Persecution of covenant breakers

[Steinninn]

I was wondering, when someone became a covenant breakers the guardian told the bahá'ís not to talk to them. Isn't that the same as what the muslims are doing now telling people not to talk to bahá'ís because they are dangerous people.

Let's say that someone in 500 years comes and sais he is the next manifestation. What will the bahá'ís do. More and more people start following this person. Will the Universal House of Justice keep the union of all religions? Even this new one?

It's said in the bahá'í faith that the next manifestation woun't come until at least 1000 years after Bahá'u'llah. So this person can't be a manifestation. This is just like what the muslims are saying now, that Bahá'u'llah can't be a prophet because Muhammed was the last one.

So of corse bahá'ís are persecuted, in the eyes of the muslims they are covenent breakers and you shouldn't talk to these kinds of people. Right?

I'm just trying to imagen what the bahá'ís would do if they were in the same shoes as the muslims in Iran are now.

 

[S-word]

I was wondering, when someone became a covenant breakers the guardian told the bahá'ís not to talk to them. Isn't that the same as what the muslims are doing now telling people not to talk to bahá'ís because they are dangerous people.

Let's say that someone in 500 years comes and sais he is the next manifestation. What will the bahá'ís do. More and more people start following this person. Will the Universal House of Justice keep the union of all religions? Even this new one?

It's said in the bahá'í faith that the next manifestation woun't come until at least 1000 years after Bahá'u'llah. So this person can't be a manifestation. This is just like what the muslims are saying now, that Bahá'u'llah can't be a prophet because Muhammed was the last one.

So of corse bahá'ís are persecuted, in the eyes of the muslims they are covenent breakers and you shouldn't talk to these kinds of people. Right?

I'm just trying to imagen what the bahá'ís would do if they were in the same shoes as the muslims in Iran are now.

Speaking for myself. I will talk to anyone, whether they be Baha'i, Muslim, Buddhist Christian, Atheist, whatever, it's only when they start speaking in a language that I can't understand and the conversation becomes senseless that I am forced to walk away.

 

[Adib]

I was wondering, when someone became a covenant breakers the guardian told the bahá'ís not to talk to them. Isn't that the same as what the muslims are doing now telling people not to talk to bahá'ís because they are dangerous people.

A major difference is that in our case, it is part and parcel of Baha'i law to not have any interaction with them. I'm not sure if there is an explicit prohibition of associating with those who come to accept someone after Muhammad either in the Qur'an or an authentic hadith. I think it's just a principle that the Iranian Muslims came up with on their own.

Let's say that someone in 500 years comes and sais he is the next manifestation. What will the bahá'ís do. More and more people start following this person. Will the Universal House of Justice keep the union of all religions? Even this new one?

Why even go so far as 500 years? There is already one Iranian-Australian ex-Baha'i who laid claim to prophethood of some sort not too long ago, though he is now an Azali more or less. Even while Baha'u'llah was still alive, his own son - Mirza Muhammad-Ali, not `Abdu'l-Baha - laid claim to be a Manifestation of God, and it is said that Baha'u'llah slapped him for that.

Thus, there will probably be more people in the future who will make claim to that same station before 1,000 years has passed, and whatever fruits they produce would not be part of our "unity of all religions" principle, because the implication behind that is the divinely revealed religions (i.e. Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Sabeanism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, the Babi & Baha'i Faiths as well as the other unknown ones which have been lost to time). Therefore, we generally do not consider other groups like Satanism, Cao Dai, the Moonies, etc to be belief systems derived from God. Similarly, such a premature post-Baha'i faction which obviously violates the Aqdas would fall under the same category.

The House of Justice does have a letter regarding the recognition of the next Manifestation:

http://bahai-library.com/file.php?file=uhj_recognition_next_prophet

It's said in the bahá'í faith that the next manifestation woun't come until at least 1000 years after Bahá'u'llah. So this person can't be a manifestation. This is just like what the muslims are saying now, that Bahá'u'llah can't be a prophet because Muhammed was the last one.

The difference is that, from the Baha'i perspective, there is a lot of leeway for the terminology and context of Qur'an 33:40, most importantly the term "Seal of the Prophets" (Khatme-Nubawwa or Khatammo-Nabi). For example, refer to the following scholarly papers on the subject:

A Baha'i Approach to the Claim of Finality in Islam
Six meanings associated with the terms seal of prophets

Baha'u'llah, on the other hand, gave absolutely no room for leeway or anything but a clearly literal interpretation with regard to the 1,000-year injunction:

"Whoso layeth claim to a Revelation direct from God, ere the expiration of a full thousand years, such a man is assuredly a lying impostor. We pray God that He may graciously assist him to retract and repudiate such claim. Should he repent, God will, no doubt, forgive him. If, however, he persisteth in his error, God will, assuredly, send down one who will deal mercilessly with him. Terrible, indeed, is God in punishing! Whosoever interpreteth this verse otherwise than its obvious meaning is deprived of the Spirit of God and of His mercy which encompasseth all created things."

(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 346; Emphasis added)

So of corse bahá'ís are persecuted, in the eyes of the muslims they are covenent breakers and you shouldn't talk to these kinds of people. Right?

I'm just trying to imagen what the bahá'ís would do if they were in the same shoes as the muslims in Iran are now.

If Iran were not a hardliner theocracy and people were actually able to express their opinions and practice freedom of and from religion there, the Iranian Baha'i scholars could present their perspective on the "Seal of the Prophets" and engage in constructive dialogue with Muslim believers. But in Iran's current state, such a scenario is merely a pipe dream. I find it ironic that the Qur'an actually speaks of there being no compulsion in religion, but then one can look at Iran's leadership as well as their treatment of their country's minorities and be staring in the face of the ultimate antithesis of that verse.

Always remember that the first Babis and Baha'is were Muslims. Vahid Darabi was undoubtedly the most learned Iranian scholar of Shi'ah Islam at his time, having memorized over 30,000 Islamic hadiths. Yet, for such a learned individual, this "Seal of the Prophets" deal was obviously a non-issue, as he became an ardent Babi after interviewing the Bab three times on orders of the Shah and was eventually martyred. The Hands of the Cause of Baha'u'llah were all prominent mullahs.

Later, Mirza Abu'l-Fadl Gulpaygani - another brilliant Islamic scholar who studied at Al-Azhar, the most prestigious Islamic school in the world - not only became an even more brilliant Baha'i after an amusing encounter with a Baha'i blacksmith, but was essentially the first Baha'i apologist. Imagine: an extremely learned Muslim eventually became a Baha'i and wrote texts which eloquently defend the Baha'i Faith and its doctrine (e.g. The Brilliant Proof, Miracles and Metaphors, and the Kitab al-Fara'id). What a leap of faith he had to make to get as far as he did! `Abdu'l-Baha even said once that Mirza Abu'l-Fadl was like himself ("nafse man hast"), a practically unparalleled honor in early Baha'i history.

In the later 20th century, a very learned mullah named Shaykh Muhammad Muvahhid decided to research the Baha'i Faith, but he did not intend to do so dispassionately - he was out to see what obvious flaws he could find in our religion. So he went to a library which happened to have the Kitab-i-Iqan, which he read and began reading. His initial mindset of mockery soon changed into bewilderment and fascination with what he was reading, and he, too, came to accept Baha'u'llah. Yet another prominent cleric! And he even brought another 19 mullahs to the Faith before he was abducted in May 1979.

I hope all of this helps.

 

[arthra]

Steinninn,

Basically all we are asked to do is leave them alone.. that is if someone who doesn't accept Baha'u'llah, Abdul-Baha or the Guardian, the Universal House of Justice and still claims to be say a Baha'i or maybe an Azali.. We are not to interfere with them or mistreat them in any way..simply leave them to themselves.

A question was asked the Guardian if we had business with someone in this category and the Guardian suggested that we should complete the business honorably and not wish them ill but to pray for them..

So as Baha'is if we are true to our the principles of our Faith would not do what is being done to us in Iran...that is, blocking us from higher education, depriving us from legal rights and imprisoning Baha'is, destroying Baha'i cemetaries and confiscating Baha'i books, seizing Baha'i properties like the National Baha'i Center etc. So it would not be the same you see at all..

- Art

 

[Steinninn]

So it would not be the same you see at all..

Let's hope it woun't

 

[Darz]

Basically all we are asked to do is leave them alone.. that is if someone who doesn't accept Baha'u'llah, Abdul-Baha or the Guardian, the Universal House of Justice and still claims to be say a Baha'i or maybe an Azali.. We are not to interfere with them or mistreat them in any way..simply leave them to themselves.

Why is shunning the chosen avenue of dealing with Covenant-breakers? Its seems to me that everyone should be given the chance to communicate and be communicated with by all members of the community.

 

[arthra]

Why is shunning the chosen avenue of dealing with Covenant-breakers? Its seems to me that everyone should be given the chance to communicate and be communicated with by all members of the community.

Hello Darz!

You may be unaware of the process involved...

First it takes someone who is nominally a Baha'i who is actively attacking the Center of the Cause or is working to arrogate to themselves some sort of following.. So it does in fact start with an interaction and a "chance to communicate"..

The issue is should someone who is actively opposed to say the Covenant be permitted an audience? And the answer from our point of view is "No".. They should not be allowed to use say Baha'i media or to communicate to the community when they are in an attack mode..

The best way is to simply leave them alone to themselves.

But before it even comes to that members of the Auxiliary Board or Counselors may seek to meet with them to see if they will relent or cease these attacks, if they choose not to stop and have been warned then the matter goes up to say a higher echelon for consideration.

Today only the Universal House of Justice has the authority to identify someone like this... Previously it was Abdul-Baha and the Guardian of the Faith.

- Art

 

[Adib]

I'd like to clarify the meanings of these terms in case anyone here is unaware:

Azalis: those who accept Azal as Him Whom God Shall Make Manifest as opposed to Baha'u'llah, also known as Bayanis

Babis: those who believe that the Bab was the latest Manifestation and repudiate both Baha'u'llah and Azal; they still await Him Whom God Shall Make Manifest

There are likely under a hundred adherents of both of these groups, found predominantly in Iran. I can actually say this regarding Azalis for certain, as my parents knew one or two Azali families from Shiraz. However, I'm honestly not sure if any genuine Babis are left, and if there are they certainly number fewer than the Azalis.

The adherents of both groups are not considered covenant-breakers because covenant-breaking presumes that one has submitted oneself to a covenant and then broke it, and neither Azalis nor Babis ever swore allegiance to Bahá'u'lláh. Therefore, they cannot be said to have broken his covenant.

Why is shunning the chosen avenue of dealing with Covenant-breakers? Its seems to me that everyone should be given the chance to communicate and be communicated with by all members of the community.

It should firstly be noted that there are an appallingly small number of covenant-breakers in the world because it takes a great deal of persistence to become one. If one doesn't like the Faith, he or she can just leave and they wouldn't be harassed or anything. Counsellors are usually sent to talk with individuals that present antagonistic arguments against the Faith and try to legitimately spread them as actual Baha'i views to try and remind them what it basically means to be a Baha'i. But if the individual is persistent in his campaign of distortion and all the while considers themselves a member of the Baha'i Faith, they are at risk of being declared a covenant-breaker by the Universal House of Justice.

Covenant-breakers generally fit the following criteria very snugly:

1. They reject the legitimacy of the Universal House of Justice and follow their own leadership. As a result, they usually defame the House and similarly regard the Custodians (nine Hands of the Cause) as despicable usurpers for assuming leadership upon Shoghi Effendi's death.

2. They staunchly proliferate their belief that what they have is right and that we - the adherents to the House of Justice - are misguided and are thusly not real Baha'is. One of the main Orthodox Baha'i outlets is actually named "TrueBahai."

3. They present distorted views of the Baha'i Faith if people ever inquire about it (our faith, not their version), alleging that their own group(s) has/have undergone suffering comparable to the Baha'i community, which is ridiculous and can be discredited with even a cursory perusal of Baha'i history in the past 50 years. This is the means by which they vilify and derail the integrity of the Faith.

The few that exist also appear to be very adamant about their campaign of distortion and propaganda. One particular covenant-breaker had planned to attend a youth conference about an hour away from where I live, pitch a tent with a photograph of Baha'u'llah in it (disregarding Shoghi Effendi's request to use and treat it with the utmost reverence), and distribute Orthodox Baha'i pamphlets to all of the youth attending the conference, and he made it all known through his membership in a relevant Facebook group. Fortunately, the conference came and went and I was told that he did not attend, but it would have posed a disturbance if he had.

One of my friends, a Baha'i, decided to talk to this individual regardless before the conference. He could not get him to talk about anything other than the Orthodox Baha'i Faith, and he would constantly assert his own distorted view of the religion to which we adhere and present arguments as to why his own was legitimate. Eventually, my friend realized that such dialogue was futile and ended contact with him.

Covenant-breakers only want to grab people from the Baha'i Faith and bring them into their own breakaway groups. The few Baha'is I know that bothered talking to them all had the same experience.

In this light, the law forbidding us to talk to them is really for our own good: attempted dialogues with them yield no fruit, as the only reason they would even talk to a Baha'i to begin with is to bring them into their own group. Their members parallel their original founders and their motives so clearly that it's almost bewildering. You might take a gander at this document prepared by the House regarding the covenant-breaker groups and how they came to be:

http://bahai-library.com/file.php?file=uhj_mason_remey_followers

Hope all of that helps.

 

[Darz]

Not everyone wants to form their own group and then encourage people to join. I would think most would simply want to advance a new view point or criticism and engage in dialogue with other members and leadership on the issue, rather than completely breaking away to form their own group.

Having said that, how far is a member of a Baha'i Faith allowed to stray from the doctrine of the Baha'i Faith without being declared a Covenant-breaker? For instance, would a member be able to vocally oppose the belief that the Universal House of Justice is infallible in all matters of the faith without being declared a Covenant-breaker?

 

[arthra]

Not everyone wants to form their own group and then encourage people to join. I would think most would simply want to advance a new view point or criticism and engage in dialogue with other members and leadership on the issue, rather than completely breaking away to form their own group.

Having said that, how far is a member of a Baha'i Faith allowed to stray from the doctrine of the Baha'i Faith without being declared a Covenant-breaker? For instance, would a member be able to vocally oppose the belief that the Universal House of Justice is infallible in all matters of the faith without being declared a Covenant-breaker?

I don't think differences of opinion are the issue .. There is an established means of discussion called "Consultation" in our Faith where varying views are presented on the table to consult.. As far as infallibility of the House of Justice this was a conferred infallibility and Baha'is can deepen on the subject but it would take someone who would overtly attack the Covenant not someone who might have say offer a varying view per se..so there's a lot of difference from a person who is say studying something and maybe comes up with their own personal understanding vrs. someone who is really on the attack and trying to say divide the Baha'is, etc.

Also anyone can if they wish withdraw from the Faith and become a "non-Baha'i". Their decision is respected and they are not regarded as apostates as in say Islam or historiucally, as in Christianity.

The issue is with someone who as an ostensible Baha'i who challenges the Covenant by say arrogating to themselves authority or claiming they are the authority rather than the Central Figures of the Faith and so attempt to start divisions in the Faith.

In our history some individuals sought to be leaders or attack our Institutions or claim some sort of authority, you can read about these as examples in our history at

http://bahai-library.com/?file=momen_encyclopedia_covenant.html

As to Subh-i-Azal I'm afraid the historial record did identify him as a Covennat Breaker..

`Abdu'l-Bahá is reported to have stated that as many as twenty-five persons laid claim to the leadership of the community (GPB 125). None of these except for Azal is, however, regarded as a Covenant-breaker because they all put forward their claims at a time when there was no clear authority in the religion. Many of them became followers of Bahá'u'lláh once he put forward his claim. Only Azal opposed and worked to undermine the position of Bahá'u'lláh. Estimates put the number of Azalís remaining in Iran at no more than 5,000. They have no organization. (see "Azal, Azalís").

There was an individual I think in the early fifties who was supposed to be a descendant of Azal that published some of his wriitings attacking the Faith.

Anyway.. there are actually very few persons who have actually been identified as Covenant Breakers.. and again, they are left to themselves and not interfered with or harrassed by the Baha'is. They also can return to the Faith if they choose to but must apply to the House of Justice.

- Art

 

[Steinninn]

Thank you adib and arthra, I think I've gotten a little better understanding of what a covenant breaker is.http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/../members/arthra-1444.html

 

[arthra]

Your very welcome Steinninn

and I wish you well and your family... Have you been affected by events in Iceland?

- Art

 

[Steinninn]

Thank you.

Not rely, it's hard, but I think I'm going to be ok.

 

[Cosmos]

As your Baha'i brother who is called a Covenant Breaker, I will tell you what a Baha'i should do...

My fiance and I engage within the 'mainstream' Baha'i Community participating and setting up core activities, such as our devotionals and Ruhi study circles. We lovingly share and cooperate with our fellow Baha'is though we personally know deep down that the Baha'i World is not following the provisions of the Covenant delineated by Abdu'l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi's Four Stage Plan. Our activities are underground, yet in the open, and we even participated in the IPG meeting and read the Ridvan letter of 2010 from Haifa with our collaborators and a Haifa UHJ administrative representative. Before you are too sure you know who a Covenant Breaker is, Steinninn, realize that thousands of Baha'is are asking questions concerning the Institution of the Guardianship and causing mass apostasy or reconversion in the American Baha'i Community (40% leave the Faith annually), including those such as myself engaged within the community, who are not shunning others who are genuinely covenant-breaking, because they witch hunt us forcibly with documents and inquiries (happened in my own home), but cannot handle a fair trial or hearing from our side of the story or consider our evidences. More so online will the intense prejudice against Baha'is under different Rites (i.e. assemblies or organizations) when the vast majority of Baha'is in fact have no real clue as to the history or information concerning the death of Shoghi Effendi. My only hope is that Baha'is will ask legitimate, tough, and critically-thinking questions.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Please don't believe everything you hear, Steinninn (as I'm sure you're also very well aware, Art)!

The "40% leave every year" is a gross exaggeration--IOW, an outright lie!!

The departures are hugely smaller than the individual is claiming, as is often the case with the claims of those opposed to (or dissenting from) the Faith for one reason or another.

I know from personal experience in my area (with well over a thousand Baha'is) that the communities are quite stable! If that sort of withdrawl percentage were happening, the situation would be entirely different! We have no such situation, nor is this area unusual in that respect.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[Cosmos]

I am not a dissenter, Bruce. In fact, my source is a Baha'i source, though the statistic is quite a few years old. Please do not share your prejudices towards me--as you do not know me, Bruce--and I would never demean you as a fellow Baha'i and brother. And you can talk big for your own community, but I cannot say the same for my own local community. So, rather than beat around the bush, why not just call another person a liar?

In any case, I am not making up one iota of information. For example, if I based my own experiences as the merited value of statistical truth, then it would be on par with what I described, as in one quarter we've seen people go from very interested in the Baha'i activities to generally put-off by the Ruhi method and lack of actual activities in general, particularly those with high college degrees. Rather than try to convince Steinninn to cull to the masses, why not have him as a young man make the choice of practicing Independent Investigation of the Truth? Rather than treat other Baha'is not agreed with like pariahs, why are there no tough, critical-thinking questions asked? Again, before assuming who is and is not a Covenant-Breaker--know that we are in the very midst of the Baha'i Community, teaching, studying, participating, and we are not treacherous, deceiving, or cunning, as we come with proofs.

Another disturbing fact to witness in Washington State is how very few youths there are, as most Baha'is are believers from the 1960's-1970's generation thoroughly indoctrinated by Hands of the Cause of God to reject all questions and attempts at resolving the conundrum of an inactive executive branch, even though almost no one I know in the local community has truly accurate knowledge of any of the history of 1957-1963 (6 year interim), despite being Baha'is for 20-30+ years! All word-of-mouth from an authority figure. It'd be most appreciable, Bruce, if you could actually ask questions conducive to your intelligence as a grown man and a senior Baha'i.

 

[Boethiah]

Open, respectful dialog is definitely important rather than the automatic nay saying. Open, honest discussion/debate is one of the only ways we as a species can advance peacefully.