One of the friends Mr. Robert Clifton has left a comment that: “I am a Baha’i. I do not follow the Will and Testament. I do not follow the UHJ. I follow Baha’u’llah. Baha’i is defined as someone who follow Baha’u’llah.”Further he comments: “I have read the Will and Testament with discernment, ‘open eyes’ and with reference to history, the present and the future. I do not find it relevant to the “Cause of God” as outlined by Baha’u’llah.”
Also he says: “There are now perhaps seven or eight divisions (some call them sects) of Baha’i. I belong to none of those divisions, nor can I be considered a separate division. I am a Baha’i.”
If I am not committing a mistake, Dear Robert, you yourself in your correspondence with Dr. Susan Maneck have proved in four steps that Shoghi Effendi clearly, unequivocally and unambiguously appointed Mason Remey to be the Second Guardian of the Cause of God. Then why do you not believe in the continuity of the Guardianship? When you believe that the Guardian is the permanent head of the UHJ, then why do you deny the essentiality of the Institution of the UHJ, as delineated in the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Baha? We Orthodox Baha’is also reject the current illegtimate sans-Guardian UHJ but believe in the UHJ with the Guardian presiding as its “sacred head” which we hope will soon will be established.
Any way, I am not going into details about it but simply I would like to draw your attention that a person, claiming to be a Baha’i, who does not believe in the writings of Abdu’l Baha he is not believing in Baha’u’llah. You have misunderstood the Station of Abdu’l Baha. I request that you read the books of Baha’u’llah like “Kitab-i-Ahd” (Book of His Covenant), Suriy-i-Ghusn (Tablet of the Branch) and those excerpts from the Kitab-i-Aqdas, His most Holy Book, in which He has disclosed and extolled the Station of Abdu’l Baha –the ”Center of the Covenant.”
In the Kitab-i-Aqdas Baha’u’lah proclaims:
“When the ocean of My presence hath ebbed and the Book of My Revelation is ended, turn your faces toward Him (Abdu’l Baha) Whom God hath purposed, Who hath branched from this Ancient Root.”
In the Suriy-i-Ghusn (Tablet of the Branch) He wrote about ‘Abdu’l-Baha:
“Render thanks unto God, O people for His appearance; for verily He is the most great Favor unto you, the most perfect bounty upon you and through Him every mouldering bone is quickened. Whoso turneth towards Him hath turned towards God, and whoso turneth away from Him hath turned away from my Beauty, hath repudiated My Proof and transgressed against Me.”
In the light of the above words of Baha’u’llah.. how can one dare say I am a Baha’i but do not follow the Will and Testament of Abdul Baha? And how can he then still dare to say that he is someone who follows Baha’u’llah?
Surely he is not a Baha’i.
WORDS OF SHOGHI EFFENDI CONCERNING STATION OF ‘ABDU’L-BAHA’
In his immortal work titled: “The Dispensation of Baha’u’llah,” he stated:
“He is, and should for all the time be regarded, first and foremost as the Centre and Pivot of Baha’u’llah’s peerless and all enfolding Covenant, His most exalted handiwork, the stainless Mirror of His Light, the perfect Exemplar of His teachings, the unerring, interpreter of His Word…”
SHOGHI EFFENDI ATTESTS TO THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE WILL AND TESTAMENT OF ‘ABDU’L-BAHA:
“…an Instrument which may be viewed as the Charter of the New World Order which is at once glory and the 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 (Baha’u’llah) and the One Who was its vehicle and chosen recipient of both the Originator and Interpreter of the Law of God – the Will and Testament of Abdu’l-Baha can no more be divorced from Him who supplied the original and motivating impulse than from the One Who ultimately conceived.”
“The Administrative Order which this historic Document [The Will and Testament] has established, it should be noted, is by virtue of its origin and character, unique in the annals of the world’s religious systems.”
CARE:
A clear instruction shows that ‘Abdu’l-Baha should for all the time be regarded. Then who is a Baha’i? One who regards Him or the one who rejects Him by rejecting His Will?
All the Baha’is are enjoined to pay attention to this very important matter.
Dr. A Parikh,
Secretary, PNBC of India.
1 comment:
Thank you for taking the time to respond to me.
I remember my four steps to Mason Remey. Unfortunately the underpinning premise for that exercise was proven to my satisfaction to be invalid.
In this response I will not post lengthy quotes but merely reference book and page.
Abdul Baha said, and I paraphrase, ‘do not distress anyone by telling them they are not a Baha'i.’. (Abdu’l-Bahá in London, Pages 97-98)
Normally I do not rely upon non-manifestations to tell me the mind of God. (Gleanings p. 192) Abdul Baha was not a manifestation, nor a prophet of God. (Newspaper headline “Prophet Says Prophet not a Prophet”) Beyond that the Revelation is full of references to the unity of God and the believers of God.
A quick search of “true believer” reveals that not only am I listed in the Crimson Book as a Baha'i but being a true believer includes Christians, Muslims, and so on. (Gleanings p. 166) The only ‘non-believer’, ‘infidel’, would be a person who denies that God exists. Even those, according to the Bab, are “Servants of God and abide by His bidding.” If a person is doing the bidding of God, who are you, me or any other mortal to say they are wrong? What part of Gods creation are you and I to reject? A search of the word “pearl” in “Ocean” is helpful in understanding this concept.
To save a lot of your energy and mine, let me point out that our difference of opinion begins long before the will and testament of Abdul Baha. In fact this difference between us repeats the history of Christianity and of Islam.
The first Christians believed that Jesus appointed Peter as the first Pope. That Pope became two popes. In Islam we see the same battle as mainly expressed by Shiite and Sunni. Similarly Baha’is today have six or seven papal entities. Thus we have a plethora of religions.
Much later Luther made a definitive break with Catholicism in denying that the Pope had the claimed power. This is the core of our difference.
Today we do not know which position is correct because unlike Baha’is, the Christians and Muslims had not had the power of consultation revealed to them. They continue splintered hundreds of years later. We Baha’is have that powerful instrument of consultation revealed to us but we are not using it. Joel told me he does not trust it. Goodness gracious! Baha’u’llah said to trust it. (Tablets, p92)
The reigns of power today are being claimed by each faction of Baha'i.
We Baha’is have been allotted a thousand or five hundred thousand years to settle the question.
Maybe we should start.
Some Baha’is believe that God through Baha’u’llah appointed Abdul Baha the first guardian/center of the covenant. I do not. In my reading of the passages you quote(Tablets, 222) I discern that Baha’u’llah reiterated His other statements in the writings by appointing Abdul Baha the head of the holy lineage, head of the family, and nothing more. A special station indeed, but not one containing the reigns of power. Those reigns of power, upon Baha’u’llahs instructions from God, (ibid) were left in the hands of the Kings and Rulers, (ibid) whom we are all to support wholeheartedly.
Given that Abdul Baha told a believer that “even the rights of Prophet hood” (World Order, p148) are due the first born it is understandable how weighing the books of God by standards then current would lead Abdul Baha and those after him to the conclusion that the word of God was bestowing that right upon the descendents of Baha’u’llah. I simply believe that in those same passages (ibid) that concept of continuation has been denied by Baha’u’llah.
I would really like to discuss, with someone as knowledgeable as you, the roots of this division within the ranks of the Baha'i community.
Your Baha'i Brother,
Robert Clifton
Post a Comment