidings!

” . . . Verily I beseech God to make thee confirmed under all circumstances. Do not become despondent, neither be thou sad. ERE LONG, THY LORD SHALL MAKE THEE A SIGN OF GUIDANCE AMONG MANKIND.” (Caps added) (Star of the West, Vol.V, No.10)

A.T. STATEMENT: ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in His Will and Testament extolled Shoghi Effendi as the ‘Sign of God’ , the ‘Chosen Branch’, the blest and sacred bough that hath branched out from the Twin Holy Trees’, ‘the most wondrous, unique and priceless pearl that doth gleam from out the Twin surging seas’. Such a being was created by God especially to become the Guardian of the Cause, and his appointment was made by the Centre of the Covenant Himself. He was a descendent both of Bahá’u’lláh and of the family of the Báb. How could a few individuals who looked for leadership and sought power for their own selfish interests raise up a lesser man to the station of the Guardianship.

COMMENT: In the above statement Taherzadeh has chosen disconnected phrases from various paragraphs of the Will and Testament and linked them together in a single paragraph as though they were written this way in the original text of the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. Taherzadeh has done this in a nefarious effort to support his contention, completely at variance with the intent of the Will and Testament and everything Shoghi Effendi has written on the subject, that the Guardianship was an Institution that had its birth and death with Shoghi Effendi and that no individual other than Shoghi Effendi, who alone had been chosen by God to occupy this Institution, would ever be endowed in the future with the necessary exalted qualifications to occupy this Institution. Taherzadeh endeavors to further support this argument by changing ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s reference to Shoghi Effendi in His Will and Testament as the “sign of God” (“sign” translated with a lower case letter “s” by Shoghi Effendi in the 1944 edition of the Will) to “Sign of God” and, again, the term “the chosen branch” to “the Chosen Branch.”

Much more seriously Taherzadeh shows the same lack of understanding that the great majority of the believers also still have concerning the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in failing to realize that this Testament is unique and unlike any will that has been penned before. For, it does not refer solely to Shoghi Effendi as the one whom ‘Abdu’l-Bahá has appointed the first Guardian of the Cause of God and provide measures for the continuity of this Institution in which successive Guardians serve as the “chosen ministers of the Covenant of Bahá’u’lláh but, as well, in its opening pages refers to the spiritual relationship that binds ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, as the appointed “Center of the Covenant” to the “Lord of the Covenant” — Bahá’u’lláh — an appointment which, in turn, endowed Him with the authority to perpetuate this Covenant in his designation of the successive Guardians of the Faith as “the Center of the Cause” unto whom all must turn and from whom all must seek guidance.” As a result of this lack of understanding, Taherzadeh has quoted a passage in which ‘Abdu’l-Bahá actually refers to His own unique Station as “the primal branch” conferred upon Him by Bahá’u’lláh and has incorrectly interpreted this passage as applying to Shoghi Effendi. In doing this, he has failed to recall that in His “Last Tablet to America,” for example, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá has likened the Covenant of Bahá’u’lláh to a divinely planted Tree in referring to it as the “Tree of the Covenant.” In applying this analogy to the terms found in the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, “the root of the Blessed Tree” — “this Ancient Root” — is Bahá’u’lláh, whereas the “primal branch” (i.e. the trunk) of that Tree is none other than ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Himself — the Center of the Covenant — while the first offshoot — “the twig” or the “youthful branch” — grown out from this “primal branch,” is the first Guardian of the Faith, Shoghi Effendi, while successive future branches of this “primal branch” are the future Guardians of the Faith nourished (to continue the analogy) by the divine spiritual sap (divine guidance) that flows from this divinely implanted Root through its “primal branch” or Trunk (symbolically, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá) into the successive branches — Guardians of the Faith. Therefore, it should be clear in this analogy that there is a vast difference between the “primal branch” —the single and unique trunk of that Holy Tree — “The Most Great Branch,” ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Who has been uniquely and eternally linked with Bahá’u’lláh in the Station that has been conferred upon Him as the “Center of the Covenant,” and the twigs or youthful branches of that Tree. It is this Station of the Most Great Branch and not its offshoots that Abdu’l-Bahá understandably initially extols in the opening passages of His Testament, a Branch which Bahá’u’lláh has stated in referring to ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in the Suriy-i-Ghusn (Tablet of the Branch) “hath branched from this Ancient Root” and is a “shelter for all mankind.” It is this spiritual link that is then carried forward, between the “Most Great Branch,” ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, and the “sacred and youthful branch,” Shoghi Effendi, whose designation and appointment by Him as the Guardian of the Cause of God appears for the first time in the eleventh page of His Testament and is further perpetuated as long as the Dispensation of Bahá’u’lláh endures through His provision calling for the appointment by successive future Guardians of their successors.

A.T. STATEMENT: In His Will and Testament ‘Abdu’l-Bahá laid down the conditions that Shoghi Effendi’s successor must be either the ‘first born’ of the Guardian or another Ghusn (male descendent) of Bahá’u’lláh, and that the Hands of the Cause must give their assent to his choice. How could Mason Remey fulfil these conditions?

COMMENT: The erroneous interpretation of the provisions of the Will and Testament in which it is contended that the Guardian is restricted in his choice of a successor, as stated above, has been discussed earlier. Let us, therefore turn our attention to the last part of the above statement in which it is stated that the Hands must give their assent to this choice. In the first place this is a clear misstatement as the Will and Testament does not require all of the Hands to give their assent to the Guardian’s choice of a successor and secondly this provision also does not grant authority to the nine Hands, to which this provision applies, to veto this choice. The Will and Testament states:

“The Hands of the Cause of God must elect from their own number nine persons that shall at all times be occupied in the important services of the guardian of the Cause of God. The election of these nine must be carried either unanimously or by a majority from the company of the Hands of the Cause of God and these, whether unanimously or by a majority vote, must give their assent to the choice of the one whom the guardian of the Cause of God hath chosen as his successor. This assent must be given in such wise as the assenting and dissenting voices may not be distinguished (i.e. by secret ballot).”

It should be understood that Shoghi Effendi did not find it appropriate or timely to require the Hands to carry out this election of nine from their own number under the terms of the Will and Testament to serve under his direction in Haifa during his ministry. Developments at the World Center had not reached the stage where he needed the assistance of this body of nine Hands and consequently this body had never come into existence during his ministry. This provision of the Will and Testament will safeguard the appointment process in the future when the Guardian wields tremendous power and influence from the malevolent machinations of anyone or a group attempting to foist upon the Bahá’í world a false pretender to the Guardianship. This provision had, therefore, not been applicable when Shoghi Effendi appointed his successor through the instrumentality of the creation of the embryonic Universal House of Justice and the appointment of Mason Remey as its head or President. Shoghi Effendi, while not requiring the services of these nine Hands of the Cause at the World Center during his ministry, had required certain specific assistance during the last few years of his ministry and accordingly had requested Hands of the Cause, Mason Remey, Sutherland Maxwell and Leroy Ioas to reside permanently in Haifa to assist him in the important work involving such things as the construction of the superstructure of the Shrine of the Báb, the International Archives building and his relations with the Government of Israel. In any event, this provision of the Will and Testament concerning the assent of the nine Hands to the choice of the Guardian’s successor should not be misunderstood. The following statement from Shoghi Effendi, extracted from a letter addressed by him to the NSA of the United States, appearing on the front page of the Bahá’í News of the United States (No.288, Feb. 1955) clarifies the passage in question:

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

A.T. STATEMENT: It is interesting to note that, in a Tablet to the Hand of the Cause Mulla ‘Ali- Akbar, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá makes this important statement: (quoted by A.T on page 387 of his book)

. . . for ‘Abdu’l-Bahá is in a tempest of dangers and infinitely abhors differences of opinion . . . Praise be to God, there are no grounds for differences.

The Báb, the Exalted One, is the Morn of Truth, the splendour of Whose light shineth through all regions. He is also the Harbinger of the Most Great Light, the Abhá Luminary. The Blessed Beauty is the One promised by the sacred books of the past, the revelation of the Source of light that shone upon Mount Sinai, Whose fire glowed in the midst of the Burning Bush. We are one and all, servants of Their threshold and stand each as a lowly keeper at Their door.

My purpose is this, that ere the expiration of a thousand years, no one has the right to utter a single word, even to claim the station of Guardianship. The most Holy Book is the Book to which all peoples shall refer, and in it the Laws of God have been revealed. Laws not mentioned in the Book should be referred to the decision of the Universal House of Justice. There will be no grounds for difference . . . Beware, beware lest anyone create a rift or stir up sedition. [underlining added]

COMMENT: Taherzadeh has quoted this Tablet of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in an obvious effort to discredit Mason Remey’s claim to the Guardianship for it has been quoted immediately following the question he has raised about Mason Remey being able to fulfil the necessary conditions under the terms of the Will of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, as he sees them, to be appointed Shoghi Effendi’s successor. Surprisingly, in quoting this Tablet of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá which contains the phrase: “ere the expiration of a thousand years, no one has the right to utter a single word, even to claim the station of Guardianship” Taherzadeh becomes guilty of the following:

• Inferring that the term “Guardianship” found in this Tablet, written before the passing of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and the contents of His Will and Testament had been revealed, is the same Guardianship referred to in that sacred, immortal and immutable Document which, of course, it clearly is not. The Guardianship referred to in this quoted passage is one of the several stations from which the Manifestation of God makes His utterances and in this instance the term applies to Bahá’u’lláh for as Bahá’u’lláh, Himself, has revealed with reference to the Manifestations of God: “Thus it is that whatsoever be their utterance, whether it pertain to the realm of Divinity, Lordship, Prophethood, Messengership, Guardianship, Apostleship, or Servitude, all is true beyond a shadow of a doubt.” (underlining added)
• Actually placing ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in the position of ignoring His own injunction by illegitimately incorporating in His Will and Testament the Institution of Guardianship which, according to the interpretation Taherzadeh has placed on the above quoted Tablet, is an Institution which could be legitimately claimed only after the expiration of a thousand years. This fallacious argument used by Taherzadeh even invalidates Shoghi Effendi’s appointment as the first Guardian of the Cause of God as it took effect before the “expiration of a thousand years” and would equally apply to and invalidate appointments of all future Guardians, as well.
• Attempting to prove that because ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in this Tablet states that “Laws not mentioned in the Book should be referred to the decision of the Universal House of Justice.” that this institution is able to function without the Guardian as its essential “sacred head and the distinguished member for life” as delineated in the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá.

A.T. STATEMENT: Mason Remey’s efforts to form a following for himself failed miserably . . . The divinely-ordained instruments serving the Covenant of Bahá’u’lláh have been so strengthened today that efforts of this group of Covenant-breakers have become null and void, and the power of the Covenant has driven them into oblivion.

COMMENT: The recognition of the validity of Mason Remey’s accession to the Guardianship has not been driven into oblivion. On the contrary, more and more believers in several countries of the world, as they have become informed for the first time of the true facts surrounding his inheritance of the Guardianship, have not only recognized him as the second Guardian of the Faith duly appointed by Shoghi Effendi but have accepted his appointed successor as well. As for the “divinely ordained instruments” which Taherzadeh claims have been strengthened, this is certainly not the case when the “machinery of its highest institutions. . . the supreme organs of its unfolding Order“—[i.e. the Hands of the Cause and Universal House of Justice]—whose erection “at long last” in their embryonic form, which together with the Guardianship, Shoghi Effendi had hailed in his message of 30 June 1952, have all been destroyed under their substituted man-made organization. Once again, Taherzadeh has labelled as Covenant-breakers, applying the perverted meaning he has given to this term, to those believers who have remained loyal to the Guardian of the Faith—the “Center of the Cause”—as enjoined upon all believers under the terms of the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá.

A.T. STATEMENT: Concerning the statement by Shoghi Effendi quoted above: ‘Divorced from the institution of the Guardianship, the World Order of Bahá’u’lláh would be mutilated’, it must be emphasized that although there are no more Guardians after Shoghi Effendi, the institution of the Guardianship will always exist. . . . The institution of the Guardianship will always serve as a pillar supporting the mighty structure of the Administrative Order, regardless of whether the Guardian is living or not. . . . Thus, far from being divorced from the World Order of Bahá’u’lláh, the institution of the Guardianship plays a preponderating role now and for ever, in conjunction with the institution of the Universal House of Justice, in guiding and directing the Bahá’í community towards its ultimate goal . . .”

COMMENT: It may be noted that Taherzadeh changes the phrase written by Shoghi Effendi: “Divorced from the institution of the Guardianship. . . ” to “Divorced from the World Order of Bahá’u’lláh.” How totally at variance are Taherzadeh’s statements with all that Shoghi Effendi has written concerning the role of the Guardian in the World Order of Bahá’u’lláh and how transparently false the rationalization that Taherzadeh has employed in an effort to justify the continued existence of the Faith without a Guardian. Any future scholar who studies the Dispensation of Bahá’u’lláh written by Shoghi Effendi and his other works in which he defines the essential role of the Guardian in the World Order of Bahá’u’lláh will readily perceive that the Guardianship of the Faith, as delineated by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in His Will and Testament, is clearly an institution that must be occupied by a living Guardian and without the living Guardian—”the Center of the Cause,”—the World Order of Bahá’u’lláh can never become a reality and the Covenant of Bahá’u’lláh will have lost all meaning. If one reads the remaining statements of Shoghi Effendi contained in the paragraph of “The Dispensation of Bahá’u’lláh” from which Taherzadeh has quoted a single sentence they will note that Shoghi Effendi goes on to say that not only will the World Order of Bahá’u’lláh be mutilated without the institution of the Guardianship but that: “Without such an institution, the integrity of the Faith would be imperilled, and the stability of the entire fabric would be gravely endangered. Its prestige would suffer, the means required to enable it to take a long and uninterrupted view over a series of generations would be completely lacking, and the necessary guidance to define the sphere of the legislative action of its elected representatives would be totally withdrawn.“

Moreover, without a living Guardian, as previously discussed, the source of the exclusive right of interpretation of the Writings vested solely in the Guardian of the Faith under the terms of the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá is permanently lost and this distinguishing feature of the Faith which sets it apart from all of the Revelations of the past and which precludes the schisms that have inevitably plagued these Faiths from varying and conflicting interpretations of the revealed Word ceases to exist. Additionally, not only has Shoghi Effendi further emphasized the unique role that the Guardian plays in the Administrative Order by designating him as “the Guardian of the Administrative Order” but it is clear from the above quoted statement of Shoghi Effendi that he has defined the essential, unique and irreplaceable role that the Guardian exercises as the presiding head of the Universal House of Justice, a role that can only be performed by a living Guardian of the Faith. In view of the foregoing, it is crystal clear that no amount of rationalization will prove otherwise and that the Guardianship is not a function taken by Shoghi Effendi to the other world upon his passing or one to be carried on in perpetuity from that world.

A.T. STATEMENT: [ Quoted from a message that was sent to a believer by the so-called Universal House of Justice on 7 December 1969 which reads as follows:]

“Future Guardians are clearly envisaged and referred to in the Writings but there is nowhere any promise or guarantee that the line of Guardians would endure forever; on the contrary there are clear indications that the line could be broken.”

COMMENT: Based on what has already been written earlier the reader by this time will perceive that the above statement made by the so-called Universal House of Justice and quoted by Taherzadeh, in effect, repudiates the sacred, immutable and immortal provisions of the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and contradicts everything that Shoghi Effendi has ever written about the Guardianship and its future in the World Order of Bahá’u’lláh. If once the line of Guardians were to be broken as the so-called Universal House of Justice claims has been envisaged in the Writings, there is no way in which the Guardianship can be restored as only a Guardian can appoint his successor under the terms of the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. As they claim that Shoghi Effendi, whose ministry endured for thirty-six years, was the one and only Guardian of the Faith, there has not been a line of Guardians broken. Therefore, what they really should have stated is that once the Guardianship has ended, as they believe has already taken place with the passing of the very first Guardian of the Faith, the Guardianship can never be restored.

The so-called Universal House of Justice goes on in their letter, in an attempt to justify their ludicrous contention that a break in the line of Guardians had been foreseen, by quoting a passage from the Kitáb-i-Aqdas which states that the decision rests with the Aghsan as to the disposition of “endowments dedicated to charity” and “after them with the House of Justice.” They claim that as no mention has been made of the Guardian in this passage of the Aqdas (i.e. only the Aghsan and the House of Justice have been referred to) it is “One of the most striking passages which envisage the possibility of such a break in the line of Guardians.” Of course, there was no mention of the Guardianship in the Aqdas as this Institution was first formally established by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in His Will and Testament, a Document which Shoghi Effendi has stated is “complementary” to the Aqdas and was revealed only after His passing, Therefore, any quotation taken from the Aqdas to support the argument that it envisaged a break in the line of Guardians is clearly senseless and without any foundation whatsoever. In a further effort to support this groundless argument they have erroneously equated contributions made to Huqúqu’lláh (the Right of God) with “endowments dedicated to charity” both of which are mentioned in the Aqdas, the former being “offered through the guardian of the Cause of God” under the terms of the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-’Bahá. In QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS, an authoritative supplement to the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, the following question is posed to Bahá’u’lláh: “May a person in drawing up his will assign some portion of his property —beyond that which is devoted to payment of Huqúqu’lláh and the settlement of debts—to works of charity . . . ?” Bahá’u’lláh provides the following answer: “A person hath full jurisdiction over his property. If he is able to discharge the Huqúqu’lláh and is free of debt, then all that is recorded in his will, and any declaration or avowal it containeth, shall be acceptable.” Baháu’lláh’s statement reveals the utter falsity of equating endowments dedicated to charity with contributions to Huqúqu’lláh in a nefarious effort to use this substitution to support their obviously fallacious and ridiculous argument that, as no mention had been made of the Guardian of the Faith being a recipient of charitable contributions in the passage quoted from the Aqdas, it was indicative of the possibility of a break in the line of Guardians. (emphasis added)

A.T. STATEMENT: Before Mason Remey’s preposterous claim, the wisdom of the words of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in His Will and Testament that the Hands of the Cause of God ‘must give their assent to the choice of the one whom the guardian of the Cause of God hath chosen as his successor’ was not clear to many. But after Remey’s defection it became clear that this requirement was a means for protection of the Cause of God. If there was to be a successor to Shoghi Effendi, he needed the approval of the Hands, and Mason Remey did not have this.

COMMENT: The utter falsity of the above argument has been pointed out previously but it would be well to reiterate that Taherzadeh, in quoting a passage from the Will and Testament, has deliberately omitted that portion of the text of the Will that stipulates that it is only the nine Hands “occupied in the important services in the work of the Guardian” at the World Center who have been elected from their own number that “must give their assent” to the Guardian’s choice of a successor and not the entire body of Hands. Also, as previously pointed out, Shoghi Effendi had not deemed it timely to have the Hands carry out this election during his ministry and therefore this provision of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s Will and Testament will only be applicable and be implemented during the lifetime of a future Guardian when these nine Hands are resident in Haifa and whose assent, in any case, must of necessity, be given prior to his passing and not after his passing. It should be obvious that if such assent by these nine Hands was withheld following the passing of a future Guardian it would mean the end of the Guardianship. This is further evidence that the Guardian must appoint and make known his successor prior to his passing as stipulated by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in His Will and Testament and not by testamentary document which was faithfully done by Shoghi Effendi but, for the reasons previously pointed out, made in such a manner that this appointment was not recognized by the Bahá’í world at the time of his passing and subsequent thereto because of preconceived ideas, misinterpretations of the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and an immediate shameless loss of faith in the sacredness, immutability and immortality of that “Divine Masterpiece which the hand of the Master-builder of the world has designed for the unification and triumph of the world-wide Faith of Bahá’u’lláh.“

A.T. STATEMENT: In 1961 the Hands of the Cause arranged for the election of the International Bahá’í Council, the forerunner of the Universal House of Justice. . . The International Bahá’í Council, whose members had been appointed by the Guardian was now transformed into an elected body.

COMMENT: Taherzadeh has completely ignored the Proclamation of Shoghi Effendi of 9 January 1951 in which he had proclaimed the “formation of the first International Bahá’í Council” as an “historic decision marking the most significant milestone in the evolution of the Administrative Order of the Faith of Bahá’u’lláh” since the passing of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and makes only a brief passing mention above to its projected transformation into an elected body as he proceeds immediately to quote passages from a message from the Hands of the Cause calling for the election of the Universal House of Justice by National and Regional Assemblies during the first three days of Ridván, 1963 at a convention to be convened in the Holy Land. What has been ignored by Taherzadeh is that Shoghi Effendi’s message of 9 January 1951 (which had not been recognized as a Proclamation, even though its opened with the word: “Proclaim“) had identified four stages through which the International Bahá’í Council would evolve from its embryonic stage into maturity as the Universal House of Justice. These four stages in the development of “this first embryonic International Institution” following its emergence from its embryonic state, were: “its development into officially recognized Bahá’í Court, its transformation into duly elected body, its efflorescence into Universal House of Justice, and its final fruition through creation of manifold auxiliary institutions constituting the World Administrative Center . . . .“

It may be seen from the above, that the decision made by the Hands to hold the election of this body in 1961 (which incidentally Taherzadeh has incorrectly stated on page 324 of his book was the projected second stage in the development of the International Council rather than the third) preceding its evolutionary transformation into an International Bahá’í Court was considerably premature according to the plans of Shoghi Effendi as he had stated in a follow-up message of 25 April 1951 to his Proclamation of 9 January 1951 that the establishment of the “Bahá’í Court” was an “essential prelude to the institution of the Universal House of Justice” This International Bahá’í Court would then exercise jurisdiction over six National Bahá’í Courts which would be established in six countries, specified by Shoghi Effendi to be accomplished by Ridván 1963 under the goals of the Ten year Global Crusade (1953-1963) where the application of Bahá’í Laws to adherents of the Faith in those countries would be contingent upon official governmental recognition of these National Bahá’í Courts. The transformation of this Court into its third stage as an “elected body” remained a goal to be achieved in the future while the further transformation of this body into its final stage as the Universal House of Justice necessarily remained a goal to be achieved in the more distant future. Its election as the so-called Universal House of Justice as early as 1963 has therefore not permitted the gradual essential evolutionary development of this institution in the manner projected by Shoghi Effendi and its establishment has been premature and obviously contrary to the objectives set forth by Shoghi Effendi in his Proclamation, not to mention that it was established as a headless body (i.e. without the Guardian) and therefore was not the Institution delineated by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in His Testament.

With reference to the second stage in the evolutionary development of the International Bahá’í Council as the International Bahá’í Court, the development of the International Council was discussed by Shoghi Effendi at the dinner table on the same evening that he alluded to the imminence of his passing, as enumerated earlier. When Shoghi Effendi mentioned the second stage of its evolution as the International Court, my Haifa notes of 30 November 1952 record that he stated:

“THE PRESIDENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL BAHA’I COUNCIL WILL THEN BECOME THE JUDGE (THE GUARDIAN IN AN ASIDE TO MASON AND WITH A SMILE ASKED: ‘MASON ARE YOU READY TO BECOME A JUDGE ? ) ’ “

Both the statement made by Shoghi Effendi above in the presence of Rúhíyyih Khánum and six other members of the International Bahá’í Council seated at the table that evening and the question he directed to Mason Remey, the President of that Council were of the greatest significance as they revealed the following:

• That Shoghi Effendi intended that Mason Remey who was the embryonic head of the embryonic Universal House of Justice would become the active head or Chief Judge of the International Bahá’í Court when the present International Council emerged from its inactive embryonic state as a functioning body, in which it was then maintained and entered the second stage of its development as an actively functioning Court.
• That as the International Bahá’í Court would inevitably be involved in passing judgement upon and determining the legality of such subsidiary laws as might be required to supplement the immutable Laws revealed by Bahá’u’lláh in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, this is a function which would, of necessity, involve interpretation, a function that is the sole prerogative of the Guardian of the Faith and the vital and essential one which he is called upon to perform as the sacred Head of the Universal House of Justice.
• That the Chief Judge of the International Bahá’í Court can be none other than the Guardian of the Faith.
• That as Shoghi Effendi had clearly indicated Mason Remey would be the Chief Judge of the International Bahá’í Court he was informing us, albeit indirectly, that Mason Remey was his appointed successor which, however, did not register in our minds as we failed, including even Mason Remey, himself, to perceive the tremendous significance of his words, a failure which Shoghi Effendi had certainly forseen and expected, because of our erroneously held belief, of which he was certainly aware, that his successor would be named in a testamentary document.

There can be no more fitting conclusion to this critique than to quote the following excerpt from Shoghi Effendi’s writings found in The Dispensation of Bahá’u’lláh in which he has given us such a magnificent description of the divine origin of the Will and Testament of ’Abdu’l-Bahá and in which he has emphasized so clearly the joint Authorship of this divinely-conceived, immortal and immutable Document whose provisions are to be considered a part of the explicit Holy Text and therefore, similarly to the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, destined to endure and be applicable for no less than a full thousand years:

“The creative energies released by the Law of Bahá’u’lláh, permeating and evolving within the mind of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, have, by their very impact and close interaction, given birth to an Instrument which may be viewed as the Charter of the New World Order which is at once the glory and promise of this most great Dispensation. The Will may thus be acclaimed as the inevitable offspring resulting from that mystic intercourse between Him Who communicated the generating influence of His divine Purpose [Bahá’u’lláh] and the One Who was its chosen recipient [‘Abdu’l-Bahá]. Being the Child of the Covenant —the Heir of both the Originator and the Interpreter of the Law of God—The Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá can no more be divorced from Him Who supplied the original and motivating impulse than from the One Who ultimately conceived it.”

How is it possible for anyone who is a faithful believer in the Revelation of Bahá’u’lláh, who claims to believe in the indestructibility of His mighty and resistless Covenant and who professes fidelity to both the Center of His Covenant and to the Guardianship as the “Center of the Cause” be so lacking in faith since the passing of Shoghi Effendi as to believe that the divinely-conceived “Child of the Covenant” has already died an early death, that the glorious “Charter of the New World Order” has become a dead letter and that “the Administrative Order which the master-hand of its perfect Architect has fashioned” in all of its perfection and glory and founded on “God’s immutable Purpose for mankind in this day” will now never become a reality?

 

Joel Bray Marangella

Third Guardian of the Bahá’í Faith
21 March, 1998

Note: Bold type has been used where considered desirable for emphasis

Critique of ITC Study of Guardianship & UHJ – Part Two

This is part Two of a Critique by Hand of Cause of God David Maxwell of A Study for Auxiliary Board Members of the Guardianship & The Universal House of Justice Prepared by the International Teaching Centre (of the heterodox Bahá’ís).
Click here to read: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3| Part 4 | Part 5| Part 6

HOW AUTHORITATIVE IS YOUR INTERPRETER?

ITC Position:

Individual interpretations based on a person’s understanding of the Teachings constitute the fruit of man’s rational power and may well contribute to a more complete understanding of the Faith. Such views, however, lack authority. The believers are, therefore, free to accept or disregard them. Further, the manner in which an individual presents his interpretation is important. For example, he must at no time deny or contend with the authoritative interpretation, but rather offer his idea as a contribution to knowledge, making it clear that his views are merely his own. (5)

Critique:

Preposterous! The reader will note that in the first sentence of the above paragraph, the word *Teachings* is capitalized. It is customary in the Bahá’í Faith that any time capitalization is used in describing the Writings, that particular passage is recognized to be from the pen of one the Three Central Figures. While the ITC says that “...Such views (of the believers), however, lack authority,” they encourage the believers to continue doing so. Now, why should the believers be encouraged to read and perhaps question the Holy Writings and retain those ideas rather than to be encouraged to search the Writings further for additional enlightenment that may lead to a correct understanding of issues? A truly enlightened Bahá’í knows that Holy Writ is simply that, and may never be questioned. However, she is entitled to present her question to the one authorized by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá to correctly answer the question. When a passage in the Writings seems perplexing, that believer should be entitled to have the auspices of the Institution of the Guardianship to correctly answer the question. The audacity of the bogus UHJ to deny their believers that right smacks of denial of the Faith itself, since those Writings are Holy Writ and carry the direction of God Himself! Only a guardian who is alive on this earth may interpret those Writings. Only a legitimate Universal House of Justice with a living-breathing guardian residing as its head may in any manner establish policy on any of those Writings.

What the bogus Universal House of Justice is promoting is that their authority transcends the authority of Bahá’u’lláh, and thus, God Himself!

No wonder there is confusion among the heterodox Bahá’ís who reject the Institution of the Guardianship as the Center of the Cause in this day. The bogus UHJinvites them to accept whatever each individual decides the Writings say to them, but they may not promote those ideas as “gospel” truth. After an individual comes to his/her own conclusion, they must ultimately turn to the bogus UHJ for the “final word” about the Teachings. It appears that the UHJ must continually fabricate some reason or other as to why they have no living guardian. With effort being consumed for merely justifying their position one wonders whether any time is available for promoting the Faith?

How much simpler the Orthodox Baha’is have it. Everything they read from the Holy Writings fits perfectly with everything else they read. They never have to ask about perceived differences among the Holy Books. They read for themselves, and turn to the Guardian for guidance only when they read something that they are not clear about. They never have to argue away anything. The living Guardian is their ultimate one-and-only- God-inspired authority. The Guardian considers each facet of any Holy Writing within the context of all the other Holy Writings for the basis of his pronouncements.

While the Guardian relies upon the entire context and scope of the available information,the bogus UHJ has to pick and choose among available segments for whatever they
believe will justify their position on any issue at any particular time. The process that the bogus UHJ demands of their believers, and it is my understanding that demand is the correct word, smacks in the face of one of the basic principles of the Faith, *the independent investigation of truth.* Humans are commanded by Bahá’u’lláh to search Holy Writ themselves (such Writings as written by the Three Central Figures of the Faith) to become educated in the ways and precepts of their Faith. Gleaning from the fount of knowledge of Holy Writ, being continually in its presentation and acting in conformance with that is the only manner in which a mature civilization may optimally function. How confusing to a believer it must be when an answer she receives may not fit with what she reads from the Writings the very next day. Is that not like being taught that two plus two equals five, then finding information in the Writings that postulates, just as you suspected, that two plus two equals four, rather than five?

The primary reason for there not being clergy in the Bahá’í Faith is that humans must now learn for themselves from the Holy Writings, and then apply that knowledge accordingly. The beauty of the Faith is that a means to reach pure understanding is always available to them. This is an essential blessing of these Teachings. Have not the sans-guardian believers elevated the members of their bogus House of Justice to the station of clergy, even though they do not classify them as such?

ITC Position:
What conditions did ‘Abdu’l-Bahá set for the appointment of the Guardian after Shoghi Effendi?

1. Must be hereditary
In His Will and Testament the Master “establishes the institution of the Guardianship as a hereditary office” (6) He does so with these words: [A]fter him will succeed the firstborn of his lineal descendants. (7)

In numerous instances, Shoghi Effendi states categorically that the Guardianship is a hereditary office. Below are two such examples: [I]n the explanation which ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, in one of His Tablets, has given to, and the emphasis He has placed upon, the hereditary principle and the law of primogeniture as having been upheld by the Prophets of the past-in these we can discern the faint glimmerings and discover the earliest intimation of the nature and working of the Administrative Order which the Will of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá was at a later time destined to proclaim and formally establish. (8)

Moreover, he who symbolizes the hereditary principle in this Dispensation has been made the interpreter of the words of its Author . . . .(9)

Critique:

It is interesting that the ITC mentions that the hereditary principle is symbolized by the guardian, (and not the other way around.) While the statement they cite is absolutely true as written, the bogus UHJ has *interpreted* it to mean otherwise. Those words from the “World order of Bahá’u’lláh” page 153, are so clear as to not be open for interpretation. Had there been some other *hidden* meaning, no doubt the author of that statement, the First Guardian, would have told us so. He did not. It states that the guardian symbolizes the hereditary principle, but mentions nothing about it being a part of the authorization process for becoming guardian in the first place. Various conditions outlined in the Will are intended for that. After satisfying the check-list in the Will, then and only then, does the new guardian become the symbol of the hereditary principle.

ITC Position:
2. Must be a male descendant of Bahá’u’lláh

In accordance with the hereditary principle, the Will and Testament of the Masterstipulates that the Guardian must be a lineal descendent of Bahá’u’lláh.

‘Abdu’l-Bahá wrote:

Thus, should the first-born of the guardian of the Cause of God not manifest in himself the truth of the words:-“The child is the secret essence of its sire,” that is, should he not inherit of the spiritual within him (the guardian of the Cause of God) and his glorious lineage not be matched with a goodly character, then must he, (the guardian of the Cause of God) choose another branch to succeed him. (10)

The terms “first-born of the Guardian” and “another branch” [In Arabic Ghusn meaning “branch” is the singular form of Aghsán which means “branches”] show that Shoghi Effendi was directed to appoint either his eldest son or, if he was unqualified, another male descendant of Bahá’u’lláh This is consistent with Shoghi Effendi’s statement that the term Aghsán “refers to Bahá’u’lláh’s descendants.” (11)

However, Shoghi Effendi had no children and by the time he had passed away “all the surviving Aghsán had broken the Covenant.” (12)

Critique:

The International Teaching Centre uses a paragraph obviously written by someone other than Shoghi Effendi, from a book of his authorship (the phraseology used is not in conformance with that typically found in Shoghi Effendi’s writings.) Additionally, the statement is in conflict with one that Shoghi Effendi obviously wrote at another time. The statement they use is from (reference 11) The Bahá’í Publishing Trust, Lights of Guidance, 4th rev. 1996, 2001 printing page 472, #1548. Read it for yourself:

ITC Position:

25 September 1934

Dear Dr. Mühlschlegel,

I am directed by the Guardian to acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated August 29th, and to express his appreciation of your highly-valued efforts for the translation of the “Kitáb-i-‘Ahd” into German. He hopes that copies of this precious tablet will soon be made available to all the friends, and that through its study their knowledge of the Teachings will be deepened, and their zeal for their spread stimulated and sustained.

The term “afnán” means literally small branch, and refers to the relatives of the Báb,both men and women. As the Báb’s only son died while in infancy, the former had no direct descendants. The “afnán” are, therefore, all indirectly related to the Báb. As to “aghsán”, it also means branch. But it is a bigger branch than “afnán”. It refers to Bahá’u’lláh’s descendants.

The “Kitáb-i-‘Ahd” is, as you know, Bahá’u’lláh’s “Book of Covenant”. It is entirely written in His own handwriting.

And in the light of the objections raised by some of the believers concerning the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, it is highly significant to note that this Book of Covenant of Bahá’u’lláh bears neither signature, nor seal, nor any date. It was shown to the believers, and was read in their presence nine days after Bahá’u’lláh’s ascension. The manuscript was in the possession of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá all through His ministry, and after His passing it was found enclosed in His own will. These two precious documents, namely the book of Covenant of Bahá’u’lláh and the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá have both been carefully preserved and are now in the possession of the Guardian….

[From the Guardian:]

Dear and valued co-worker:

I greatly value these fresh evidences of your continued, your intelligent and most helpful labours for a better understanding and a wider diffusion of the essentials and fundamentals of our beloved Faith.

You are indeed a pillar of the Administrative Order, which, despite the storms and tests of recent years, is rearing its head in the heart of your beloved and promising country.

Persevere, be happy and confident. I will continue to pray for you from the depths of  my heart.

Your true and grateful brother,

Shoghi

— Shoghi Effendi, The Light of Divine Guidance (Volume 1)

Critique:

Upon reading the above segment, clearly written by two different individuals, please direct your attention to the following from Shoghi Effendi’s book, “God Passes By,” page 239, wherein he clearly describes the Aghsán as the sons of Baha’u’llah:

“…and directs, in particular, the Aghsán (His sons) to ponder the “mighty force and the consummate power that lieth concealed in the world of being.” He bids them, moreover, together with the Afnán (the Báb’s kindred) and His own relatives, to “turn, one and all, unto the Most Great Branch (‘Abdu’l-Bahá)”; identifies Him with “the One Whom God hath purposed,” “Who hath branched from this pre-existent Root,” referred to in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas; ordains the station of the “Greater Branch” (Mírzá Muhammad-‘Alí) to be beneath that of the “Most Great Branch” (‘Abdu’l-Bahá); exhorts the believers to treat the Aghsán with consideration and affection; counsels them to respect His family and relatives, as well as the kindred of the Báb; denies His sons “any right to the property of others”; enjoins on them, on His kindred and on that of the Báb to “fear God, to do that which is meet and seemly” and to follow the things that will “exalt” their station; warns all men not to allow “the means of order to be made the cause of confusion, and the instrument of union an occasion for discord”; and concludes with an exhortation calling upon the faithful to “serve all nations,” and to strive for the “betterment of the world.”

While it is true, technically, that the sons of Bahá’u’lláh are included in His descendants, why does the bogus UHJ rank as more important a statement made by one of Shoghi Effendi’s assistants, rather than one made by Shoghi Effendi himself? Particularly when Shoghi Effendi’s statement is more definitive than the one used by the bogus UHJ?

This concludes Part Two of the Critique.

This is part Two of a Critique by Hand of Cause of God David Maxwell of A Study for Auxiliary Board Members of the Guardianship & The Universal House of Justice Prepared by the International Teaching Centre (of the heterodox Bahá’ís).
Click here to read: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3| Part 4 | Part 5| Part 6

Critique of ITC Study on Guardianship and UHJ – Part Four

This is part Four of a Critique by Hand of Cause of God David Maxwell of A Study for Auxiliary Board Members of the Guardianship & The Universal House of Justice Prepared by the International Teaching Centre (of the heterodox Bahá’ís).
Click here to read: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3| Part 4 | Part 5| Part 6

WAS THERE REALLY NO WAY TO APPOINT A SUCCESSOR?

ITC Position:

Soon after it was established, the Universal House of Justice clarified the issue in a message dated 6 October 1963 to all National Spiritual Assemblies: After prayerful and careful study of the Holy Texts bearing upon the question of the appointment of the successor to Shoghi Effendi as Guardian of the Cause of God, and after prolonged consideration of the views of the Hands of the Cause of God residing in the Holy Land,the Universal House of Justice finds that there is no way to appoint or to legislate to make it possible to appoint a second Guardian to succeed Shoghi Effendi. (21)

Critique:

The bogus Universal House of Justice nailed this one. There is no way that they could appoint or legislate a guardian; only a guardian can do that.

ITC Position:

Was it anticipated that there would be no future Guardians?
Writing on the question of future Guardians, the Universal House of Justice has explained that there was no guarantee of the continuation of the line of Guardians: Future Guardians are clearly envisaged and referred to in the Writings, but there is nowhere any promise or guarantee that the line of Guardians would endure forever; onthe contrary there are clear indications that the line could be broken.

Critique:

Irrelevance, irrelevance, irrelevance. This paragraph is irrelevant to the issue at hand. True to form, the bogus UHJ uses bits and pieces of unrelated snips from various writings to justify their stance. They say there was a hinted-at possibility that the guardianship would not last forever. That may be true, the guardianship may not last forever. However, they say nothing about the issue at hand, the 1,000 year Dispensation of Bahá’u’lláh’. The Institution of the Guardianship will endure with a succession of living guardians for the remainder of this Dispensation.

ITC Position:

Yet, in spite of this, there is a repeated insistence in the Writings on the indestructibility of the Covenant and the immutability of God’s Purpose for this Day. (22)

Indeed in the Most Holy Book, Bahá’u’lláh’ reveals the following passage which anticipated precisely what actually occurred regarding the successorship of the authority of the Cause of God:

Endowments dedicated to charity revert to God, the Revealer of Signs. None hath the right to dispose of them without leave from Him Who is the Dawning-place of Revelation. After Him, this authority shall pass to the Aghsán, and after them to the House of Justice-should it be established in the world by then-that they may use these endowments for the benefit of the Places which have been exalted in this Cause,and for whatsoever hath been enjoined upon them by Him Who is the God of might and power. Otherwise, the endowments shall revert to the people of Bahá who speak not except by His leave and judge not save in accordance with what God hath decreed in this Tablet-lo, they are the champions of victory betwixt heaven and earth-that they may use them in the manner that hath been laid down in the Book by God, the Mighty, the Bountiful. (23)

In the explanatory notes to the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, prepared under the supervision of the Universal House of Justice, it is pointed out that this passage “has particular implications . . . For the succession of authority following the passing of Bahá’u’lláh. . . and of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá.” (24) In connection with this section of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas the House of Justice has also written: The passing of Shoghi Effendi in 1957 precipitated the very situation provided for in this passage, in that the line of Aghsán ended before the House of Justice had been elected. (25)

Critique:

The ITC, and in fact most heterodox Baha’is, insist that the lineage of the Aghsán plays a significant part in guardian successorship. As shown in the above two paragraphs, it is inferred that at one time the Aghsán were available for appointment to the guardianship.

Laying aside what the ITC and the UHJ have to say about Aghsán, let us examine the thoughts of both ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi. (It goes without saying that In a Court of Law, both of their opinions would be viewed as expert testimony, well beyond that of the contemporary ITC and UHJ individual membership.)

Shoghi Effendi identified the Aghsán as the sons of Bahá’u’lláh (“God Passes By” page 239) and therefore the contemporaries of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. They would never have lived beyond the ministry of Shoghi Effendi and been eligible, even if loyal, for appointment as his successor. Aside from this fact, it may be noted that whereas in Part One of the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, (p.11 of the edition, “Issued by National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is of the United States and Canada, 1944, from text received at 104 Wall Street, New York, February 25, 1922, addressed by the Guardian to ‘The beloved of God and the handmaids of the Merciful throughout the United States of America and Canada,'”) it states: “It is incumbent upon the members of the House of Justice, upon all the Aghsán, the Afnán, the Hands of the Çause of God to show their obedience, submissiveness and subordination unto the guardian of the Cause of God…”

In Part Three of the Will (p.25), written at a later date, it states: “For he [Shoghi Effendi] is after ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, the guardian of the Cause of God, the Afnán, the Hands (pillars) of the Cause and the beloved of the Lord must obey him and turn unto him.” It may be noted that significantly the Aghsán have been conspicuously omitted in this subsequent part of the Will as they obviously had already by that time become disloyal.

Yet, upon the passing of Shoghi Effendi, the Hands in their proclamation of November 25, 1957, (as recorded in the book “The Ministry of the Custodians”) claimed as the single reason why “no successor to Shoghi Effendi could have been appointed by him” was because “The Aghsán (branches) one and all are either dead or have been declared violators of the Covenant.” As this disloyalty had occurred prior to the ministry of Shoghi Effendi, and if it were true, as they erroneously claim, that their disloyalty had now precluded his naming a successor, they should have been asked why then would Shoghi Effendi, certainly aware of this, have still written all that he did so copiously about the Guardianship and its continuance and its essentiality to the World Order of Bahá’u’lláh in his writings and messages?

Beyond those significant and “deal-closing” facts, I must admit that I have never understood the logic of the bogus UHJ using the Endowments Dedicated to Charity and the Huqúq’u’lláh to justify their position as being the central authority of the Bahá’í Faith.They use the Most Holy Book, the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, to give credence to their twisted intent. Yes, the line of the Aghsán had ended, but that had no direct impact upon the formation of a Universal House of Justice. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá had already anticipated and taken care of that in His Will. The Will and Testament has many facets, one of which describes what could happen if an Aghsán was not available for succession to the guardianship. (Could it not be that is precisely why ‘Abdu’l-Bahá included that in His Will? Although it is so very obvious now, He knew the likelihood of the availability of the Aghsán was to be either a non-issue or not very likely?) ‘Abdu’l-Bahá further discusses that another branch may be chosen under certain circumstances, not that the UHJ may be formed first, and then afterwards anoint itself to be the center of authority. The Will of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá stipulates in great detail the manner in which a proper UHJ must be structured in order for it to be the Universal House of Justice envisioned by Bahá’u’lláh. It clearly tells of the essentiality of the guardian of the Cause of God to provide the proper conduct of its responsibilities. Nowhere in any of the Holy Writings does it discuss that a UHJ may exist absent a living guardian. Quite the contrary, the Institution of the Guardianship is such an elemental factor in the activities of the Administrative Order that should there be a time that there is no living guardian, the wheels will immediately fall off, and the carcass of the Faith will turn to dust.

The Kitáb-i-Aqdas refers to endowments dedicated to charity as well as Huqúq’u’lláh, the fixed money offering (the right of God.) However, it discusses them in two separate categories. The Huqúq’u’lláh is the right of God, to be managed within the offices of the guardian of the Cause, while endowments dedicated to charity is in the responsibility of the UHJ. They comprise two separate categories, yet the bogus UHJ manages them both and apparently combines them into one category.

The Huqúq’u’lláh was not intended to be involved in guardianship succession. I am reminded of an obnoxious slogan used by a noted politician in the United States during his successful presidential campaign: “It’s the economy, stupid!” Unfortunately, I find parallels of that within the approach the bogus UHJ uses in the justification of their House of Justice. Any aspect of the handling of monetary issues smacks of materialism; money is the fuel of materialism. Materialism is the antithesis of spirituality. Spirituality is the foundation of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas. It is no accident that monetary issues, Huqúq’u’lláh and the endowments dedicated to charity are discussed within the Holy pages of the book of laws. How else will humans learn to overcome their materialistic bent?

The bogus Universal House of Justice uses the spiritually charged Kitáb-i-Aqdas, with its mantle of spirituality, to give credence to their use of its words to justify their existence.

The problem with that is that the instruction they cling to was intended for the handling of monetary matters; materialism. I daresay that protection from an avenue that can lead to the peril and decay that materialism has brought to our present society definitely has a place in the Aqdas. It is the pinnacle of irony that the bogus UHJ has to resort to a matter of discussion dealing with materialistic overtones and twist its intent, for the foundation of their supposedly spiritual Universal House of Justice.

The primary element that is missing in all the activities of the bogus Universal House of Justice is the element of connectivity with the Holy Spirit, the Divine Linkage with God.

God’s Covenant with humans has always been in the forefront of any religious thought and authenticity. The Ark of the Covenant is often emphasized in the hereditary lineage of the religion. In any case, it is a given that a proper lineage is necessary in order that an effective adherence to God’s Law may be realized. History tells us that this is the one element of any revelation that becomes almost immediately flawed with the passing of the Prophet, and thus has led to murky or corrupted lines of succession.

The most distinguishing feature of the Bahá’í Faith is that for the first time, humans were left with a clearly defined path to follow in order that the hereditary lineage to the All Knowing would be ensured. It logically follows that the avenue of the lineage must follow certain tests in order to be valid. The Will and Testament provides the touchstone for that to happen. If every Sacred Clause of the Will is not satisfied, there is most certainly error involved in whatever results are generated.

Do you follow every Sacred Clause of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s Will and Testament? One of the conditions of the Will is that a guardian must appoint his successor during his lifetime. Shoghi Effendi did that. In fact, every action performed by Shoghi Effendi was in compliance with the Will. Since the connection with the Holy Spirit flows through that Institution, it is absolutely necessary for the guardian’s pronouncements to be followed.

One of the requirements that Shoghi Effendi called an essential prelude to the establishment of the House of Justice was that a system of six national Bahá’í Courts be established in the chief Islámic Eastern cities of Tihrán, Cairo, Baghdád, New Delhi, Karachi, and Kabul. In discussing the activities of the duties of the members of his International Bahá’í Council, he related: “…To these will be added further functions in course of evolution of this first embryonic International Institution, marking its development into officially recognized Bahá’í Court, its transformation into duly elected body, its efflorescence into Universal House of Justice, and its final fruition through erection of manifold auxiliary institutions constituting the World Administrative Center destined to arise and function and remain permanently established in close neighborhood of Twin Holy Shrines.”  — Shoghi Effendi, Messages to the Bahá’í World: 1950-1957 pages 7, 8

Process of the unfoldment of the ever-advancing Administrative Order accelerated by the formation of the International Bahá’í Council designed to assist in the erection of the superstructure of the Báb’s Sepulcher, cement ties uniting the budding World Administrative Center with the recently established state, and pave the way for the formation of the Bahá’í Court, essential prelude to the institution of the Universal House of Justice.  — Shoghi Effendi, Messages to the Bahá’í World: 1950-1957 page 13

It has been argued more than once by sans-guardian Baha’is on the newsgroup, talk religion bahai, that it had been impossible to establish a Bahá’í Court system then since conditions were not amenable. Excuse me? That is the lamest of lame excuses. That is like saying that God knew less about the establishment of the UHJ than they did. They had no authority to by-pass one of the essential preludes to the establishment of a UHJ simply because they pre-judged that it was too difficult. There was no pre-ordained timeline for the development of that Court System other than in the minds of the Hands.Had the Shoghi Effendi-appointed International Bahá’í Council convened, the Bahá’í Court System would have been accomplished and its growing stature would have led to the formation of a Universal House of Justice with a guardian at its head.

This concludes Part Four of the Critique.

This is part Four of a Critique by Hand of Cause of God David Maxwell of A Study for Auxiliary Board Members of the Guardianship & The Universal House of Justice Prepared by the International Teaching Centre (of the heterodox Bahá’ís).
Click here to read: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3| Part 4 | Part 5| Part 6

“EXCOMMUNICATION” can only be done by a Living Guardian

Amongst the various duties which a Guardian is able to exercise is the Excommunicating a Bahá’í. The Writings of the First Guardian Shoghi Effendi are a clear guidance where he has categorically said that EXCOMMUNICATION can be exercised only by a Guardian.

In another communication again the First Guardian Beloved Shoghi Effendi emphasis that even depriving the Bahá’í of his VOTING RIGHTS they have to be utmost careful.

In another communication again the First Guardian Beloved Shoghi Effendi has prohibited the National Assemblies that they do not have the right to introduce more rules and regulations.

“Excommunication is a spiritual thing and up until now the Guardian has always been the one who exerted this power, and he feels for the present he must continue to be. Only actual enemies of the Cause are excommunicated. On the other hand, those who conspicuously disgrace the Faith or refuse to abide by its laws can be deprived, as a punishment, of their voting rights; this in itself is a severe action, and he therefore always urges all National Assemblies (who can take such action) to first warn and repeatedly warn the evil-doer before taking the step of depriving him of his voting rights.”
(8 May 1948, to a National Spiritual Assembly)

1-There are two things which he wishes to impress upon you. The first is that depriving

People of their voting rights is the heaviest sanction which can be imposed at the present time (with the exception of excommunication, which is a right the Guardian has never permitted anyone else to exercise). Therefore, the greatest care should be exerted to try and remedy a situation before depriving anybody of their voting rights, and the action itself should only be taken if absolutely necessary.

2-The other point is that the Guardian is very anxious that no more rules and regulations

Should be introduced by any National Spiritual Assemblies. He has continually impressed this upon the American, the British and other National Bodies. The spirit of the Cause will be stifled, the initiative of the friends killed, and the teaching work come to a standstill if the friends are continually hemmed in by instructions. In view of this, he has instructed the National Bodies to deal with each case as it arises.
(22 December 1956, to a National Spiritual Assembly) [

As regards the need to warn an individual before his voting rights are removed, the basic Principle is expressed in the following passage written on behalf of the Guardian:

…before anyone is deprived of their voting rights, they should be consulted with and lovingly admonished at first, given repeated warnings if they do not mend their immoral ways, or whatever other extremely serious misdemeanor they are committing, and finally, after these repeated warnings, be deprived of their voting rights.

The bogus house has trampled all the Rights of the Guardian because it has abandoned the concept of continuation of Guardianship and in doing so they have broken all the Instructions, orders, Advices given by Our First Guardian Shoghi Effendi and therefore are not eligible to be called as Followers of Bahá’u’lláh.

Therefore the True followers of Bahá’u’lláh appeal to the followers of the bogus house that they should severe all their relationship/ties with this faulty organization and join us in establishing the New World Order of Bahá’u’lláh.

Hand of Cause
Y.H. Taylor
(On Behalf of Orthodox Bahá’í)
6-3-2013

The Illegitimacy and Fraud of the Bogus UHJ through Ali Nakhjavani’s Blatant Perversion of the Truth

THE ILLEGITIMACY AND FRAUD OF THE BOGUS UHJ IS EXPOSED THROUGH ALI NAKHJAVAN’S BLATANT PERVERSION OF THE TRUTH.

By Hand of the Cause of God Nosrat’u’llah Bahremand

Note from The Third Guardian Joel B. Marangella

 Nosrat has requested my review of his critique and the correction of any errors in the use of the English language as it is not his native tongue.  In the process of reviewing his outstanding critique I have taken the opportunity to add here and there some words, and phrases, revise the structure of some sentences to enhance the argument presented and even add a few additional pertinent quotations which I have felt would further reinforce his already excellent critical analysis of Nakhjavani’s diabolical efforts to pervert the sacred Writings and the writings of Shoghi Effendi in support of his diabolical repudiation of the continuing Guardianship of the Cause of God. JBM

 PART 1 Introduction | PART 2 | PART 3 | PART 4 | PART 5 | PART 6

PART 7 | PART 8 | PART 9 | PART 10 | PART 11 Conclusion

 Comment by Hand of Cause of God David Maxwell

God’s Plan is Forever

Hand of the Cause of God Nosrat Bahremand has penned an extensive critique of an article by Ali Nakhjavan, [Part 1] [Part 2] who has taken various of the Holy Bahá’í Writings out of context to justify the continuation of the Haifa posture that their Administrative Order, sans-guardian, is valid.

An overall consideration for anyone to account for when writing about the Faith in any manner, is the fact that humans in this realm are completely dependant upon God whether they realize it or not. We are all eventually accountable to God. At the extreme, we have all known friends who question whether there is a God or not, and whether the act of worship is a complete waste of time; a mere ritual. Even those souls are at the complete mercy of a loving God. They prosper on this plane and some of them seem to surpass others of us in accomplishments. And so it is with all who write for or about the Faith as well. At the extreme in this example, some are opposed to there ever being another guardian, and others follow the Institution of the Guardianship. Each position has adherents with very strong feelings that God is completely in their corner. It seems such a mystery.

For any who have studied and practice any sort of religious activity, there is usually one thing that is constant; the belief in an afterlife. There is a heaven for all those who practice their religion, although even their heaven may appear different than that expected by others in many cases. The general agreement among the various versions of a heaven is that it affords a better life than we have here, with more goodness and happiness for all who attain. We can agree on that much.

And then there is the matter of some who would alter God’s Word to more closely fit the pattern they follow in their worship practices. Most who do that are completely confident of what they do, and do not look beyond the reality of their own definitions. In the case of Christian worshipers, among the many different interpretations of the Gospel, they all feel comfortable with whatever it is they have determined to be the “right path.” And perhaps rightly so, since their actions coincide with many others, and even their own family members, for justification of their position. It has been 2,000 years since Christ walked the earth, and generations of belief patterns have established a certain “numbness” to the overall picture.

One of the human faculties that allows anyone complete satisfaction in their particular manner of worship is a little thing we call ego. The inner voice of each of us either approves or disapproves of every action we take. It is much more likely that our inner egos approve rather than disapprove of our actions because of the script established for us during our formative years at the hand of a mother or father; a basis for the overwhelming approval is that grand pappy and his grand pappy acted similarly and since the family tree has done so well for years and years, there is no need to deviate from that established pattern. Remember what Christ had to say about the sins of the father being passed on to the offspring?

So if one considers carefully, there is an established human pattern, aided by the ego, that yields the same types of results over and over again, so far as the things that humans do with their lives. A primary intention of Bahá’u’lláh’s Revelation was to break the old patterns, and require humans to study and learn for themselves, regardless of what the accepted knowledge of the day was. Bahá’u’lláh revealed His Message, wrote countless Words to promoted its Teachings, established for its longevity through the establishment of a unique Administrative Order, and did this at a time when human capacity had been infused with a God-given capability to understand and use this new power.

Bahá’u’lláh did not release a “mission impossible.“ However, the Revelation He released did require the diligent thought of all who encountered it in order that they could withstand its Mighty Power. The Bahá’í Faith is not a slam dunk situation. It is not a once saved always saved phenomena such as some of the Christian Denominations avow. The Bahá’í Faith requires its independent investigation by each and every individual who meets its sweet call, and then requires an attitude of independent investigation and pursuit during the remainder of that person’s life, regardless of any external forces to the contrary.

The Bahá’í Faith is not a cake walk.

Ali Nakhjavan, in his article, attempts to justify something that has already been thoroughly discussed by noted figures within the Faith, such as its Originator, the Center of its Covenant, and its First Guardian. A reading of all of the Writings of those Holy individuals within the context of all of their accumulated Writings determines a different conclusion than what Nakhjavan has reached in his discussion. To the casual observer, that would seem odd. Here we have a Revelation with clearly noted guidelines, guidelines that were actually penned by the Manifestation and his appointed Heirs. This is in contrast to the lack of written instructions penned by His Holiness the Christ. In fact, Bahá’u’lláh took it a step further, and His Holy Lineage outlined the means of a living interpreter of His Word throughout the entire 1,000 year tenure of His Dispensation. What could be more clear than Bahá’u’lláh’s intention that His appointed interpreters, the guardians, handle any required explanations for the believers, rather than someone such as the non-guardian Nakhjavan and those among the heterodox Bahá’ís who follow the same pattern?

Now, getting back to my observation, an observation that down through the centuries humans have followed the patterns of their ancestors, based in part upon the urgings of their own egos. Those egos have developed a comfort zone for them, one in which the expectation of the next life is one of goodness, based upon the following of certain established patterns established within their own families, based upon that family’s understanding of God. Even those who would say that they are the only Bahá’ís in their family, the first one,are caught up in the ego-formed patterns of parental pattern in determining how they approach all things.

This is where we were when Bahá’u’lláh presented his Message of change, and this is generally where we are as humans some 140 odd years later. In spite of Bahá’u’lláh’s Message, there has been very little to no change at all in the traditional manner that humans approach religious activity, and that unfortunately includes the Bahá’í Faith. The pattern of following a personality or a congregation of thought continues, in spite of the admonishment of the Central figures that each individual should investigate for herself, and decide the direction to take. Although there are no “clergy” in the Bahá’í Faith, a cadre of faux clergy are demanding of their followers complete obedience to them, regardless of what the Holy Writings direct.

As Bahá’ís we are expected to understand what Bahá’u’lláh had in mind, and to attempt to live in a manner which begins to pull away from at least a part of the superstitious meanderings of our forefathers. We are expected to effect a change in humans along the lines of Bahá’u’lláh’s Message. Through the careful perusal of the Holy Writings and God’s Grace, we may be able to begin to break the superstitious patterns. Not so, Ali Nakhjavan and those who follow his bent. Those individuals are using the very words that Bahá’u’lláh intended for the enlightenment of the human soul, twisting their intent, and presenting them in order to convince others to continue following a false and corrupt interpretation of the very perfection of the Bahá’í Message! Who do they think they are kidding? For certain, they are not kidding God!

Do they not understand that God’s world is what it is. Nothing more nor less than that. God’s world was determined countless eons before Nakhjavan walked this earth, and will continue as such after he is departed from it, unchanged from God‘s original and perfect Plan. Should Nakhjavan’s ideas be completely off-base so far as Bahá’u’lláh’s intentions are concerned, and I believe they are, he will have jousted with windmills in this world, and face a most likely less-than-satisfying tenure in the next. And the important thing for humans is that he will have contributed nothing toward changing the overall Plan of the Bahá’í Faith. That Plan was established long before any of us, and will continue unchanged for ever and evermore.

We mortals can have no influence whatsoever upon the changing or modification of God’s Plan either here nor in the next world. All we can hope for is to be in alignment with that Plan as best we can while on this plane. We have the good fortune of having Bahá’u’lláh’s clear intentions, requiring no interpretation from mere mortals, to gain access to that alignment. Beyond that, it is all in the Hands of God.

By Hand of the Cause of God David Maxwell

Critique of Ruhi Institute “The Covenant Unit 2” – Part One

The Ruhi Institute is a heterodox Bahá’í organization, based in Columbia, and the document under examination, The Covenant, Unit 2, is currently in its pre-publication stage. Therefore, the necessary corrections discussed in this Critique should be accepted by the heterodox Bahá’í leadership and by the leadership of the Ruhi Institute as recommendations for adjustment of their document’s content.

Rather than commence this critique at the beginning of the manuscript in question, I believe that it is more beneficial for readers who are sincere Bahá’ís and for true seekers of Almighty God’s Truth to strike directly at the heart of the main/critical error of the manuscript, The Covenant, Unit 2, and from that point to branch out to focus on its other errors.

The main error of the manuscript is its perfidious occulting of the fact and reality that in the true Bahá’í Faith, there exist two distinct realms of Divine guidance, namely, first, the Divine guidance for infallible interpretation of Bahá’í Holy Writ and Bahá’í Holy Text and for interpretation of the writings of the Guardians of the Faith, which realm of Divine guidance does NOT belong to a legitimate Universal House of Justice, and second, the Divine guidance for infallibility of legislation on matters which are not specifically mentioned in Bahá’í Holy Writ and Holy Text, which second realm of Divine Guidance DOES belong to a legitimate Universal House of Justice.

The insidious manner by which the authors of the manuscript, The Covenant, Unit 2, have perpetrated the occulting of the above stated truth is evident by the manner by which they routinely in their manuscript quote the very passages from Bahá’í Holy Writings which clearly separate the two distinct realms of Divine guidance, while at the very same time presenting again and again and again the Universal House of Justice as the only “continuous source of guidance” for humanity without ever once mentioning the vital, absolute necessity of infallible interpretation of Bahá’í Holy Writ and Holy Text, the OTHER realm of Divine guidance, by which Divine guidance the sacred Laws of the Lord of this Age will become accurately applied by the Administration of the New World Order.

Here follow some examples of the treachery of the authors of the manuscript, as mentioned above:

The authors make this quote:
“Those matters of major importance which constitute the foundation of the Law of God are explicitly recorded in the Text, but subsidiary laws are left to the House of Justice. The wisdom of this is that the times never remain the same, for change is a necessary quality and an essential attribute of this world, and of time and place. Therefore the House of Justice will take action accordingly. . .” `(Abdu’l-Bahá, from the Introduction to the Kitab-i-Aqdas) (Quoted on page 68, The Covenant, Unit 2)

In the quote above, the Master clearly identifies the two realms of Divine guidance:
1. “Those matters of major importance which constitute the foundation of the Law of God are explicitly recorded in the Text.”

2. “…but subsidiary laws are left to the House of Justice.” [note the lower case “l”]

Do the authors of the manuscript, The Covenant, Unit 2, fairly and honestly teach the true sense of the Master’s sacred words? Most certainly, they do not. Cunningly, they totally ignore the first realm of Divine guidance, the interpretation of Bahá’í Holy Writ and Holy Text, (the “Law of God”), [note the upper case “L”] which has been Divinely assigned exclusively to Guardians of the Bahá’í Faith, and carry on presenting the Universal House of Justice as the only continuous source of guidance. Here follows what they wrote on page 68 of The Covenant, Unit 2, the very same page as the quote from the Master’s words above:

“The existence of the Universal House of Justice ensures that humanity will benefit from a continuous source of guidance for the duration of Bahá’u’lláh’s Dispensation. One need only think of the magnitude of the challenge that the Baha’i community is called upon to meet in this Day to appreciate the significance of the unique bounty God has bestowed upon humanity in the institution of the House of Justice. The implications for the unity of the community are clear enough. But, together with the other members of your group, think about how the following processes each connected to the establishment of a world civilization, are affected by the existence of an authoritative source of guidance.”

“…an authoritative source of guidance” –written as if their headless/bogus UHJ were legitimate, which it is not, and written as if the Guardianship of the Bahá’í Faith were not delineated by the Master in His sacred Will and Testament to be an authoritative source of guidance, which He did. Can the authors of The Covenant, Unit 2 claim that somewhere else in their 95-page manuscript they have presented the other source of Divine guidance to the extent that they are justified to deal exclusively with the guidance of the Universal House of Justice on page 68 of their manuscript? No they cannot make such a claim because nowhere in their manuscript do they present the sacred and immutable teaching of the Master, recorded in His Will and Testament, that only a living Guardian of the Bahá’í Faith is “the expounder of the words of God” nor do they present Shoghi Effendi’s oft-repeated reminders of that same truth.

Furthermore, the entity currently on Mt. Carmel claiming to be a Universal House of Justice cannot be an “authoritative” source of guidance for true Bahá’ís because the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Baha grants the following authority to the Guardian with respect to the UHJ, an authority that is totally lacking in his absence from the body currently on Mt.Carmel: “Should any of the members commit a sin, injurious to the common weal, the guardian of the Cause of God hath at his own discretion the right to expel him.”

The authors of the manuscript comment: “But, together with the other members of your group, think about how the following processes each connected to the establishment of a world civilization, are affected by the existence of an authoritative source of guidance.”

After the above expression, the authors of The Covenant, Unit 2 then list nine processes of the Bahá’í Faith, insinuating that the only “authoritative source of guidance” affecting those nine processes is their Universal House of Justice. No mention whatsoever is made of the vital hereditary principle of the Bahá’í Faith which principle provides for continuous, authoritative, infallible interpretation of Bahá’í Holy Writ and Bahá’í Holy Text which interpretation is equally vital for the processes related to the establishment of the Divine civilization on Earth as is the legislation by the other “pillar” of the “twin pillars” of the Administration of the New World Order.

No mention at all is made of that essential hereditary principle.

Here follows another quote presented by the authors of The Covenant, Unit 2:
“And now, concerning the House of Justice which God hath ordained as the source of all good and freed from all error,” (Will and Testament of `Abdu’l-Bahá) (Quoted on page 69, The Covenant, Unit 2)

And another:
“Unto the Most Holy Book every one must turn, and all that is not expressly recorded therein must be referred to the Universal House of Justice. That which this body, whether unanimously or by a majority doth carry, that is verily the truth and the purpose of God Himself. Whoso doth deviate there from is verily of them that love discord, hath shown forth malice, and turned away from the Lord of the Covenant.” (Will and Testament of `Abdu’l-Bahá) (Quoted on page 69, The Covenant, Unit 2).

The authors make no comment about this truth which they quote:

“Unto the Most Holy Book every one must turn,”

Turning to the Most Holy Book requires learning from the exclusive interpreter of that Most Holy Book, namely a living Guardian of the Bahá’í Faith. Yes, “… all that is not expressly recorded therein must be referred to the Universal House of Justice”, yet the authors of The Covenant, Unit 2 nefariously neglect to mention that the interpretation of all that IS “expressly recorded therein” belongs exclusively to a living Guardian of the Bahá’í Faith, NOT to a Universal House of Justice.

And another quote:

“It is incumbent upon the Trustees of the House of Justice to take counsel together regarding those things which have not outwardly been revealed in the Book, and to enforce that which is agreeable to them. God will verily inspire them with whatsoever He willeth, and He, verily, is the Provider, the Omniscient.” (Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh)
(Quoted on page 67, The Covenant, Unit 2)

“to take counsel together regarding those things which have not outwardly been revealed in the Book,”

In their comments, the authors of The Covenant, Unit 2 make no mention of those things which HAVE BEEN “outwardly…revealed in the Book,”. Treacherously, they continue to neglect the vital station of the interpreter of our sacred Bahá’í Writings, obviously attempting to give the Bahá’í brotherhood worldwide the impression that their bogus Universal House of Justice receives adequate guidance all by itself with no need of the Divinely ordained and Divinely conceived institution of the Guardianship of the Bahá’í Faith, which Divinely conceived Institution, alone, is authorized and empowered to interpret those things which HAVE “outwardly been revealed in the Book,”. The so-called UHJ currently on Mt. Carmel does not have the “sacred head” delineated infallibly by `Abdu’l-Bahá in His sacred Will and Testament, therefore it is not a legitimate Bahá’í Institution to begin with, and thus it has no infallibility even for legislation on matters not expressly recorded in our Bahá’í Writings.

And another quote by the authors of the manuscript:

“It is incumbent upon these members (of the Universal House of Justice) to gather in a certain place and deliberate upon all problems which have caused difference, questions that are obscure and matters that are not expressly recorded in the Book. Whatsoever they decide has the same effect as the Text itself. Inasmuch as the House of Justice hath power to enact laws that are not expressly recorded in the Book and bear upon daily transactions, so also it hath power to repeal the same. Thus for example, the House of Justice enacteth today a certain law and enforceth it, and a hundred years hence, circumstances having profoundly changed and the conditions having altered, another House of Justice will then have power, according to the exigencies of the time, to alter that law. This it can do because these laws form no part of the divine explicit Text. The House of Justice is both the initiator and the abrogator of its own laws.” (Will and Testament of `Abdu’l-Bahá) Quoted on page 67, The Covenant , Unit 2)

“…the House of Justice hath power to enact laws that are not expressly recorded in the Book…”

The authors of The Covenant, Unit 2 have not drawn to the attention of the Bahá’í brotherhood that the above sacred verse teaches that even a legitimate Universal House of Justice can legislate ONLY upon matters NOT “expressly recorded in the Book”. Expounding of the Laws which ARE recorded in the Book is the exclusive, Divinely assigned duty of the Guardians of the Bahá’í Faith. Craftily, the authors of The Covenant, Unit 2, are pointing to the Divine guidance and infallibility provided to a Universal House of Justice, quoting from the Bahá’í Writings often in order to support that concept, and yet without ever teaching the vital importance of the separate and essential Divine guidance in the Bahá’í Faith which a Universal House of Justice does NOT possess, namely the Divine guidance to interpret Bahá’í Holy Writ and Holy Text. They quote the vital passages, however they do not fully explain those verses, such as the verse quoted above. They simply ignore those words and phrases which clearly reveal that even a legitimate Universal House of Justice (which theirs is not) is devoid of the critical and vital function of interpretation of Bahá’í Holy Writ and Holy Text.

Following in the footsteps of their heterodox Bahá’í leaders on Mt. Carmel, the Ruhi Institute authors of The Covenant, Unit 2 consistently ignore/neglect the fact that Shoghi Effendi has discussed functions of the Guardian in his Spiritual Testament, the The Dispensation of Bahá’u’lláh’ that indicate the essentiality of the living Guardian as the “sacred head” of the House and the fact of its fallibility without the presence of the Guardian:

(a) He “is bound to insist upon a reconsideration by them of any enactment he conscientiously believes to conflict with the meaning and to depart from the spirit of Baha’u’llah’s revealed utterances.”

(b) He provides “the necessary guidance to define the sphere of of the legislative action of its elected representatives.”

Nothing on this Earth in this Holy Bahá’í Dispensation could be more unjust than that perfidy of the authors of the Ruhi Institute document, The Covenant, Unit 2.

Read: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

By Hand of the Cause Ross Campbell

COVENANT IN COURT: Appeals Court rules in favor of Orthodox Bahá’ís

The Court of Appeals for the United States Seventh Circuit issued its ruling on November 23, 2010, in the appeal brought by the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States (“Wilmette NSA”).  The Wilmette NSA brought the appeal after losing to the Orthodox Bahá’ís in the trial court on the NSA’s motion to find the OBF in contempt for allegedly violating the 1966 Judgment entered against the Remey NSA.  The trial court found, and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, that the OBF was not legally identified with the Remey NSA and therefore the OBF was not bound by the 1966 Judgment.  In effect, the OBF may continue to use the sacred symbols and names of their faith, including the word “Bahá’í” unless and until a court decides otherwise.

For more information: http://www.truebahai.com/court_case.html

Here is a breaking news article:

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/11/judge-bahai-believers-can-call-themselves-bahai.html

[Updated 18 May 2009]: The action by the NSA finally gets the attention of the press.  Click here for information about the Chicago Tribune’s article about the action pending in the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago, Illinois.  The appeal was brought by the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States (NSA), located in Wilmette, Illinois, after it lost its contempt motion against members of the Orthodox Bahá’í Faith

[Revised 28 February 2009] The parties are awaiting the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago, Illinois in the appeal brought by the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States (NSA), located in Wilmette, Illinois, after it lost its contempt motion against members of the Orthodox Bahá’í Faith and the Bahá’ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant, which are two separate and distinct entities.

The NSA had called upon the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division to hold in contempt members of both minority Bahá’í organizations who, the NSA claimed, were in violation of an injunction its predecessor obtained some 40 years ago against a rival Bahá’í body (the NSA loyal to Mason Remey).

In legal documents provided to the court on December 6, 2006, the NSA claimed that members of the current minority Bahá’í groups, although not parties to the case brought against the NSA loyal to Mason Remey, nevertheless are bound by the 1966 Judgment.  While not providing any specifics with regard to how the minority bodies have harmed the majority body, the NSA contended that the websites (including this one) of the smaller organizations were doing irreparable damage to the NSA.

The basic contention of the NSA was that the members of the minority groups were violating the NSA’s alleged trademarks on the name “Bahá’í” and the religious symbol of the “Greatest Name”, and it sought from the court a ruling which would prohibit the minority members from using the alleged trademarks to the detriment of the NSA.

The NSA sought to restrain both those individuals who at one time were even remotely associated with the enjoined rival Bahá’í body and any ‘nonparty’ members who have since developed different Bahá’í organizations.

Those members of the minority group who call themselves  Orthodox Bahá’ís, to distinguish themselves from the members of the majority organization, stated that the trademark by the Wilmette NSA on the “Greatest Name” is the equivalent of a Christian denomination trademarking the Cross and then saying that no other Christian congregation can use that symbol in their activities or in their contacts with others.

Additionally, Orthodox Bahá’ís maintain that the name “Bahá’í” is in the public domain and cannot be the exclusive property of one organization. They say that like the name “Christian” and “Muhammadan”, which refer to followers of Christ and Muhammad respectively, the name “Bahá’í” refers to a follower of Bahá’u’lláh, who all Bahá’ís acknowledge as the latest Prophet from God.

For some 35 years the Orthodox Bahá’ís have been employing the name “Bahá’í” in their newspaper and magazine publicity and in the telephone Yellow Pages, and during that time the NSA has made no move to implement the provisions of the injunction that the majority organization is now using to seek contempt citations against members of the minority groups. Should the NSA be successful in its efforts to curtail their activities, Orthodox Bahá’ís contend that, for them, the First Amendment of the Constitution is no longer valid.

The NSA on 23 May 2008 filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Chicago Trial January 7, 2008 005 Seventh Circuit of a ruling that the Orthodox Bahá’ís were not in contempt of a injunction entered in 1966 against the NSA loyal to Mason Remey.”[T]he chain of successorship lacks a link,” wrote the Honorable Amy J. St Eve, United States District Court Judge,in her Judgment in favor of the Orthodox Bahá’í Faith and the Bahá’í Publishers Under the Provisions of the Covenant. The Court ruled on 23 April 2008 after holding an evidentiary hearing on 7 January 2008 in Chicago, Illinois on the contempt motion brought by the NSA. In her decision, the Court stated that: “the vast weight of the record (including credible testimony) reflects that there was a significant doctrinal rift on a critical tenet of each group’s faith, and that the PNBC’s membership varied materially from that of the NSA-UHG. The record further reflects a demonstrable lack of intent to violate the injunction, and that the PNBC was not created to avoid the effect of the injunction. Simply put, there is no substantial continuity between the NSA-UHG and the PNBC, and, as a result, Mr. Schlatter, Mr. Marangella, and the PNBC have not violated the injunction.”

The appellate case had been fully briefed when the parties argued in Chicago Illinois on 20 February 2009 before a panel of Judges of the Court of Appeals: the Honorable Daniel A. Manion, the Honorable William J. Bauer, and the Honorable Diane S. Sykes.

Appearing on behalf of the Orthodox Bahá’ís was James McClymonds, a New York attorney who is the grandson of A.S. Petzoldt, the chairman of the NSA under the Hereditary Guardianship (under Mason Remey) and whose deposition was taken by the NSA in the original case.  James was a small child when his grandfather expressed the wish that someone would one day come forward to overturn the outrageous judgment that the Wilmette NSA had obtained against Remey’s NSA.

The appellate briefs and a recording of the oral argument held on 20 February 2009 are available on the web site of the Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit in Chicago Illinois:

Appellate Briefs: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/briefs.htm  Enter the Year = “08” and the Case Number = “2306”  Then click “List Cases”, then click the Case Number for a listing of the briefs in PDF format.

COURT CASE

The oral arguments of the Wilmette NSA’s appeal of Judge St. Eve’s decision favoring the Orthodox Baha’is was held on 20 February 2009 in Chicago Illinois.

Here is a transcript of part of the exchange between Mr. Handelman,the attorney for the NSA, and a couple of the Judges of the Court of Appeals. No matter how hard he tried to obfuscate the outrageous position of the NSA, the Judges carefully questioned him and exposed the oppressive and fascist nature of the NSA’s position, and it is here for all the world to see. [Incidentally, Judge Bauer below persistently questions Mr. Handelman on how the 1966 injunction was entered and Mr. Handelman evades the fundamental truth that only the NSA appeared at the “hearing” and that the Remey organization did not
appear and put on evidence (for some unknown reason). Mr. Handelman later admitted that only the NSA appeared which means the Injunction was effectively entered by “default”]

Here is part of the oral argument.

 Handelman, for Defendant-Appellant National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is of the United States: The principle we are here advancing today has been adopted by other courts of appeals and that is that a– while the general rule is that a nonparty cannot be
bound by an injunction issued in a case in which it wasn’t named as a party, there are — there is an important exception to that general rule and that is a nonparty is bound by an
injunction if he is legally identified with the defendant corporation…

Judge William J. Bauer: Do you know of any case involving that particular rule that you enunciated to us in a civil rights case?

Handelman: Your honor, there are a couple of cases on point, the Federal Circuit in Additive Controls addressed this question of what do you do in applying an injunction when the corporate defendant has been dissolved.

Judge Bauer: That had to do with a patent infringement case?

Handelman: That is correct.

Judge Bauer: Other than a patent infringement case, do you have anything besides– civil rights cases that involve that theory that you just enunciated?

Handelman: The two cases we rely on– one is a patent infringement case Additive Controls. The other one is a trademark infringement case

Judge Bauer: Also from the Circuit?

Handelman: That is from the First Circuit

Judge Bauer: The First Circuit?

Handelman: Correct. Both of these cases draw on, first of all, the fact that Rule 65d codified the common law in this regard and so Justice Jackson in the Regal Knitwear case summarized Rule 65d: “is derived from the common law doctrine that a decree of injunction not only binds the parties defendant but also those identified with them
in interest.”

Judge Bauer: Let me intrude myself again. Was the original injunction a consent decree or was it a fought out battle?

Handelman: No the scenario leading to the injunction, the…

Judge Bauer: No, all I ask is a very simple question. Did Judge Austin formulate this decree himself or was it a consent decree?

Handelman: It was not a consent decree.

Judge Bauer: OK

Handelman: There were findings of fact and conclusions of law…

Judge Bauer: Based on a contested argument before, and presentation of evidence before Judge Austin?

Handelman: The… my understanding is that the NSA…

Judge Bauer: See you weren’t around in those days. I was.

Handelman: But your Honor Judge Austin.. Bare in mind this was the counterclaim, the original was, was against the NSA. The trademark infringement claim was brought by way of a counterclaim. So they started it. We responded and there was a findings of fact and conclusions of law entered by Judge Aspen.

Judge Bauer: After a hearing?

Handelman: I do not know if there was testimony at the hearing. I do not believe there was testimony given at the hearing by both sides but Judge Austin…

Judge Bauer: What was the predicate for the decision? Stipulation of facts?

Handelman: No, there was no stipulation, the NSA…

Judge Bauer: Then how did he arrive at a decree at all?

Handelman: The uh, I believe, the NSA submitted, appeared at the hearing and presented Judge Austin. I don’t know if there was live testimony at the hearing or not but it presented evidence on which the findings and conclusions were based.

Judge Bauer: What evidence did they and how did they present it?

Handelman: Well, for example, the deposition of the chairman of the UHG was taken and submitted to the Court, so we had the deposition…

Judge Bauer: Accepted by both sides as factually true?

Handelman: The testimony was sworn deposition testimony of the Chairman

Judge Bauer: There is sworn testimony on each side of the case normally but I want to know, how did Judge Austin arrive at the conclusion if there was no presentation of live witnesses?

Handelman: Um

Judge Bauer: Was it a stipulation of facts? In which case..

Handelman: No I do not believe it was a stipulation, your honor. We can look into whether

Judge Bauer: It was a question of fact, and he made a resolution based on affidavits?

Handelman: If I could look into that and get back to you I would prefer to do that.

Judge Bauer: I have no idea how the decree came to be, thats my problem

Handelman: OK

Judge Diane S. Sykes: Do you know whether the constitutionality of issuing such an Injunction was litigated, given the religious context?

Handelman: Yeah, I believe Judge Austin made explicit findings that the trademark laws apply equally to religious organizations and commercial organizations and that this, this case involved a blatant infringement of trademark rights that were recognized under federal law.

Judge Sykes: The legal landscape in this area of course has changed since then. We are talking of, about an injunction issued 40 years ago and the Supreme Court, in the meantime has issued the Presbyterian Church case that talks about the principles, the neutral principles doctrine that needs to be applied in this context, and of course that
case wasn’t on the books at the time.

Handelman: That is correct your honor. With respect to, first of all the validity of the trademark and the finding of infringement, those issues are not open to be retried in the context of a contempt proceeding as a prefatory matter, but beyond that the law is well
settled that religious organizations as I mentioned are entitled to the protection of the trademark laws and in this case…

Judge Sykes: But they are not entitled to a judicial declaration that their church is the one true church and thats what Judge Austin said.

Handelman: Well if, your honor, in the context of a religious case under the Lanham Act, the mark is valid. There is no per se rule against trademark protection in the religious organization context. What you look at is whether the mark in question signifies affiliation or membership with a single organization and in this case the National
Spiritual Assembly has a three tiered administrative structure as is laid out in the briefs. You have the Universal House of Justice at the highest level, you have the national spiritual assemblies at the intermediate level of which there are 183 worldwide, and then you have the local spiritual assembly. The Baha’i mark is federally registered, is extensively used, was federally registered at the time of the original injunction, and it signifies members who are affiliated with national spiritual assemblies authorized by the Universal House of Justice in Haifa. Now whats happening in this case, the Alleged
Contemnors, are through their web sites calling themselves the official, in one case, the SIBC has a web site where it calls itself the official Universal House of Justice, and as a result prospective members are going to that site thinking they are contacting our client, the Universal House of Justice in Haifa Israel, when they are not. They are also believing that the content on the site is approved by the Universal House of Justice, when it is not. And this is precisely the harm that the Lanham Act is intended to prevent and Professor McCarthy in his treatise recognizes as much, and if I could quote briefly: “If a parent religious society remains true to the tenets of the religion it is entitled to protection against the minority’s use of the same name. For example, a preliminary injunction can be obtained by the Mother Church against a local which has disaffiliated as it stops paying to the Mother Church and the rationale makes sense because without a preliminary injunction the Mother Church would be outside of…”

Judge Bauer: Who are you quoting at the moment?

Handelman: Professor McCarthy, his treatise on Trademark and Unfair Competition. So he is recognizing…

Judge Bauer: He is recognizing but the Supreme Court is more significant than Professer McCarthy is I would suspect, wouldn’t you?

Handelman: But the point is that this case does not call upon this Court to evaluate religious doctrine. It calls upon this Court to apply the Lanham Act to religious organizations which has been done before.

Judge Sykes: Well to the extent that you are reading the injunction as prohibiting anyone other than the NSA from using the word Baha’i in the title of the religious organization’s name, um, that clearly raises some constitutional concerns. Is that how you are reading the injunction? That you have exclusive, that your client has exclusive rights to the term Baha’i and no schismatic organization, schismatic group, breakaway group could ever use it into perpetuity in the United States?

Handelman: As long as the trademark rights are valid and federally registered and not abandoned, that is correct, as Professor…

Judge Sykes: The word Baha’i? So to use a hypothetical. Someone could copyright Christianity. Somebody could copyright Judaism, and that would prohibit anybody else from using that terminology in the title of their religious organization?

Handelman: No, each, each religious name or

Judge Sykes: I am sorry, not copyright, trademark.

Handelman: Yeah, each religious name or mark has to be evaluated on its own merits. There is no blanket…

Judge Sykes: But whats the response to the hypothetical, though?

Handelman: The hypothetical is yes, we. In other words a splinter group that is not affiliated with the National Spiritual Assembly authorized by the Universal House of Justice is not permitted to use the term Baha’i in a way where it is holding itself out as being affiliated with the group headed by and authorized by the Universal House of Justice.

Judge Sykes: Well that’s, that’s, different. But they can use the word Baha’i in the name of their new church, but they just can’t use it in a way that implies affiliation with the Mother Church.

Handelman: That is correct. They cannot, cannot confuse the public into believing that they are affiliated with the Mother church when they are not, particularly where, as here, their doctrines are in many cases antithetical to those espoused by the Mother Church.

Judge Sykes: What could they call themselves and escape liability for contempt?

Handelman: They would have to use a non-confusingly similar name because they are not…

Judge Sykes: Can they use the word Baha’i?

Handelman: It would depend on– not if it suggested affiliation with the Mother Church.

Judge Bauer: How about Reform Baha’i? Can they use that term?

Handelman: That would be a hypothetical that…

Judge Bauer: That’s my hypothetical…

Handelman: It would…

Judge Bauer: And I want a hypothetical answer.

Handelman: If the use suggested affiliation…

Judge Bauer: I just gave it to you. Reform Baha’i.

Handelman: No that. Under the injunction, that would be prohibited. The injunction…

Judge Bauer: Yeah, I read the Injunction. I just don’t know how it came to be. But you’re going to enlighten me on that subject.

Handelman: So the injunction would prohibit a use likely to cause confusion as to affiliation….

COMMENT BY JEFFERY GOLDBERG

Funny thing is Mr. Handelman quotes from Professor McCarthy that “If a parent religious society remains true to the tenets of the religion it is entitled to protection against the minority’s use of the same name.” Of course, the Wilmette NSA DOES NOT REMAIN TRUE to the tenets of the religion as the Orthodox Baha’is are constantly pointing out.

We do not know how the Court will rule, but clearly the Judges of the 7th Circuit are not fooled by the NSA’s obfuscation. The NSA wants the Courts to enforce their belief that they are the one and only Baha’i Faith, and the NSA has proved itself to be in contempt of the basic religious freedoms of this country, even while the publicly whine about similarly motivated persecution against them in Iran, a country that does not have the same traditions of freedom of religion.

The true colors of the NSA come out here. They would trample over our freedom of religion and the Bill of Rights of the U.S. constitution.

This is the World Order they seek to impose upon the world.

Jeffrey

There has been no evidence that the Orthodox Baha’is have any web sites or publications that confuse the public to believe that we are affiliated with the headless UHJ. To the contrary, everything on our sites is critical of that organization and expressly points out our differences. But they have taken the position that simply use of the word “Baha’i” somehow creates the confusion and this is an absurd and over-reaching view.

Jeffrey

The suit involves both the Orthodox Baha’is and the Baha’is under the Provisions of the Covenant (which is the Jensen/Chase group and I believe is responsible for the web site you mentioned). My point was that there is nothing like that from the OBF group. The NSA’s actual position, as stated by Handelman after questioning by the Judges, is that nobody else can use the word Baha’i, and this position is outrageous if only you could see dispassionately and free of fanatic blinders.

Jeffrey

There is no confusion in use of terms. The NSA’s attorney was trying his best not to state what their position was, but after being hammered by the Judges, he was forced to admit that the NSA wants to enforce the Judgment’s finding that they are the one true Baha’i Faith and they are the only ones who could call themselves Baha’i.

This finding happens to be unconstitutional and goes against a long line of Supreme Court precedent which began in 1969, several years after the Judgment was entered. This is what bothers the Judges of the Court of Appeals. The NSA is asking them to deny us our religious freedom– the right to call ourselves Baha’is.

Jeffrey

The comments of the heterodox believers demonstrates their lack of understanding of the Faith. They don’t think that preventing us from calling ourselves Baha’i would prevent us from practicing our religion. But isn’t that what the Iranian authorities are doing:

“Stop saying you are a Baha’i and then we will restore your rights”?

They effectively wish us to recant our Faith.

Jeffrey

The Supreme Court case was not decided until 1969, and at the time of the 1966 Judgment the federal courts were split on the issue (which split was resolved by the Supreme Court).

The Orthodox Baha’is did raise the issue and the line of cases from 1969 on neutrality principles, but Judge St. Eve never even reached the issue because she ruled that the Orthodox Baha’is were not even bound by the Judgment. Since we are not bound by it, the question of the Judgment’s enforceability did not have to be decided.

Jeffrey

I believe this is a correct statement. There is binding authority and persuasive authority. A decision of this Court of Appeals is binding only in the 7th Circuit, although its logic and reasoning will be persuasive beyond that.

Jeffrey

Not only does Judge Bauer mention Reform Baha’i but he insists that the NSA’s attorney answer whether or not someone could call himself a Reform Baha’i, and the NSA attorney finally is forced to admit the NSA’s position which is that nobody can call themselves a Baha’i unless they are recognized by his client’s UHJ.

Jeffrey

Not only is it disgraceful, but it is extremely hypocritical for them to run to Congress seeking its condemnation of Iran for persecution of Baha’is when they are doing the same to us.  While the NSA’s persecution of the OBF may be different in scale (but only because the NSA does not have the power to imprison us or execute us), they are motivated by the same idea that they perceive us to be heretical and because we are opposed to their religious authority. It is mind- boggling for these people to expect the federal courts in the United States to enforce their version of the Baha’i Faith, to say they are the one true Faith and everyone else cannot be Baha’is.

It really does not matter, though, whether they get a court order against us, or whether they have suckered a whole bunch of people so that they have larger numbers.  It does not matter how small we are. The only thing that matters is what is true and what is false.  They are false and they are destined to fail.  Their entire organization is a house of cards ready to tumble down at any time. Thank God for that!

Jeffrey

Power of the Covenant

The Plan of God is Guided by the Living Guardian through the Power of the Covenant

Our guidance as to the needs of the time and the best way to contribute to the Plan come through the Center of the Covenant. At the time of His passing, Bahá’u’lláh appointed `Abdu’l-Bahá as the Center of the Covenant and the Authorized Interpreter of His Writings. The existence of a clear Center of the Covenant to whom all Bahá’ís turn is one of the unique, distinguishing features of the Revelation of Bahá’u’lláh.

“As to the most great characteristic of the revelation of Bahá’u’lláh — a specific teaching not given by any of the Prophets of the past — it is the ordination and appointment of the Center of the Covenant. By this appointment and provision He has safeguarded and protected the religion of God against differences and schisms, making it impossible for any one to create a new sect or faction of belief. To insure unity and agreement He has entered into a Covenant with all the people of the world including the Interpreter and Explainer of His teachings, so that no one may interpret or explain the religion of God according to his own view or opinion and thus create a sect founded upon his individual understanding of the Divine words. The Book of the Covenant or Testament of Bahá’u’lláh is the means of preventing such a possibility, for whosoever shall speak from the authority of himself alone shall be degraded. Be ye informed and cognizant of this.”

— `Abdu’l-Bahá, “Promulgation of Universal Peace” p. 455-456 —

Following the passing of `Abdu’l-Bahá, the First Guardian, Shoghi Effendi, became the authorized Interpreter of Bahá’u’lláh’s Writings.

“He is the Interpreter of the Word of God,” `Abdu’l-Bahá, referring to the functions of the Guardian of the Faith, asserts…”The mighty stronghold,” He further explains, “shall remain impregnable and safe through obedience to him who is the Guardian of the Cause of God.”

– `Abdu’l-Bahá, “Will and Testament of `Abdu’l-Bahá, p. 11

During the thirty-six years of his Guardianship, Shoghi Effendi fixed the pattern and laid the foundations of the Administrative Order of Bahá’u’lláh, by setting in motion the implementation of the Divine Plan of `Abdu’l-Bahá for the spread of the Faith throughout the world.

One element of the Administrative Order of Bahá’u’lláh that the First Guardian implemented was to establish the Universal House of Justice, an Institution which Bahá’u’lláh described in the Kitab-i–Aqdas. Shoghi Effendi established the EMBRYONIC UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF JUSTICE in the form of the First International Baha’i Council, with Mason Remey as its President. The institution of the Universal House of Justice must be headed by a living Guardian, since the UHJ does not have the right of interpretation of the Holy Writings without a living Guardian at its head.

“It should be stated, at the very outset, in clear and unambiguous language, that these twin institutions of the Administrative Order of Bahá’u’lláh should be regarded as divine in origin, essential in their functions and complementary in their aim and purpose. Their common, their fundamental object is to insure the continuity of that divinely-appointed authority which flows from the Source of our Faith, to safeguard the unity of its followers and to maintain the integrity and flexibility of its teachings.”

– Shoghi Effendi, “The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh,” p. 148

At this time, the Guardian of the Faith of Bahá’u’lláh is Joel B. Marangella. It is to him that the Bahá’ís turn for the plans, instructions, and guidance needed to carry out their role in carrying forward the Plan of God.

“If a small number of people gather lovingly together, with absolute purity and sanctity, with their hearts free of the world, experiencing the emotions of the Kingdom and the powerful magnetic forces of the Divine, and being at one in their happy fellowship, that gathering will exert its influence over all the earth. The nature of that band of people, the words they speak, the deeds they do, will unleash the bestowals of Heaven, and provide a foretaste of eternal bliss. The hosts of the Company on high will defend them, and the angels of the Abhá Paradise, in continuous succession, will come down to their aid.”

–“Selections from the Writings of `Abdu’l-Bahá,” p. 81

The Appointment of a New Contingent of Hands of the Cause of God

I take this joyous occasion to congratulate the appointment of a new contingent of Hands of the Cause: Jean Olsen, Chad Olsen, Ian Roebuck, Barbara Walsh, Paul Henderson, Mark Marangella, and Rajendra Upadhyaye.

With this Historic Appointment of new Hands of the Cause by our beloved Third Guardian, the plan of God has inched further towards its Goal. The coming generations will witness the successful completion of the Divine Plan through a living Guardian.

Y.H Taylor

30-4-13

Critique of ITC Study on Guardianship and UHJ – Part Five

This is part Five of a Critique by Hand of Cause of God David Maxwell of A Study for Auxiliary Board Members of the Guardianship & The Universal House of Justice Prepared by the International Teaching Centre (of the heterodox Bahá’ís).
Click here to read: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3| Part 4 | Part 5| Part 6

IS THE UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF JUSTICE AUTHORIZED OR NOT?

ITC Position:

THE UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF JUSTICE
What is the source of authority for the institution of the Universal House of Justice? It was Bahá’u’lláh Himself who ordained the Universal House of Justice to ensure that the Cause of God will continue to be divinely guided and that those things which have not been revealed in the Writings can be provided for. He entrusted the affairs of mankind into the hands of the members of the Universal House of Justice and made them the Trustees of God and the symbols of His authority:

It is incumbent upon the Trustees of the House of Justice to take counsel together and to enforce that which is agreeable to them. (26)

The men of God’s House of Justice have been charged with the affairs of the people. They, in truth, are the Trustees of God among His servants and the daysprings of authority in His countries. (27)

In another instance Bahá’u’lláh explains that as the world develops, its requirements will also change and therefore the needs of the day will be provided for by the House of Justice: Inasmuch as for each day there is a new problem and for every problem an expedient solution, such affairs should be referred to the House of Justice that the members thereof may act according to the needs and requirements of the time. (28)

Likewise, in several places in His Will and Testament, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá clearly affirmed the authority of the Universal House of Justice, and set out its functions and responsibilities: And now, concerning the House of Justice which God hath ordained as the source of all good and freed from all error . . . Unto this body all things must be referred. It enacteth all ordinances and regulations that are not to be found in the explicit Holy Text. By this body all the difficult problems are to be resolved and the guardian of the Cause of God is its sacred head and the distinguished member for life of that body. (29)

Critique:

The very audacity of the ITC is emphasized here in that they quote that the guardian of the Cause of God is its sacred head and the distinguished member for life of that body! “…is its sacred head…” How may any entity prevail without its head, let alone its sacred head? The idea that guidance is symbolically spiritual, and may be continued from the next world, is equally audacious. In His infinite wisdom, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá prevented that likelihood by defining certain requirements that the guardian would administer in his conduct of the activities of the UHJ by (1) requiring that he appoint another to represent him in his absence, and (2) that he may call for a reconsideration of them if he felt that they had not followed the scope and intent of the Holy Writings.

Those requirements, among many others, preclude any thought of there being other than a living guardian as head of the UHJ. For a period of years the sans-guardian believers promoted the belief that Shoghi Effendi continued his role of guardian from the next world. As audacious as that seems, it worked. We now find in more recent edicts from the bogus Universal House of Justice that the emphasis on Shoghi Effendi being the guardian has diminished, along with a diminished role for ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s Writings.

ITC Position:

Whatsoever they [members of the Universal House of Justice] decide has the same effect as the Text itself. (30)

. . . this House of Justice hath power to enact laws that are not expressly recorded in the Book and bear upon daily transactions, so also it hath power to repeal the same. (31)

Later on in His Will and Testament ‘Abdu’l-Bahá called on the believers in strong language to obey His twin Successors: All must seek guidance and turn unto the Centre of the Cause [the Guardian] and the House of Justice. And he that turneth unto whatsoever else is indeed in grievous error. (32)

Critique:

There. They said it. But do they really believe it? The guardian is the Center of the Cause. Are they relying on Shoghi Effendi from the next world to satisfy this primarily-ofthis-world-station? They relate that ‘Abdu’l-Bahá called upon the believers in strong language to obey His twin Successors. If ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, in their estimation, used strong language in admonishing them to obey the Institutions of the Guardianship and the Universal House of Justice, have they not set up an impossible task for their followers?

The bogus UHJ expects the believers to follow their guidance, guidance they percolate from their *interpretations* of policy established by a person who expected that another would fulfill his earthly station upon his becoming deceased. Imagine his surprise when they countermanded his own instructions and was re-instated as their guardian. Could it be any more confusing? Have they not forgotten that the deceased stressed to them that his station was whence he spoke, and not he himself as a human. It’s the station of the Institution of the Guardianship that we need to be concerned with, not the deceased person Shoghi Effendi. I would remind you that Bahá’u’lláh is the primary force behind the Institutions. Hmm. What’s Bahá’u’lláh’s take on this unexpected development?

Can a newly-defined and vital force in the lives of humans for countless years to come operate under the banner of a deceased person from the next world?

That is not to say that Shoghi Effendi the man should not be regarded as an exalted human being, for it was he who was the First Guardian of the Bahá’í Faith, a Faith that will endure far beyond any comprehension we can now imagine. One of the reasons it will so endure is that Shoghi Effendi labored diligently for 36 years as the First Guardian. His energies were channeled in a manner befitting his role as the conduit providing an education for humans to lead them from the expectations they had come to understand during the various Holy Manifestations of the Adamic Cycle. The Adamic Cycle is history. It is gone. Shoghi Effendi was the first human called upon to be the leader educator of humans in their grasping for the ABC’s of the newly-minted Bahá’í Cycle, a Cycle destined to last for some 5,000 centuries; 500,000 years.

While its true that the Báb and Bahá’u’lláh provided the Manifested Crescendo of the Blast announcing the path to the Kingdom, and it was ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in His special role as The Master who showed us how we could align ourselves within the bounds of that glorious path, it was Shoghi Effendi who was the first (non-Central Figure) mortal charged with the responsibility of guiding the day-to-day activities of his contemporaries within this unique and wondrous system, the like of which mortal eyes had never witnessed. And he performed splendidly. He elucidated the Institutions and named his successor. That was all that was expected of him, and that’s what he did. Splendidly.

The thing he did not do was take the mantle of guardianship to the next world with him. The believers who have that expectation should be ashamed of themselves. He should be left in peace in the next world, as is his due, and be allowed to continue onward in the worlds of God. There is no doubt a continued opportunity of service and lofty expectations available for those who have manned the Institution of the Guardianship while here. Any human who loves and admires the work performed by the First Guardian should pray for his progress in the next world, and allow, with thanksgiving in their hearts, that he accomplish the lofty goals available there.

Lets get back to that 500,000 year thing for a moment. Can we even begin to fathom that? I can’t; it’s too vast to grasp. But that’s how big this is. That is precisely why the issue of the Institutions is so vital. The battle began by others in 1957, ongoing some 52 years later, is about the survival of the Institutions of the Faith, and the Faith itself. The Holy Institutions must endure precisely as they were formulated by Bahá’u’lláh and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. Should humans deviate one iota from the commands of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s strong language, the Plan will continue in abeyance, and humans will suffer more and more until their pain is so intense that this very world will shudder and groan as it reels in search of a new path in the heavens while it adjusts its earthly physical composure.

ITC Position:

Shoghi Effendi described the Universal House of Justice as “the body designed to supplement and apply His legislative ordinances.” (33) Thus the House of Justice is empowered not only to enact laws where the Text is silent-that is, to “supplement” -but it is also empowered to “apply” the laws already expressly revealed by Bahá’u’lláh. The scope of authority of the Universal House of Justice is therefore comprehensive.

Critique:

Shoghi Effendi described the UHJ as “the body designed to supplement and apply His legislative ordinances” Lets go to the book they cite, “The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh” to read the actual quote: “It should be noted in this connection that this Administrative Order is fundamentally different from anything that any Prophet has previously established, inasmuch as Bahá’u’lláh has Himself revealed its principles, established its institutions, appointed the person to interpret His Word and conferred the necessary authority on the body designed to supplement and apply His legislative ordinances.”
— Shoghi Effendi, “The World Order of Baha’u’llah” page 145

This sentence doesn’t actually say “Universal House of Justice” but implies and is actually discussing a legitimate UHJ. The manner in which the bogus UHJ paragraph is written implies that Shoghi Effendi is speaking of himself when he says that the body will supplement and apply His legislative ordinances, when it actually says something quite different. Shoghi Effendi is referring to both Bahá’u’lláh and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, and not himself. You will note that the word *His* is capitalized and therefore does not infer Shoghi Effendi the man at all.

It should be remembered that ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s Will and Testament announced the Institution of the Guardianship, and that each time Shoghi Effendi refers to his authority he is referring to his station as the embodiment of the Institution of the Guardianship, and not as his role as Shoghi Effendi the man. The Institution of the Guardianship is destined to continue for at least this 1,000 year Dispensation. It will be embodied by many humans during that time. Each will bring the Spirit of God to the UHJ in its deliberations and actions, thusly providing it the capability to follow God’s Will.

Lacking the living guardian as its head, the UHJ is a hollow and corrupted institution. It must be emphasized again that the guardian is the Center of the Cause, and provides the only avenue in ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s Will and Testament to have any direct connection with the Manifestation Bahá’u’lláh, and thus with God Himself. The Will leads to a Universal House of Justice composed of eight elected and one appointed member, its president. Thus, only the Guardian has direct Holy-linkage with God, and is, as it president, the Center of the Cause, the only member of any UHJ to have infallible composure.

Since the bogus Universal House of Justice is composed of nine elected members, is that not yet another anomaly with reality? Particularly so when considering that Shoghi Effendi from the next world provides guidance for them. Is that not ten rather than nine?

ITC Position:

What are the promises of divine guidance given to the Universal House of Justice?

There are many examples in the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá which promise divine inspiration, guidance, and protection to the Universal House of Justice. Below are some of these passages:

God will verily inspire them [the Trustees of the House of Justice] with whatsoever He willeth, and He, verily, is the Provider, the Omniscient. (34)

The sacred and youthful branch, the guardian of the Cause of God as well as the Universal House of Justice, to be universally elected and established, are both under the care and protection of the Abhá Beauty, under the shelter and unerring guidance of His Holiness, the Exalted One (may my life be offered up for them both). Whatsoever they decide is of God. (35)

Unto the Most Holy Book every one must turn and all that is not expressly recorded therein must be referred to the Universal House of Justice. That which this body, whether unanimously or by a majority doth carry, that is verily the Truth and the Purpose of God Himself. Whoso doth deviate therefrom is verily of them that love discord, hath shown forth malice and turned away from the Lord of the Covenant. By this House is meant that Universal House of Justice . . . . (36)

Let it not be imagined that the House of Justice will take any decision according to its own concepts and opinions. God forbid! The Supreme House of Justice will take decisions and establish laws through the inspiration and confirmation of the Holy Spirit, because it is in the safekeeping and under the shelter and protection of the Ancient Beauty, and obedience to its decisions is a bounden and essential duty and an absolute obligation, and there is no escape for anyone. Say, O People: Verily the Supreme House of Justice is under the wings of your Lord, the Compassionate, the All-Merciful, that is, under His protection, His care, and His shelter; for He has commanded the firm believers to obey that blessed, sanctified and all-subduing body, whose sovereignty is divinely ordained and of the Kingdom of Heaven and whose laws are inspired and spiritual. (37)

Whatever will be its decision, by majority vote, shall be the real truth, inasmuch as that House is under the protection, unerring guidance, and care of the one true Lord. He shall guard it from error and will protect it under the wing of His sanctity and infallibility. He who opposes it is cast out and will eventually be of the defeated. (38)

What are some of the main powers of the Universal House of Justice?

In the Declaration of Trust of its Constitution, which summarizes the responsibilities of the Universal House of Justice, it states:

Bahá’u’lláh, the Revealer of God’s Word in this Day, the Source of Authority, the Fountainhead of Justice, the Creator of a new World Order, the Establisher of the Most Great Peace, the Inspirer and Founder of a world civilization, the Judge, the Lawgiver, the Unifier and Redeemer of all mankind, has proclaimed the advent of God’s Kingdom on earth, has formulated its laws and ordinances, enunciated its principles, and ordained its institutions. To direct and canalize the forces released by His Revelation He instituted His Covenant, whose power has preserved the integrity of His Faith, maintained its unity and stimulated its world-wide expansion throughout the successive ministries of ‘Abdu’l- Bahá and Shoghi Effendi. It continues to fulfill its life-giving purpose through the agency of the Universal House of Justice whose fundamental object, as one of the twin successors of Bahá’u’lláh and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, is to ensure the continuity of that divinely appointed authority which flows from the Source of the Faith, to safeguard the unity of its followers, and to maintain the integrity and flexibility of its teachings. (39)

Critique:

Lets wait a minute here. The above is crafted to indicate that there are twin successors to Bahá’u’lláh and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and that one of them is the Universal House of Justice. By naming both Bahá’u’lláh and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá immediately after the phrase twin successors, one may quickly read this sentence and be inclined to see two names following *twin successors* and forget that the other of the successors named in the Will is the Institution of the (living) Guardianship. Yes, there’s that pesky guardian again.

ITC Position:

Among the powers and duties of the Universal House of Justice as the Head of the Faith are the following:

1. Creating new laws

. . . this House of Justice hath power to enact laws that are not expressly recorded in the Book . . .(40)

Those matters of major importance which constitute the foundation of the Law of God are explicitly recorded in the Text, but subsidiary laws are left to the House of Justice. The wisdom of this is that the times never remain the same, for change is a necessary quality and an essential attribute of this world, and of time and place. Therefore the House of Justice will take action accordingly. (41)

2. Making deductions from the Writings

Today this process of deduction is the right of the body of the House of Justice, and the deductions and conclusions of individual learned men have no authority, unless they are endorsed by the House of Justice. The difference is precisely this, that from the conclusions and endorsements of the body of the House of Justice whose members are elected by and known to the worldwide Bahá’í community, no differences will arise; whereas the conclusions of individual divines and scholars would definitely lead to differences, and result in schism, division, and dispersion. The oneness of the Word would be destroyed, the unity of the Faith would disappear, and the edifice of the Faith of God would be shaken. (42)

3. Resolving problems and questions that are obscure

It is incumbent upon these members (of the Universal House of Justice) to gather in a certain place and deliberate upon all problems which have caused difference, questions that are obscure and matters that are not expressly recorded in the Book. Whatsoever they decide has the same effect as the Text itself. 43

4. Preventing differences and resolving problems

Praise be to God, all such doors are closed in the Cause of Bahá’u’lláh for a special authoritative Centre hath been appointed-a Centre that solveth all difficulties and wardeth off all differences. The Universal House of Justice, likewise, wardeth off all differences and whatever it prescribeth must be accepted and he who transgresseth is rejected. But this Universal House of Justice which is the Legislature hath not yet been instituted. (44)

Critique:

Look closely at the above statement. The ITC, quoting from ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, states that there is an authoritative Center that solves problems, and then relates that the UHJ, likewise, is capable of doing the same things. They use a pocket-sized (1996, page 225) edition of the book “Selections From the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá” for reference. Why is not the original book, page 215, more appropriate for a reference?

It is well-known that many of the original Bahá’í books have been modified to some degree by the UHJ. In this case, the quote they use appears to be exactly the same in both editions, yet the newer edition quote appears on page 226, whereas the original appeared on page 215. It makes one wonder why there are an additional ten pages in this edition? Yet, there remains a broader question: Why has it become necessary to modify *any* of the Bahá’í books containing Shoghi Effendi’s interpretations from the original text? Should not a guardian’s edition be of more efficacy than a modification by another entity that is not a guardian? And what did ‘Abdu’l-Bahá say about the Center of the Cause from His perspective as the Center of the Covenant? The closing words of the Will and Testament shed some light on that:

For he is, after ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, the Guardian of the Cause of God, the Afnán, the Hands (pillars) of the Cause and the beloved of the Lord must obey him and turn unto him. He that obeyeth him not, hath not obeyed God; he that turneth away from him, hath turned away from God and he that denieth him, hath denied the True One. Beware lest anyone falsely interpret these words, and like unto them that have broken the Covenant after the Day of Ascension (of Bahá’u’lláh) advance a pretext, raise the standard of revolt, wax stubborn and open wide the door of false interpretation. To none is given the right to put forth his own opinion or express his particular conviction. All must seek guidance and turn unto the Center of the Cause and the House of Justice. And he that turneth unto whatsoever else is indeed in grievous error. The Glory of Glories rest upon you!
— Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá pages 25-26

The Institution of the Guardianship is the successor of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, and thus, the intention is that there will always be on earth a living Center of the Cause in order that “…this is the Day that will not be followed by night…” The above also reiterates that the Universal House of Justice and the Center of the Cause are two separate entities.

Without a living guardian, there is no Bahá’í Faith!

This concludes Part Five of the Critique.

This is part Five of a Critique by Hand of Cause of God David Maxwell of A Study for Auxiliary Board Members of the Guardianship & The Universal House of Justice Prepared by the International Teaching Centre (of the heterodox Bahá’ís).
Click here to read: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3| Part 4 | Part 5| Part 6

Victory of Covenant – PART-B. Great Victory for the OTHODOX BAHA’I FAITH in the Court Case

The Provisional National Bahá’í Council of the United States, the governing body over Orthodox Bahá’ís, issued the following statement on December 5, 2010

Orthodox Bahá’í Faith wins appeal before 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

CHICAGO, IL– After reviewing briefs and then hearing oral arguments on February 20, 2009, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, on November 23, 2010, to uphold the judgment previously handed down by the United States District Court. It was the ruling of the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve of April 23, 2008, after holding an evidentiary hearing January 7, 2008 in Chicago, Illinois, that the Orthodox Bahá’í Faith was found not guilty of contempt charges levied against it by the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States (Wilmette NSA). The injunction that the Orthodox Bahá’í Faith was accused of violating would have prohibited it from using the name “Bahá’í”, meaning a follower of Baha’u’llah (as the name Christian refers to one who follows Christ.)

In the ruling of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, it found that the original judgment and ruling of Judge St. Eve to be sound and free of any legal error. It therefore upheld in its entirety the innocence of the Orthodox Bahá’í Faith in the contempt charges levied against it by the Wilmette NSA. Furthermore, the Appellate Court could not refute her written judgment in which she cited that key witnesses for the Orthodox Bahá’í Faith, Franklin D. Schlatter and Marilyn Meyer, gave “credible testimony” that the organization was not formed with the intention of violating the 1966 Judgment.

The Court of Appeals affirmed that the Orthodox Bahá’ís were not legally identified with the NSA under Mason Remey and therefore the Orthodox Bahá’í Faith is not bound by the 1966 Judgment. The original injunction was issued over forty years ago to that now-extinct rival body to the Wilmette NSA. In the judgment handed down by Judge St. Eve, she wrote: “[T]he chain of succession lacks a link.”

“The Council is pleased that the Court of Appeals upheld the sound decision of Judge St. Eve. We the Orthodox Baha’is of the United States, as fellow believers in the Faith of Baha’u’llah, differ with the Wilmette NSA only in that we believe Shoghi Effendi did not fail in his duty to appoint a successor during his lifetime,” said Jeffrey Goldberg, the Secretary of the Provisional National Bahá’í Council for the Orthodox Bahá’ís (PNBC).

The Wilmette NSA, a national branch of the world organization with over 6 million members, brought the legal action against the PNBC, whose membership, in contrast, numbers about 50 in the United States, many of whom are lifelong believers.

As a result of the Appellate Court upholding the original findings of Judge St Eve, assuming it becomes final, there is no legal impediment to the Orthodox Bahá’í Faith’s use of the name “Bahá’í” in identifying itself and it may continue to teach its belief in the continuing Guardianship of the Faith of Baha’u’llah, a teaching in direct opposition to that taught by the NSA group. The Orthodox Baha’i Faith recognizes Joel B. Marangella as the rightful living Guardian of the Bahá’í Faith.