Baha'i movers & shakers

User avatar
rachel
Posts: 1600
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 257 times
Been thanked: 467 times

Re: Baha'i movers & shakers

Post by rachel »

Earlier in this thread I talk about Mary Maxwell the wife of Shoghi Effendi and 'Hand of the Cause of God', who was born in NEW YORK in 1910, the only child of Mary 'May' Maxwell. Daughter Mary Maxwell married Shoghi Effendi in a sudden quiet affair where few people were invited and it was only announced after the event. Mary Maxwell chose not to take Shoghi Effendi's name and instead was given the honorary title of Ruhiyyih Khanum. She remained Mary Maxwell throughout her life up until her death in January 2000, never remarrying after Shoghi Effendi's death in London in 1957, she was only 46 at the time... Also mentioned was the fact Effendi is not a name anyway, it is a title akin to Esquire or Mr. And finally, an interesting clause in the Baha'i faith, conveniently, members have to be buried within an hour's travel (walking) of where they died. I can see if it is a contrived religion why that might be a good clause to write in.

Mary "May" Maxwell
Despite poor health, on January 24, 1940 May chose to leave New York on a steamship to Brazil, ultimately to land in Argentina to teach the Faith with her niece, Jeanne Bolles. She arrived in Buenos Aires on February 27 with elation; however on March 1, May died of a heart attack. Shoghi Effendi gave her the status of martyr and cabled the following: "ʻAbdu'l-Bahá's beloved handmaid, distinguished disciple May Maxwell (is) gathered (into the) glory (of the) Abhá Kingdom. Her earthly life, so rich, eventful, incomparably blessed, (is) worthily ended. To sacred tie her signal services had forged, (the) priceless honor (of a) martyr's death (is) now added. (A) double crown deservedly won. (The) Seven-Year Plan, particularly (the) South American campaign, derive fresh impetus (from the) example (of) her glorious sacrifice. Southern outpost (of) Faith greatly enriched through association (with) her historic resting-place destined remain (a) poignant reminder (of the) resistless march (of the) triumphant army (of) Baháʼu'lláh. Advise believers (of) both Americas (to) hold befitting memorial gathering.".

If May Maxwell is a legal person, sending her off to Brazil to die means they didn't have to fake a Canadian funeral or bring home a pretend body. Instead a member is commanded to be buried where they die, and if you want to make sure the least amount of people attend the funeral, make it a long way away from home. Also, as a bonus, you get to build a shrine in another country's territory and therefore state a claim to the land.

When you recognise the chess moves, it becomes increasingly likely 'Mary 'May' Maxwell' is a ghost, the same entity passing through the generations, administered in New York. This would also likely explain why, mid-pandemic, Shoghi Effendi travelled from Israel to LONDON either because he was unwell and wanted to visit a London physician, else to buy furniture, whichever of the explanations you care to believe, and then ended up dying, his corpse attended by a random doctor, and then buried in London Southgate Cemetery, people from the faith not being able to travel and confirm any of the given story or see his body before it was put into its coffin, apparently in a very bad state.

And then we have the coincidence that Bill Gates mother is also called Mary Maxwell, born in Seattle, WASHINGTON, another administration district.

So what am I getting at? The difference between a sole trader and a corporation is that the sole trader's business is dissolved upon his death. Corporations are zombies, we hear the term Zombie Capitalism, that is because corporations can continue on indefinitely even when the children of the children of the first people to incorporate them are long dead. They are, in a way, cheating death, that is their point. And that is probably why the worst people seem to live the longest. If it is a corporation, it is probably in the interest of the people who hold control to keep it going as long as they can before having to fake a death and swap it out to someone else, that's if you are running the corporation with a human facade.


Something I found interesting was a part of a Boris Johnson interview. He was born in NEW YORK, as was his interviewer, Jake Tapper. Isn't it interesting how so many famous people are born in New York and London or overseas in countries that don't have a birth register that western courts would consider a legal' proof of birth.

Jake Tapper Tried to Get Boris Johnson to Fret About January 6 — It Backfired
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/juliorosa ... d-n2609379



This interview might be the reason Boris was taken down. He refused to condemn the January 6th event, he didn't want to go there. I think there is disquiet in the ranks, there seems to be a section of the cabal tiring of the bullshit.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 1600
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 257 times
Been thanked: 467 times

Re: Baha'i movers & shakers

Post by rachel »

I have mused about Canadian Mary Maxwell's New York birth, and Boris Johnson's New York birth. I can put forward some hear-say evidence from 'trusted sources'. It has been quoted in the news in the past, ex-PM Boris Johnson is related to the Queen, the ex-PM David Cameron is related to the Queen. MP Harriet Harman, one time interim Leader of the Labour party is related through marriage to David Cameron, and her husband another Labour MP until he recently died suddenly (not from COVID) was therefore related to the Queen. Then we have ex-PM John Major, became a official guardian to the princes on Diana's death. Top people and royal family ties.

The royal ancestry of Boris Johnson, the Queen’s 14th Prime Minister
https://www.nettyroyal.nl/genealogy/the ... -minister/
Queen Elizabeth II today receives her new (14th) Prime Minister, Boris Johnson. Yesterday, Tuesday 23 July, he was elected the new Conservative leader. The Queen invites him to form a government today, by saying yes he is officially the new British Prime Minister. While his surname is a rather boring one, his background is quite interesting.

Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson was born on 19 June 1964 in New York, USA, – becoming only the second Prime Minister after Andrew Bonar Law (1923-1924; born in Canada) being born outside the UK. In August 2008, when he still was the mayor of London, the popular TV-programme “Who do you think you are?” researched [CREATED?] his ancestry (see here for videos). He is partly Jewish, partly French, partly English, partly American and even partly Turkish. There is also some very interesting German blood. In 2008 by the way the mayor of London (Johnson), the Prime Minister (David Cameron) and the head of state (The Queen) were all descendants of King George II.

Boris married first 1987-1993 to Allegra Mostyn-Owen – from a British LG family. He married 1993 Marina Wheeler and had four children. The couple separated in 2018, leaving the United Kingdom with a Prime Minister without a wife. He also has an illegitimate daughter. He is currently in a relationship.

It's funny, the BBC allows us to view the entire 'Who Do You Think You Are' back catalogue on Youtube, see above link. It doesn't force an iPlayer sign-in. What does that tell us? ... It's the propaganda the establishment want us to be able to repeat. I notice JK Rowling listed, another rags-to-riches story that I highly suspect only happens in fairy tails.

There is a couple of reasons I wanted to do a in-depth look at the Baha'i faith. Firstly because of the fascinating content I read from my Brazilian source, secondly.
“To find out who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize” - Voltaire
I do not agree. I think a better description, 'To find out who rules over you simply find out who is always in the background but no one ever acknowledges exists.' ... All the truth channels, how many have ever mentioned the Baha'i Faith and Sufism?



@fakeologist talks about Canada being a central point of attack for the NWO, I doubt it's a coincidence that it is also a central point for the Baha'i Faith.


London tribute to Amatu'l-Baha Ruhiyyih Khanum Rabbani honors her contributions to conservation and the arts - June 15, 2001
https://news.bahai.org/story/124/native/
LONDON — The late Madame Ruhiyyih Rabbani [Mary Maxwell], the preeminent international dignitary of the Baha'i Faith, was honored at a tribute here on 15 May 2001. In attendance were some 150 prominent people, including HRH The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.

Organized by the Arts for Nature, a 13-year-old organization that seeks to draw leading artists and performers into the environmental vanguard, the tribute was held at Canada House in Trafalgar Square. It featured an evening of music and drama, much of it produced especially for the occasion and using the writings of Madame Rabbani.

"We can be convinced academically and intellectually that conservation is important, but what's also important is that we are involved in this issue emotionally," said Prince Philip in extemporaneous remarks at the end of the evening. "Madame Rabbani made a huge contribution to raising awareness in this field, and this has been a marvelous experience and a splendid evening."

An author, filmmaker and lecturer who cared deeply for the environment and indigenous peoples, Ruhiyyih Rabbani passed away on 19 January 2000. She was, further, a Hand of the Cause, the highest position occupied by individuals in the Baha'i Faith, and she played an important role in promoting the unity and integration of the Baha'i community over the years.

The evening tribute was organized largely by the Duchess of Abercorn, the chair of the Arts for Nature. The event began with dinner and a viewing of some of Prince Philip's private collection of nature paintings, in particular the work of Canadian wildlife artists. In addition, architectural drawings by the distinguished Canadian architect, William Sutherland Maxwell, Madame Rabbani's father, were displayed.

The main focus of the evening was a theatrical performance entitled "A Life So Noble," which had been inspired by Ruhiyyih Khanum's life. Written by Canadian-born actress/writer Beverley Evans and directed by Annabel Knight, the show took four major aspects of Khanum's life and character and personified them in four women actresses, who told her story using words taken from Ruhiyyih Khanum's own lectures and writings.

The actresses -- Maria Friedman, Beverley Evans, Sarah Clive and Kerry-Ann Smith -- conveyed with extraordinary power and emotion the breadth of Madame Rabbani's achievements. There were deeply moving moments, including a scene depicting the funeral of Shoghi Effendi when thousands of flower petals rained down upon the stage from above. In direct contrast, Ruhiyyih Rabbani's great world travels were portrayed with wit and verve, while a list of her pets and favourite animals caused great amusement.
Interesting the nineteens. Boris born on the 196 Mary Maxwell dying on 191.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 1600
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 257 times
Been thanked: 467 times

Re: Baha'i movers & shakers

Post by rachel »

Because I've been examining WWI in this thread, it seem the logical place to look at why I'm of the opinion the Baha'i Faith fits the One World Religion. In The United Nations thread I've pasted in documents about the Divine Economy, these are auto translation from Brazilian, so it has taken some time for me to get my head around what it actually explains.

In the end it comes down to a choice of two, and really it is your choice. I'm just laying out the connections and showing that what the Bible describes is accurate to what is actually going on. In the pages above we have looked at the central figures of the Baha'i Faith, there is reason to think these characters were created for a future world government with foreknowledge of the boxes needed to be ticked in order for the Secret Doctrine to work. Else Baha’u’llah is indeed the prophet who devised the New World Order. But since the Scottish Enlightenment and Western philosophy predates Baha’u’llah; and Marx, who used their conclusions to create his manifesto appeared just before merchant Sayyed ʿAlí Muḥammad Shírází claimed to be the messenger of God, 'The Bab'. It fits that the point of Babism was to start the destruction of Islamic Fundamentalism ready for the New World Order. And isn't it Islamic Fundamentalists who are blamed for the destruction of the WTC Towers...and stabbing Salman Rushdie?

rachel wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 1:01 pm At about the same time that Hegel left the scene, Karl Marx caught the revolutionary fever. He drew heavily on Hegel (dialectic) and Feuerbach (materialism). He picked up where the other philosophers left off, but with a difference. He contemptuously declared, "Philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways. The point, however, is to change it." CHANGING THE WORLD was to become the purpose of Marxism. In the Marxist interpretation of reality, God has been abandoned. Alone in his universe, man should fill the vacuum left by religion with materialism. Religion was the enemy of all progress. As he wrote in 1843, "Religion is the opium of the people." No longer trapped in a relationship with its Creator, the social relationship of "man with man" became the principle of Marx's theory. It follows that these social relationships, which necessarily involve conflict, produce the changes in human progress.

As the opening words of the Communist Manifesto announce: "The history of all societies that have existed until our day has been the history of class struggles." Note the dialectical reasoning: the clash of opposites produces synthesis and change. Man, freed from religious restrictions, will carry the revolution (transformation via conflict) forward until all are equal in a utopia created by men on Earth. To that end, the Manifesto concludes, "Proletarians of all countries, unite!"

In short, Marxism:
  • Is Dialectical Materialism, or, in simpler terms: a human-oriented reasoning process, excluding God.
  • REVOLUTION is its goal, "to change the world", Marx said.
  • THE CHANGE is from a Theistic (Old World Order) worldview to a Humanistic (New World Order) worldview. The term New World Order has been a popular euphemism for world communism for years. The conspiracy freaks didn't invent it. When it started to take on negative connotations, it was switched to a better-sounding label, Global Governance.
  • The change must occur through CONFLICT, (Crisis/Problems/Disputes).
I've posted up quotes from people describing Baha’u’llah as the face of Satan, and ones that rather think the Baha'i Faith is used as the spiritual glue of a humanistic endeavour to remove God and instead move the world back to earth worship. Without fully knowing which is true we see no matter what, it is the same players listed.

Abdu’l-Bahá, Baha’u’llah son might have indeed seen the plans of Marx and offered up the a faux-spiritual side.

https://mankindlastchance.wordpress.com ... pocalypse/
Alice Bailey vs. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, who is Fulfilling the Prophecies of the Apocalypse?

Alice Bailey.jpeg
Alice Bailey.jpeg (30.92 KiB) Viewed 235 times

According to Alice Bailey, the world would be reorganized into 10 nations and then the Antichrist appear to control these nations. Thus, we have 10 people plus the Antichrist, but this will not happen.

Alice Bailey developed a materialistic World Order, not a spiritualistic one. The Antichrist will never be above the Cosmic Christ. It’s the Cosmic Christ, or the strange god, that will be the Antichrist that thrives as described by Daniel's prophecy:
  • “Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain.” (Daniel 11:39)
Knowing these future events, ’Abdu’l-Bahá (son of Bahá’u’lláh) went to the U.S. in 1912 and gave a true lesson in the Theosophical Lodge. In this lecture, ’Abdu’l-Bahá first says that the goals of the Bahá’is and Theosophists are the same:
  • 30 May 1912
    Talk at Theosophical Lodge
    Broadway and Seventy-ninth Street, New York

    Notes by Howard MacNutt

    “(…) As we are agreed upon them, the certainty of unity and concord between Bahá’ís and Theosophists is most hopeful. Their purposes are one, their desires one, and spiritual susceptibilities are common to both.” (The Promulgation of Universal Peace, pages 156–160)
Later he warns that material efforts to establish a material New World Order are impossible and only through the spiritual power will it be established.
  • “Therefore, a power is needed to carry out and execute what is known and admitted to be the remedy for human conditions–namely, the unification of mankind. Furthermore, it is evident that this cannot be realized through material process and means. (…) But through spiritual means and the divine power it is possible and practicable.”
Alice Bailey did not listen to ’Abdu’l-Bahá and nowadays the economic blocks are in need of new laws to not sink with financial speculation. Below is an excerpt from the book “The Promulgation of Universal Peace” of ’Abdu’l-Bahá explaining how this will happen:
  • 23 July 1912
    Talk at Hotel Victoria
    Boston, Massachusetts

    Notes by Edna McKinney

    “The Bahá’í Cause covers all economic and social questions under the heading and ruling of its laws. (…) The governments will enact these laws, establishing just legislation and economics…” (The Promulgation of Universal Peace, pages 238–239)

    “But the Supreme Tribunal which His Holiness Bahá’u’lláh has described will fulfill this sacred task with the utmost might and power. And his plan is this: that the national assemblies of each country and nation–that is to say, their parliaments–should elect two or three persons who are the choicest men of that nation, (…) The election of these souls who are chosen by the national assembly–that is, the parliament–must be confirmed by the upper house, the congress and the cabinet and also by the president or monarch…” (Foundations of World Unity pages 28–34)
The monarch in this case is the Antichrist, that is, he appears before the creation of economic blocks and not after, as Alice has “prophesied”. First it’s necessary to create economic laws to be followed using the strength of the World Army. Any nation that does not accept the new economic legislation will be crushed. And this starting with the United States.

But the Supreme Tribunal may only appear with the manifestation of Bahá’u’lláh (the little horn described by Daniel) to the world.
  • “I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.” (Daniel 7:8)
In this verse there is something very important: “horn were eyes like the eyes of man”; the eyes are not of man but like the eyes of man, or similar. Actually, this means he is a cosmic (spiritual) being, non-human.

Alice Bailey was right about the number of people (11), but distributed it in a wrong way! The correct is to distribute in proportion to the number of Bahá (9 + 1 + 1), where (9) according to Masonic tradition represents the nine elected masters, (1) the Antichrist (Freemason King with degree 9) and (1) the Cosmic Christ or Bahá’u’lláh represented by number 9. And thus forming the triad “999” that is the inverted 666.

The difference between the plan of Bailey and Bahá’u’lláh is his plan was put into practice by the satanists for the creation of the New World Order and her plan is only one of many conspiracy theories created by the Illuminati liars.

But it was not just Alice Bailey who made a mistake, the problem is that many evangelicals do not believe that Bahá’u’lláh is who he really says: “the Lord of the religions”. What should be, but unfortunately is not for many Christians, the eighth king described in Revelation 17:11.

When the UN says in the millennium goal number 8: “Everyone working for the development”, it’s referring to the manifestation of Bahá’u’lláh, and so almost all people will accept the creation of World Parliament, of “Millennium Global Peace”, the world economic laws and subsequently the creation of economic blocks (if necessary) by love to the World Government. It’s important to remember that the Bahá’i community has the control of World Trade Organization (WTO) to achieve the necessary changes.
The thing with the "11" or "1 + 1" / "two horns", it is the way to unite the people waiting for a Materialist human antichrist and the people waiting for a Spirit being Cosmic Christ. Bahá’u’lláh genealogy links the "9" major faiths.

Image

The Baha'i Faith includes symbols of what are commonly considered the nine world religions: Baha'i, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Shinto, and Sikhism.

webRNS-World-Religions1-100319-550x550.jpg

Islam and Christianity are included, but not the Fundamentalist versions, they instead are the enemy of the people and must be collapsed. And we can guess Building 7 in this model version represents TRUE Judaism.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 1600
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 257 times
Been thanked: 467 times

Re: Baha'i movers & shakers

Post by rachel »

I was watching UK Column today and it had a section of sex education, which is coming in directly from the UN.

Report timestamp 39:16 - Schoolchildren Sexualised As Attack On Family Continues.
https://www.ukcolumn.org/video/uk-colum ... ember-2022

Below, a couple of screenshots. First an email from a teacher, calling the content "a subversion of the family". Then, a couple of examples of the content provided for kids.

A13-115.jpg
A13-117.jpg

But why particularly I'm putting this post here. Scroll up to the end of the last post and look at the picture of the NINE religions, that's according to Baha'i doctrine, now look at the image below, the NINE religions.

A13-114.jpg

As I say, this is the ONE WORLD RELIGION that will bring in the COSMIC CHRIST.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 1600
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 257 times
Been thanked: 467 times

Re: Baha'i movers & shakers

Post by rachel »

Also, I came across this post while looking up something else. It's kind of tongue-in-cheek, but it fascinates me as it is dated 2011. Think about the hierarchy of SOCIAL JUSTICE, now you know where it comes from.

But it gets better when you read the response, the person in question being quite serious. 2012, ten years ago. And this is the shit we are now living through 24/7 from western politicians, western media. This is what actual satanism looks like...
AUGUST 27, 2011

Caste System in Bahai Faith

Currently, the Baha’is think of humanity as being divided into a few official groups or castes. I have organized them in a list from “best” to “worst” based on how many rights they would have in a future Baha’i world order:
  1. Baha’i in good standing
  2. Baha’i with administrative rights removed
  3. non-Baha’i
  4. Covenant-breaker
If you include more subtle gradations, which may possibly acquire a greater degree of official status in the future, the list would look like this…
  1. Baha’i in good standing, active
  2. Baha’i in good standing, inactive
  3. Baha’i with some administrative rights removed
  4. Baha’i with all administrative rights removed (Feast attendance, voting, eligibility for election, contribution to Funds, contribution to Huququ’llah, plus anything I’m forgetting to mention)
  5. non-Baha’i (never been a Baha’i)
  6. 6. ex-Baha’i, left voluntarily (not an opponent)
  7. ex-Baha’i, membership revoked/expelled by UHJ (not an opponent)
  8. opponent or enemy of the faith, non-Baha’i
  9. opponent or enemy of the faith, ex-Baha’i
  10. child or grandchild of Covenant-breaker, not practicing in Covenant-breaker organization
  11. Covenant-breaker, not officially declared by UHJ but member of Covenant-breaker organization
  12. Covenant-breaker, officially declared by UHJ
Groups 10-12 constitute the Baha’i version of the “untouchable caste.” Groups 4-12 (the vast majority of categories) would not have the right to vote in elections for the highest governmental positions, i.e. the Baha’i Houses of Justice that would have final authority at the local, national, and international levels.

How’s that for unity of all people, huh?

Best,
Eric Stetson
(Group 11 – I think)
So this is the reply... Get the last one, "FEMININE WHITE MALES".
MARCH 6, 2012

Hah. That’s a good list. Funny, and probably true. I think I can add a few more interesting categories for you, though. This gained from years of experience:

Diverse Person
In the American communities if you are some non-White such as an Asian, a Native American, or especially a black - you will automatically have a special status. Baha’is will want to have you in every photograph, being a presenter at events if you can even talk reasonably coherently, and probably try to elect you as chairman of their Local Assembly. Baha’is have an extreme fetish for flesh and they do love their “diversity.” I think it gives them rushes. Non-Whites, of course, pick up on this fast and love to hang out in the Baha’i Faith for that reason.

PhD/Doctor
If you have an advanced degree and especially if you can call yourself “Doctor Somebody” - you are automatically placed into positions of leadership in the Baha’i Faith. Even if you are a mediocre speaker and boring as heck you will be asked to speak at events eventually, will be chosen to give interviews in the media if an occasion arises, and be offered to newspapers for quotes. It helps a great deal if you can buy some of those funny little glasses. You know, the ones that are rimless on the top and sit about halfway down your nose? That helps too. It also helps if you have a great car, like a Mercedes Benz or some other late model, impressive car and you dress nice.

Doctor (Medical)
I am giving this a special category because they have an even higher status than the PhD “doctors” in the Baha’i Faith. If you are really serious about being a Baha’i Big Shot, you must become somebody with the letters “M.D.” after your name. Don’t bother with Osteopath. Don’t go for Chiropractor. “Podiatrist” is not so good. (Baha’is actually do enter these professions hoping it will lead to leadership among the Baha’is, even settling for life as a Foot Doctor in their hopes.) But it’s MD if you want to be in the Baha’i Big Leagues. Eventually you are likely to get tapped as an “Auxiliary Board Member.” At least an “Assistant” for starters. Do brush up on your speaking skills even if you were never good at this before. If you are a high-status M.D. like a surgeon, so much the better. You might even end up a Continental Counselor in that case. (Do they still have those?) An M.D. Makes the Baha’is Look Good. If you want to be a formidable Baha’i Personage some day, do apply for Medical School now.

C.E.O’s Assorted Executives of Companies
These are a notch below PhDs and at least 2 notches beneath MDs, but these types always have high status in the Baha’i Faith and, like MDs, will usually end up with speaker positions or as “Auxiliary Board Members” and the like. I mean, why not? If you are experienced at making farm implements or putting together telecom networks, why wouldn’t you be first pick to represent a mystical religion that hailed from Islamic Sufism and quotes Rumi? You will certainly be appreciated, as you dumb down religion, for your excellent suits, trim haircut, and authoritative persona gained in the boardroom. You will Make The Baha’is Look Good!

Lawyer/Attorney
These are a notch below the CEO/Executive-of-a-company, but they are at least a notch above ordinary Baha’is. To play your part in impressing the world about the Baha’i Faith, do wear your best suits. In rare cases there have been Baha’is with judgeships. (The Nelsons in the Chicago area.) These are immediate superstars of God’s religion. (Don’t you remember that Hidden Word? “Say: God Loveth those on the Bar.”)

Musician
Musicians can be said to occupy a special class in the Baha’i Faith. They tend to get pigeonholed, and if a Baha’i is acknowledged as a musician he usually will not be asked to do anything else but that.

Famous
No matter what you’re famous for - playing the part of bums or criminals on television, singing some country song, or telling goof jokes - Baha’is will consider you one of their elite. Never mind all that religious stuff about the renunciation of worldly desire. Certainly Dan Seals, whore wrote “I Wanna Bop With Ya Baby” is the one who can interpret for us mystical phrases like “Fly with the Minions of Separation Beyond Innovation!” and similar arcana.

Have Money
It’s a fact that those with more wealth or higher incomes tended to have positions of leadership and a high profile in the Baha’i Faith.

Feminine White Males with High Pitched Voices
They’ll love you. You’ll find your niche somewhere for sure.

Now, if you want to be in the top Baha’i class, be
  1. A Diverse Person combined with
  2. Doctor or any of the other professions.
You will be Baha’i Royalty already in the first week, and your star will never set.

That was the caste system I always noticed in the Baha’i Faith.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 1600
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 257 times
Been thanked: 467 times

Re: Baha'i movers & shakers

Post by rachel »

Something else I came across, I find this stuff fascinating. We have the chaps at the Universal House of Justice acting like Papal Rome pre-Reformation where the Catholic Church had an edict anyone found with or were known to have read the Bible were considered heretics with a death sentence over them. Apparently the Papacy stated that all true copies had been lost for centuries. Yet they magically found a a manuscript when it became clear they could no longer suppress the text once Johann Gutenberg built a printing press, Chinese technology, and published the Gutenberg Bible in Mainz, around c.1455.

Gutenberg Bible
https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/gutenberg-bible

The author of the quoted text "was an active member of the Baha'i Faith for 13 years, then a casual observer of Baha'is and avid religious seeker for 20 years after". It's another one from 2012, and like a lot of off-current-narrative webpages, seems to have gone dark some time between 2020- 2021. It's a two parter, I'll quote the first part, because there is some interesting tells, on being the author drawing links to Marxism.

Part 1: https://web.archive.org/web/20161211000 ... oodie.html
Part 2: https://web.archive.org/web/20161210225 ... Faith.html
Here to save the day:
& Guide Humanity For the Next 861 Years -
The Baha'i Faith's Bizarre "Book of Laws"


Elder & Miller published the first English translation of the mysterious Baha'i "Kitab-i-Aqdas" in 1961. Though Baha'is revered it with superlative names like "Most Holy Book" and "The Book of Laws, a full eighty-eight years had already passed with the Baha'i administration refusing to publish it or make its contents known. This was for obvious reasons: Release of the text in any unadulterated form would have damaged the religion's prospects in the west.

Thus the publication in England by the Royal Asiatic Society was an unwelcome development for Baha'i Officials, who were centered in Haifa, Israel and Wilmette, Illinois and developing a carefully crafted image for their religion. It was an image designed to appeal to western intellectuals and social progressives, and an image very different from the impression one received when opening the "Most Holy Book."

An informal English translation by Anton Haddad had circulated among the few early western Baha'is as early as 1900. Why wouldn't it? It is utterly understandable that religious devotees would want to have access to their central scripture! Still it was allowed to fade by Baha'i promoters, and only circulated in the form of a few typewritten copies in the earliest years, and among the few. Though the 1900 translation was written by a Baha'i partisan and translated to put the best face on the spectacular Islamic unction of their mysterious avatar Baha'u'llah - it was still "too much, too soon."

The Haddad translation was, from the point-of-view of Baha'i managers, an early undisciplined "leak" that they could manage with time and attrition of members. By the 1960's it was nowhere to be seen in Baha'i circles. Only Baha'i officialdom was aware of its existence. Incoming believers now accepted it when told by their administration: "The Kitab-i-Aqdas has not been translated yet."

To get some idea of the vigor with which Baha'i managers have suppressed their own "most holy" text, there is evidence that a repectable translation existed even prior to that of Anton Haddad. In "The Baha'i Faith and It's Claims," Samuel Graham Wilson provides excellent renderings of the Aqdas that are not those of Haddad, but appear to be translations by the English orientalist scholar Edward G. Browne. If true, that no one in modern times ever knew about this scholarly translation is hard to believe. Yet I can find no trace of its existence except as cites in the Wilson book. Obliterating any trace of an E.G. Browne Aqdas translation from western awareness could have only occurred through strenuous efforts by Baha'i managers and possibly in collusion with Browne himself.

Thus the 1961 Elder-Miller translation was no doubt a crisis to Baha'i image managers. But by ignoring it, and through the constant membership churning characteristic of the Baha'i Faith, and through assiduous book-weeding by Baha'i stalwarts early on - it soon attained non-existence within the insular culture that is Baha'i life.

I know, I was one of the Baha'is who was continually told this by Baha'i authorities whenever I asked, eagerly and innocently: "When will the Kitab-i-Aqdas be translated?" Then by happenstance, just after another Baha'i "Auxiliary Board Member" answered me "It's not been translated yet," I happened upon the Elder-Miller version hidden away in a very old, messy, and poorly-managed Baha'i lending library. Somebody had not had the heart to destroy it.

Baha'is believe their Most Holy Book was God's guidance to mankind for the next thousand years. This "revelation" by the Baha'i founder Baha'u'llah is believed to have been completed by 1873, thus 139 years have already passed and Baha'is are still not wearing sable or marking thieves on the forehead.

(In this article terms like "Wilmette version" or "Haifa-Wilmette" will be synonymous with "official" and "authorized." These refer to the dominant sect of Baha'is based in Haifa and Wilmette whose Aqdas suppression and translation is being critiqued.)

Elder and Miller were two English orientalists and Arabic scholars, Elder an author of an Arabic grammar who had spent 50 years in the near east. Miller was living in Persia and exposed to Baha'is, was keenly interested in the them, and interviewed early Baha'is and Babis. I am fortunate to possess an original first edition hardcover copy of the rare 1961 book (shown here). It's old enough to be printed in hot lead type. Why is it rare? Because Baha'is sought to suppress it. Book suppression is common with Baha'is. They even extirpated the writings of their own ostensible prophet-founder, The Bab, so well that no copy of his central scripture, the Bayan, is known to exist. Baha'is even have the habit of confiscating books they deem to be adverse to their growth. I recall going through the estate of a famous early Baha'i Ruth Moffett and finding many "no no" books about the Baha'i Faith that she had removed from libraries over the years. Baha'i book purging is one reason that hardcover copies of Elder & Miller's Aqdas are so rare today.

As with the 1901 Haddad translation, after Elder-Miller's translation was published in 1961 western Baha'is were kept in the dark about its existence. I was an active Baha'i for nearly 15 years and never heard of it. This was deliberate. The Baha'i leadership did not want rank-and-file members to read the Kitab-i-Aqdas and especially not the general public. They considered it problematic, for good reasons. It wasn't that there were serious faults in the translation, but because the content of the Aqdas itself was something they did not want westerners to see. They were buying time, waiting for the religion to grow enough before it had to receive that blow.

When an official version was finally offered by the Baha'is in 1992, the starkness and directness of both the earlier translations were softened and obscured. Certain highly controversial verses were effectively controverted or rendered void by verbal sleight-of-hand. A great deal of skillful psychological word tricks comparable to Neuro-Linguistic Programming are brought to bear on the "marriage" verses until two simple sentences that apparently assume polygamy as normative end up feeling as if polygamy is being prohibited.

The Elder-Miller translation is an important resource in the continuing saga of Baha'i efforts to both obscure and alter their own original foundations and texts.


It's a New Day - The men in Baha'u'llah's New Dawn, when they decide to wander the world, have to tell their wives when they're coming back.

That is, he has to tell the one that he's leaving.

Talk about enlightened. One fascinating fact about this line from Elder-Miller, regularly missed, is the fact that it says "this spouse." He was to inform that spouse - the spouse he’s leaving. In the scenario above a fellow is leaving one wife, perhaps to visit another wife in another place. What a life guys had back then! When Baha'is refer to the Elder-Miller version, which they now occasionally must do, they refuse to acknowledge "this spouse" in Elder-Miller's translation. and misquote it "his spouse." The graphic is a scan of the original hardcover publication. Some assume it is a typo in the original hot-lead publication from uber persnickety England. But I have never seen this line 'corrected ' as errata by the authors or assigns. People carrying forward the verse online by typing HTML stupidly "correct" it because they think it's a typo. It is not a typo. Polygamy was normative to Baha'u'llah and he had at least two wives himself. His "spouse" (singular) would have been confusing to himself and everybody else around him. ('His "spouse," master? Wait. We usually have more than one wife, and so do you!') Based on what he wrote in his Book of Laws, he assumed polygamy would continue in future. The laws and ordinances of the Baha'i New Age were written by polygamists, and all of them married into their own race. The subject of the Baha'i administrations desperate efforts to cover up the male-centric, patriarchal, and polygamy-approving reality of their founders is explored further below.


England's Royal Asiatic Society and Oriental Translation Fund evidently felt that a translation of a "missing Aqdas" was well in order. Elder and Miller's agenda was to make available an important religious work that was, unaccountably, still unavailable in the west. Dr. Elder remarks on this oddity in his preface:
  • "Anyone who studies Baha'ism learns very soon of the volume sacred to those who profess this religion and known as "The Most Holy Book." Of this book Baha in his Will said, "...reflect upon that which is revealed in my book the Aqdas." And his son and successor 'Abdu'l Baha said in his Will, "unto the Aqdas everyone must turn." Yet, strange to say, although the teachings of the Baha'is have been widely proclaimed in Great Britain and America, only fragments of al-Kitab al Aqdas have been translated previously into English."
Elder and Miller were surprised that the ready market of Baha'is was not interested in their book and Baha'i publishing bodies would not carry it, even though they lacked their own version of their "Most Holy Book." The book I have is very well-made and scholarly, with all the plethora of necessary transliteration punctuation marks and detailed footnotes set in 6 pt-on-9 type and I haven't found one typo in it.

Baha'is try to discredit the Elder-Miller translation on the basis that William Miller, who spent years in Persia and interviewed Babis and early Baha'is, was a Christian missionary. Over at Wikipedia, in order to discredit their translation, they attribute the entire book to 'William Miller the Christian missionary," suspecting him of bias and the desire to hurt the reputation of the Baha'i religion.

However, the translator of the text was Dr. Earl Elder of England, not Miller. It was Elder who did the heavy lifting. He was an Arabic scholar. He wrote an Arabic grammar, spent 50 years in the near-East, and had his Arabic translations published by Columbia University Press. William Miller essentially procured the translator Elder for the worthy project. Miller was so peripheral to the book - mainly writing the introduction - that he is not even on the copyright. Earl Elder is the sole copyright owner, telling us that it's really Elder's work. (Do a right click to view the umber-colored background graphic on the masthead and you'll see Elder is the sole copyright claimant.) Thus the Baha'is claim that the book somehow lacks scholastic credibility because a Christian was involved with it - is a red herring. Truly, I'd like to see who produced their "Authorized" Aqdas. I strongly suspect that they were, in fact, more partisan wordsmiths than they were qualified Arabic translators. But then Baha'is never let you see the nameless people who produce their propaganda. The committees behind the Oz curtain in Wilmette.

In any case, Baha'is don't have much point in complaining that the Elder-Miller version exists when they refused to publish one of their own for 120 years after their "Most Holy Book" came out. Baha'is suspect that William Miller was suspicious of them; that he suspected the Baha'is were hiding their Most Holy Book as they proselytized among Americans and the English. If this is what William Miller suspected, it is certain that he was correct. Once seeing the content it's all-too obvious that Baha'is suppressed their own scripture to give their religion a chance to grow before it had to come out in some magically more palatable translation. Miller also had to see that the "Baha'i Faith" being developed and presented by Baha'i teachers, which over-hyped a few "universalist" statements by "Baha" while ignoring most other facts of the religion, was deceptive.


So you thought the Baha'i Founders taught the equality of men and women?

Baha'is attack the Elder-Miller version as "literalist." As if a translation shouldn't be accurate! What that means is the Elder-Miller version does not contain all the changes and distortions Baha'i leadership wanted to make to the text. I guess it means Elder-Miller were too "literalist" when reporting that Baha'u'llah directed Baha'is to be buried it coffins made of "beautiful hard woods," "crystal," or "rare stones." The Baha'i admin. thought they knew better, and must have gone through legions of translators before finding the right hired gun. In the religion-cum-utilitarianism so dire in Baha'is, they decided he really meant that Baha'i coffins should simply be "hard, resistant, and durable" - and they jettisoned what Baha'u'llah actually said. He wasn't omniscient enough, apparently, to know hardwoods would become rare early in his thousand-year Dispensation. And not smart enough (like Baha'i admins and translators-turned-avatar) to simply say: "Get buried in coffins made of durable stuff."

As if that's not the way people already made coffins before Baha came along.

When Baha'is complain that the Elder-Miller version is too 'literal,' their real complaint is that it lets you see what Baha'u'llah's text actually said. But even when reading Haifa-Wilmette's preprocessed-with-additives-and-emollients version, one sees that the original Baha'i religion was something quite different from the program that later came to be sold as "The Baha'i Faith."


Values of the ancient Islamic world fill the Baha'i Book of Laws.

So the Kitab-i-Aqdas was long considered a problematic book by the Baha'i promoters in the west. Its primitive outlook was noticed in 40 seconds of opening it. Its contents by now bore no resemblance to the religion that American promoters had invented and were selling to socialist-leaning intellectuals. They continued to buy time, hoping to create their own translations that would soften or obscure the content, while letting the Baha'i Faith develop and grow free of the damaging effect they knew the text would have. So they avoided publishing even an "authorized" text of their own for a full 120 years after their founder promulgated it. All other Baha'i works of significance were long available and this was ostensibly their central scripture. It's importance is obvious in its very title: "Book of Laws - Most Holy Book." Yet both the Haddad and Elder-Miller translations were obviously unwelcome to the Baha'i Administration, who refrained from even making their congregation aware of it.

Thus the first approach the Baha'is took to suppressing the Kitab-i-Aqdas was, indeed, to ignore all translations available. Even after this Elder-Miller translation was out in 1961, they continued to tell their membership "It has not been translated yet." The versions published by others, lacking the proper filters or spin-doctoring, were both ignored. More than this, the Baha'i leadership warned the Baha'is off them, classifying them as negative; to be avoided. This touches on the whole "forbidden books" and "forbidden people" thing that is a reality in the Baha'i Faith.

It's a feature of the Baha'i culture, if you can call it that, that believers are very susceptible to fear in connection with banned and forbidden books. There is a very strong group-think among Baha'is. Baha'i founders such as 'Adbu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi actually promulgated shunning doctrines early on, explicitly directing Baha'is to have no interaction with various blackballed individuals or read their writings. They created the term "Covenant Breaker" for these. 'Adbu'l-Baha even practiced shunning on his own family, most of whom he excommunicated from the movement as Covenant Breakers. This strong word, now an administrative designation along with "Enemy of the Faith" (an outside critic never enrolled) reinforces the shunning idea to Baha'is. It is a word that sends chills down Baha'i backs.

Baha'is pick up immediately, and with great sensitivity, any scent that a person or book is taboo. A designated "Covenant Breaker" in particular, usually associated with a banned book, is actively shunned by Baha'is. Even an individual who gave years of service to the Baha'i Faith, was sincere and mightily devoted to it, obtains a pariah status that is almost non-human when declared a Covenant Breaker. I recall Baha'is saying to me that Covenant Breakers and their books carry a "spiritual disease." Baha'is take that idea seriously. Working on the Ruth Moffett estate (an old, prominent Baha'i) I and a few other highly sincere Baha'is found a pile of a dozen naughty books mouldering in the darkest basement corner. Although they were curious looking, rare, and spanned decades - not one of us so much as cracked a page. An older leader only looked at some inside covers, enough to see they'd been taken from public libraries! The small group of Baha'is working on this Baha'i personage's estate behaved as if they literally feared the little pile. They kept a distance from it, making their disinterestedness a demonstration of Baha'i piety. We dutifully shipped off Ruth Moffett's confiscated books (from places all over America as she was a traveling Baha'i teacher) to the Baha'i World Headquarters in Haifa, Israel. I remember we gravely marked the box "Covenant Breaker Books," as in "hazardous materials."

This also reflects the particular psychological profile of Baha'is: They want to believe in the religion as formulated by their administration, with full faith. This is will-to-faith is a valid element of religion and brings good spiritual results. I am not criticizing it as such. This kind of will-to-faith brings inner fruit from religion. But it is perhaps stronger in the Baha'i movement than even the traditional Christian churches today, in part because agreement on particular dogmas are considered more critical to Baha'is in their nascent state whereas Christians are accustomed to 20 centuries of dogma controversies and are well afloat. I am not using the term "dogma" negatively here, either. (Firmly held beliefs are useful.) But simply explaining how it is that the general Baha'i culture, and especially newer Baha'is, can end up completely unaware of even important translations of their own central scripture.

Because of the strong consensus culture of the Baha'i Faith and the equally strong demonization of any free-thinkers or question-askers, the religion has been able to let unwelcome books slip down the memory hole among the believers. There is a third reason as well, and that is the fact that Baha'i membership is a churning affair.


Baha'i Membership Churning - the Inflation of Baha'i Membership Numbers

Only a few Baha'is remain active and loyal for life. Largely the Baha'i Faith is a way station for men and women going through a process of religious search and experimentation. Membership numbers reported by the Baha'i administration are, in fact, grossly distorted since most names are people long disaffected from the religion but still carried on their rolls. For Baha'is always seek to point to two things in order to sell their faith: 1) Look at our majestic buildings! and 2) Look at how big our membership is!

However, the Baha'i administration steadily acquires an absurdly inflated membership figure by requiring a formal, rather painful and unnecessary recanting exercise involving a signed repudiation of Baha'u'llah for those who wish to have their names removed. Most are not interested or don't want to be bothered. The constant loss of old members, the arrival of wide-eyed new ones seeking to Be Good, the incessant voice of the Baha'i administration, and overall Baha'i culture-of-conformity - makes it possible for particular materials to be wholly absent from the bubble of Baha'i life. Already well-shunned in the past by the few old stalwarts in the know, a "bad book" permanently falls off the radar for the newer Baha'is, eager to embrace the piety that avoids all forbidden materials. As a Baha'i one does not seek to find or read banned books. If he or she rarely stumbles onto one, they pick it up carefully like a loathsome object and dispose of it to the proper authorities. I was an active member of the Baha'i Faith for 13 years. I was astounded to find later, after years where I actually inquired and was told "It's not been translated" - that there were two English translations of the Aqdas going back as far as 1900! Though deeply involved in Baha'i life I never heard a whisper about either the Haddad or the Elder-Miller publication and all my Baha'i friends believed there were no English translations. The truth is, I wanted to read it. And the truth is: I would not have joined the Baha'i Faith, or worked for it for 13 years, if I had been able to simply read the Kitab-i-Aqdas.

This touches on an item Baha'is list on their "Ten Principles" sales card: "Independent investigation of truth." I can confidently assert that their claim to value this is pure mendacity. Oh, there are so many things Baha'is are avid to cover up and never let you see or know! The Baha'is dominate the Wikipedia page with Soviet level information control, working 24-hours to allow only the Official Baha'i line and deleting facts that don't fit their pretty sales package. This includes history and the contents of their "Holy Book" itself - even their own translation! How was I able, in my 20's, to do any "independent investigation of truth" when the Baha'is were suppressing their central text and deliberately keeping me (and others) in the dark about it? They are particularly annoyed to see the Elder-Miller translation of their Aqdas cited by anybody. But how can we "independently investigate truth" if we are not allowed to read alternate translations and hear alternate views on Baha'i history and texts?

Amazingly, the internet has seriously downgraded the ability of organizations to suppress information they wish to suppress. It was only through the internet that I was able to learn about the Anton Haddad translation though it was in existence since 1900. Likewise it was by the internet that I was able to finally see a photograph of the Baha'i founder. (Baha'is have have fought a losing battle trying to keep the Mansonesque photo of their guru off of Wikipedia.)

Haifa-Wilmette's second approach to Aqdas-suppression, when obligated to translate the text, was to distort and obfuscate its content with the translation. Examples given here. Thus the priceless value of the Elder-Miller version.

It is my opinion, based on available evidence, that the Elder-Miller translation is a more accurate and direct translation than the one offered by the Baha'i administration 120 years late in 1992. This is natural to expect since the main purpose of western Baha'is, since first encountering the book, has been to hide it because of its problematic contents. When finally obligated to come out with their own translation, their main purpose was, understandably, to translate it in such a way as to soften, obscure, or alter its contents. By looking at the Elder-Miller and Haddad versions, it becomes evident that their offering, "The Kitab-i-Aqdas: The Most Holy Book," contains obfuscations, dressings, and distortions designed to protect the fortunes of the Baha'i Faith.


The Early Growing Gap Between the Baha'i Promotional Package And the Baha'i Scriptures

Early in the religion's development certain ideas, only minimally present in the original teachings of Baha'u'llah, began to be enlarged a great deal. These could be called socialist, Marxist, or progressive ideas found in the statements of most mystics. From a text that contained great mysticism, emphasis on obedience to God and devotion to Baha'u'llah arose a religion that instead promoted feminism, world government, and deracination. The feminism is particularly remarkable since the Kitab-i-Aqdas appears to be directed to men, makes certain prohibitions for women, and quite clearly assumes polygamy as normative. Baha'u'llah himself had, according to accounts, four wives.

But a few minor reforms or relaxing of Islamic regulations on women were spinned by the Baha'is into a program in which the Baha'i Faith became "feminist" in a Marxist sense. The longer the Baha'is suppressed and ignored the Kitab-i-Aqdas, the larger grew the gap between the Kitab-i-Aqdas text and what Baha'is were teaching. Continually attempting to appeal to progressives, they ended up with a "Ten Basic Principles" list that was quite different than their actual founding texts. Nothing made the gap between teaching and text more obvious than the briefest perusal of the Kitab-i-Aqdas!

The earlier Haddad translation (1901) of the above thief verse goes this way:
  • "To the first or second offence of theft imprisonment or banishment is decreed. But on the third conviction a mar, or sign is to be placed on the forehead of the thief whereby he may be known, and man become aware of him, lest he may be received by other cities and countries of God."
Baha'ullah is obviously referencing a heritage of these disciplinary practices that we consider to be barbaric today, that of marking or otherwise physically damaging the body of the offender. The modern Baha'i handlers are doing some fancy dancing around this one, saying 'It's up to the UHJ to decide what the mark will be, for how long it's worn, etc." But it's clear from Haddad's use of "mar," and Baha'u'llah's follow-up to the effect of "Don't be softies about this" - that this referred to something permanent like a scar, tattoo, or brand. The Haddad "don't be softies" follow up goes this way:
  • "Beware not to allow clemency to take hold of you in the religion of God, but do that whereunto you are commanded by one pitiful and clement. Verily we have reared you up with the scourges of wisdom and ordinances for the purpose of your preservation and the exaltation of your station; as children are reared by their parents."
The admin is now posturing towards some sort of "compassionate mark" but this is clearly not what Baha'u'llah intended. The verses say: 'These Baha'i laws are indeed scourge-like. Don't be shy about branding thieves on the forehead.'

Baha'is point to their religion as superior by virtue of having their original, unaltered writings. But which religious text is the most collapsed and "owned"? The one that has 1) some changes in meaning creep in over time?
Or 2) The text that is withheld, wholesale, from the people, deliberately corrupted and obfuscated?
Or 3) The text doled out only gradually over decades and centuries becoming irrelevant by the time it's released?
Or 4) The text gradually made void, with each piecemeal rollout, with nullifying explanations and "this-can't-be-so" abrogations?

A few religious texts have a bit of problem #1. But the Baha'i text is blighted by problems #2, #3, and #4. Baha'is rejected their own "Holy Book" from the start, then gave the world a carefully doctored version.


Baha'is say God gives guidance to man in a "progressive revelation" as mankind evolves and becomes ready. Baha'u'llah promulgated his "new dispensation" in 1873. 139 years have now passed and Baha'is still have to say "Mankind isn't ready yet" for this more advanced Baha'i Revelation. Their "manifestation of God" seems to have misfired and mis-timed.

Another statement Baha'is would make to their newcomers to explain the Aqdas-delay was: "Mankind is not ready for it." But as the modern age developed, each passing year made mankind more "unready" for the content of the Kitab-i-Aqdas, until now those contents are positively antique.

Their "Most Holy Book" was to be mankind's prime guidance and law for a thousand years. That is rather sad considering they didn't allow us (in the west) to even read the text for the first 120 years. Now Baha'is can see mankind is "still not ready" for their Most Holy Book. Interestingly, now after releasing it some Baha'is are spinning it as a book of laws that will apply "in some future age." That is to say, at some time far in the next 861 the Baha'is will finally take seriously their book of laws and apply it. Happily then the world will enjoy a primitive Islamic state!

This is how the modern Baha'i propagandists are coping with their Kitab-i-Aqdas at the present time: Saying it's held in abeyance and for some "future time." The Baha'i propaganda crew hovering around "Aqdas" page at Wikipedia is saying this about it: "Some laws and teachings of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas are, according to Bahá'í teaching, not meant to be applied at the present time; their application depends on decisions by the Universal House of Justice." That's their entire content under the "Laws" section for the Kitab-i-Aqdas! No laws are listed, just a statement saying the Aqdas is not relevant yet. It keeps getting funnier!

This sort of flies in the face of another Baha'i teaching: That God withholds teachings from mankind and only doles them out "progressively" when mankind is ready for them. Apparently Baha'u'llah misfired. Mankind's still not "ready" for his Book of Laws a century after he's dead! This is the absurd corner Baha'is now occupy.

Baha'is have obviously refused their own Book of Laws, turned it away at the door. First they kept it at bay and hidden. (The real "hidden words.") Now they are abrogating it's laws before they arrive. They will no doubt consider it null and void during the next 861 years as during the first 120 - when it was far more palatable to the average man. Or will continue their pattern of abrogating each law (thinking of reasons it's not valid) bit by bit until by, say, 200 years into his thousand-year dispensation the whole thing's a dead letter and we have Marxist deracination instead of the real Baha'i Faith.

Upon reading the "Book of Laws" the reader will notice a few things. One notices a definite Islamic tone and attitude - of the harsher variety. One law in the case of arson is put bluntly: "Whoever burns a house intentionally, burn him." This is the straightforward Elder-Miller phrasing. The Baha'i officials couldn't find a way to pretty that up as with other jarring verses. They translated it this way: "Should anyone intentionally destroy a house by fire, him also shall ye burn."


The Strange Laws of the Kitab-i-Aqdas / The Textual Manipulations by Baha'i Officials Perceivable Thanks to the Elder-Miller Translation

Baha'u'llah was a prince. He wanted his followers to be an attractive group.

He wants them to wear silk. The Kitab-i-Aqdas tells them to completely replace their furniture every 9 years. (I myself like to keep some of my old furniture, including antiques.) The Baha'i Avatar outlaws the shaving of the head or men having hair longer than their earlobes.

No John, Paul, Ringo and George! The scripture instructs them to use perfume, to wear silk and furs. This is succinctly and cleanly stated in the form of one of many commands in the Elder-Miller:
  • "Wear sable (sammur) just as you wear silk and squirrel-skin and other things." - Elder-Miller, 1961
In the Elder-Miller version one can usually distinguish easily the difference between a mere "allowing" of an activity (not forbidden) and a command to do it. Note the clear phrase "Do not shave your heads" above. Now note the likewise-clear command to "Wear sable, just as you wear silk..." The Elder-Miller translation has this as a command, like the command to wear perfume. Seeing how absurd this perfume command looks to our present culture the Baha'i administration altered the lines in significant ways:
  • "Ye are free to wear the fur of the sable as ye would that of the beaver, the squirrel, and other animals." - Official Baha'i, 1992
The Baha'i version turns it into a mere option; as something not prohibited. The early Haddad version has Baha'u'llah both instructing them to wear furs while explaining that past Muslim priests only banned it because of misunderstanding:
  • "Attire yourselves with the fur of sable in the same manner as ye use silkware and the fur of minever and aught else. Verily it was not forbidden in the Koran, but was misunderstood by the divines. He is the potent, the omniscient." - Anton Haddad, 1901
According to Dictionary.com miniver is "an unspotted white fur derived from the stoat, and with particular use in the robes of peers." You see, this Most Holy Content is so irrelevant today I didn't know what miniver or sable even were! With all of the vexing problems facing mankind, how would we have gotten through the next thousand years without this instruction? It is interesting that neither of the earlier non-official translations contains the word "beaver" but the Wilmette version does. Later the Wilmette-Haifa people also elaborate on Baha'u'llah's falcon-hunting instructions.

Now time for the Baha'i perfume command...
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 1600
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 257 times
Been thanked: 467 times

Re: Baha'i movers & shakers

Post by rachel »

So following on from my last post, the second section is worth a read. I know there is a set of Free Baha'is who basically reject the Universal House of Justice as a subversive takeover of the faith. The second part seems to agree with that assessment, and since it is the UN's religion of choice, it's worth knowing some of the background. I think I'll just quote one section.

https://web.archive.org/web/20161210225 ... Faith.html
Killing out "handmaidens" (or women who serve their men)

Baha'u'llah refers to the Baha'i women as "the handmaidens" in the Elder-Miller book. This very term has been commonly found in official Baha'i translations for many a year. But here in his intimate guy-talk "handmaiden" distinctly conveys the reality-of-view that both Baha'u'llah and the Islamic men comprising the movement had toward women. It also evokes the idea of wifely service to a husband, and I think this is the real-life and human sense in which Baha'u'llah used the term. That is, I think he used the term "handmaidens" in a very human, patriarchal, and comfortable sense and only secondarily in a euphemistic, put-a-shine-on-them, religious sense. "Handmaidens" was the way the Baha'i men viewed the women through natural manly desire and the masculine authority they enjoyed. "Handmaidens of God" was an edifying, but secondary, thought. This sense of "handmaidens" here can be further assumed from the casualness of the conversational Elder-Miller rendering.

Now, a wife is, indeed, supposed to give service to her husband in natural life, just as husbands give service to their wives and families. That is the natural order of life. They serve each other. But Marxist feminism, promoted long now by the Baha'i golem, teaches women they should serve nobody but themselves. Or maybe "the man" at work (boss) who doesn't care about her. Or perhaps serve the NWO by becoming selfish and breaking up the family. Anybody but your husband!

The Muslims have this charming, cosmic concept that when a woman serves a Good Man and serves her children - she's serving God. And that a husband, always so willing to serve his wife and family, is also serving God by doing so. It's the kind of God-service most accessible to women and the sort of world-service that gives them the most personal fulfillment. But the hardcore feminist Baha'i translation teams over the years - which probably included not a few western women - had to get rid of any roiling thought that wives should serve their husbands. Thus the Official version changes "handmaidens" (serving men and husbands) into "maidservants of God." It converts the Baha'i women into women who don't serve their men, but only serve God.

My view is that the average woman will be dissatisfied with this life. My view is that it goes against the natural womanly nature, which wants to be devoted to husband and family, and have their devotion in turn - and not primarily devoted only to Abstract God. The textual change is a disgusting, anti-woman and anti-human change in full analysis. It is in the service of Marxist family-killing feminism that took up residence in the Baha'i Faith. Strangely, it's one of the rare instances in which Baha'i Officialdom ceases rejecting the mystical, ascetic content of their religion. The Marxist types who translated the text are telling them: 'Don't love and serve your men or families: only love God.' By shooting "handmaiden" from the sky (and their newly bereft, maiden-stripped men), a rare instance occurs where Baha'i women are finally encouraged to be mystics, ascetics, and world-renouncers.

Now of course women "serving God" in the Baha'i context would tend to translate itself one way: Baha'i woman should become worldly devoted to "the world" instead of serving their husbands and children. This means, as usual, serving Marxist/Jewish deracination, nation-killing, and family-killing agendas. Indeed, destruction of the family is a top goal of the Communists/Marxists/New World Order bankers. By telling Baha'i women to "serve the world" instead of their families, the Baha'is continue to play their part in weakening the family, at least in, their own little subculture, while it continues to poison us.

Notice an interesting contradiction: When it came to the sitting posture for chanting, Baha'i Officialdom stripped the mystical language away because, in Marxist fashion, they want to present a religion that downplays mysticism and plays up"practical science" despite it's real roots and textual content.

But "handmaidens" has been handled using the reverse approach: The word has been made mystical. For the sake of maintaining a hard feminist posture foreign to the religion's founding texts Baha'i officials were happy to insert mystical language, turning women into mystical maidservants of an unseen God, only.

Does it not disgust? Yet it gets worse even so...

So, we have a feminist religion, which fits with my views of Abdul Baha. Early on in this thread I questioned whether Abdu'l-Baha was a woman in disguise. Those eyes look female, and look at the stature, those narrow shoulders. To me, the whole design of the outfit is to hide breasts and child bearing hips, and look at the small feet.

Image

Image

Image

Abdul Baha looks to me like one of Helena Blavatsky's clan, HPB herself looking like a doppelgänger of Queen Victoria; so it make sense to me why Abdul Baha writes to Queen Victoria professing the anti-Christ is going to hail from England.

QV-HPB1.png

As I keep showing, Oliver Cromwell (25 April 1599 – 3 September 1658), who by the way we are told was responsible for beheading CHARLES I of England, has what historians describe as a death mask. I think that is tripe, it's a life mask. The techniques makeup artists use today to create lifelike masks clearly date back centuries. Looking at photos of Abdul Baha's family, it looks like they might have used wax to age people. But it is possible they were also using rubber, as rubber usage dates back to before Christ in Latin America and Mexico; and it is recorded in use in Spain, 1528.

And with regards to France...
French mathematician and explorer, Charles Marie de la Condamine sent a package of rubber from his expedition to Quito to the Académie Royale des Sciences in Paris in 1736. He called it ‘latex’ to echo its milky appearance and in 1755 presented a scientific paper on the substance written by botanist François Fresneau.
The French Revolution was 5 May 1789 – 9 November 1799. Look at those dates, I wonder if those heads rolling were real or did they bounce?

IMG_3629.JPG

...And some date trivia, Neville Chamberlain, who declared war on Germany when Hitler invaded Poland, starting WWII; died on 9 November 1940.

As I've mentioned before, in Judaism, the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet gender to consonants and are considered male. In original texts, what we think of as vowels were not written down, the were considered female and so were hidden or 'SECRET'. So we can off-the-bat say for sure the SECRET DOCTRINE is FEMALE. therefore this tells me I'm probably on the right track thinking Abdul Baha was female.

And if the above eyes look female, what sex do the following eyes look like? Those of Abdul Baha's wife, Munirih Khanum.

Image

A13-119.jpg
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 1600
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 257 times
Been thanked: 467 times

Re: Baha'i movers & shakers

Post by rachel »

From the above, we can see the Baha'i Faith has been subverted from the principles Bahaʼu'llah set out in his 'Most Holy Book' the al-Kitab al Aqdas. Remember, Bahaʼu'llah claimed to be God manifest and was the culmination of all religions that have gone before. So kind of like an EVOLUTION, so to speak.

Somewhat interesting in trying to work out whether it was always an Illuminati Marxist setup aimed to destroy Islam and Christianity and usher in a New World Order, or whether the faith was sold out after Bahaʼu'llah's death.

So, Mirza Hussein Ali Nouri took the name Bahaʼu'llah when he made his claim, he was the one the Bab had prophesied. Bahaʼu'llah meaning Glory of God.

https://bahaifact.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/62/
In his childhood, Mirza Hussein Ali received elementary teachings in the sciences of the day from his father and other members of his family and thus had no need to attend primary school. His elder brother was a secretary at the Russian embassy. Both Hussein Ali and his brother Sobh-e Azal were interested in mysticism and read books in this connection. Bahaullah would gather fragmentary information by taking part in the meetings of poets and men of literature, and would, like Ali Mohammad, claim that he was an illiterate. He had underlined the subject in a letter to Nassereddin Shah. Bahaullah joined Bab at the beginning of the latter’s claim and played a major role in his support especially in his amicable ties with the embassies of Russia and Britain while having a moderate relation with the Ottomans. While he was in Iraq he once left there secretly for the Kurdish populated areas and stayed in disguise in the Qaragelu field near Suleimaniya. Disguised in dervish robes, he would attend the classes of Sheikh Abdul Rahman the local Sufi leader. Under the assumed name of Mohammad, he would engage in alchemy. But, finally, the sufis expelled him from their monastery and upon the instructions of Sobh-e Azal he returned to Baghdad. He says: :”…anyhow, the order was issued by the high functionary, I obeyed and returned. Later, after his disputes with his brother Sobh-e Azal, as mentioned above, Baha was then sent to exile to Akka, where he started killing the Azalis who had been sent there together with the Bahais, which action led to his imprisonment and that of his sons. Finally, in 1889 he died after taking 20 days of fever and shivering.

Depending on the situation, Hussein Ali laid various conflicting claims. Once he would claim that he was not worthy of mentioning and at times would claim that he was a messenger of God, even God. In order to avoid a dispute among the Bahais after his death, he surveyed about his possible successors .
He sounds like an intel operative. Looking at the dates on wiki, he looks like he becomes active in 1848, two years before the Bab is executed. Note the attempt on the life of the king.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baháʼu%27lláh
On 15 August 1852, two Bábí youth—in deep despair over the killings of the Báb and his leading disciples—made an ill-conceived attempt to assassinate the Iranian king whom they blamed for these tragedies. As Nasiri'd-Din Shah passed along a public road the two blocked the monarch to fire birdshot at him. The king escaped serious injury, but the incident led to an outburst of persecution against Bábís far exceeding past events.

Though investigations found the offending pair acted alone, a "reign of terror" was unleashed, killing at least 10,000 Bábís that same year as government ministers vied with one another to collectively punish known or suspected Bábís, including Bahá’u’lláh. Well known for his support of the Bábí cause, Baháʼu'lláh was arrested and incarcerated in the subterranean Síyáh-Chál of Tehran, where he was bound in heavy chains that left life-long scars. Baháʼu'lláh was confined to that dungeon for four months, as the mother of the Shah and authorities seeking to curry favor with the king sought ways to justify executing him.
This is when he has his mystical experiences. He's found innocent of plotting against the king and banished from Iran in January 1853, then sets up in Baghdad. "Without notice [he] left Baghdad on 10 April 1854 for mountains in the north near Sulaymaniyyih in Kurdistan", this is the event described above taking up a disguise and sitting with Sufis.

So what is going on in Britain and Russia if he was an intel operative...

Queen Victoria - 20 June 1837 – 22 January 1901
Nicholas I - 1 December 1825 – 2 March 1855
Alexander II - 2 March 1855 – 13 March 1881 (assassinated)

Interestingly, regarding Alexander II, I was going to comment on him in a different thread, so let's look at Nicholas I, who "is mainly remembered in history as a reactionary whose controversial reign was marked by geographical expansion, economic growth, and massive industrialisation on the one hand, and centralisation of administrative policies and repression of dissent on the other." ... BUILD BACK BETTER ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_I_of_Russia
Buoyed by his role in suppressing the revolutions of 1848 as well as his mistaken belief he could rely on British diplomatic support, Nicholas moved against the Ottomans, who declared war on Russia on 8 October 1853. On 30 November, Russian Admiral Nakhimov caught the Turkish fleet in the harbor at Sinope and destroyed it.

Fearing the results of a total Ottoman defeat by Russia, in 1854 Britain, France, the Kingdom of Sardinia formed a military coalition and joined forces with the Ottoman Empire against Russia. The preceding conflict became known as the Crimean War in the Ottoman Empire and Western Europe, but was labelled in Russia the "Eastern War". In April 1854, Austria signed a defensive pact with Prussia. Thus, Russia found herself in a war with the every Great Power of Europe either allied against her militarily or diplomatically.

In 1853 Mikhail Pogodin, professor of history at Moscow University, wrote a memorandum to Nicholas. Nicholas himself read Pogodin's text and approvingly commented: "That is the whole point." According to historian Orlando Figes, "The memorandum clearly struck a chord with Nicholas, who shared Pogodin’s sense that Russia’s role as the protector of the Orthodox had not been recognized or understood and that Russia was unfairly treated by the West." Pogodin wrote:
  • France takes Algeria from Turkey, and almost every year England annexes another Indian principality: none of this disturbs the balance of power; but when Russia occupies Moldavia and Wallachia, albeit only temporarily, that disturbs the balance of power. France occupies Rome and stays there several years during peacetime: that is nothing; but Russia only thinks of occupying Constantinople, and the peace of Europe is threatened. The English declare war on the Chinese, who have, it seems, offended them: no one has the right to intervene; but Russia is obliged to ask Europe for permission if it quarrels with its neighbor. England threatens Greece to support the false claims of a miserable Jew and burns its fleet: that is a lawful action; but Russia demands a treaty to protect millions of Christians, and that is deemed to strengthen its position in the East at the expense of the balance of power. We can expect nothing from the West but blind hatred and malice... — Mikhail Pogodin's memorandum to Nicholas I, 1853
Austria offered the Ottomans diplomatic support, and Prussia remained neutral, thus leaving Russia without any allies on the continent. The European allies landed in Crimea and laid siege to the well-fortified Russian Sevastopol Naval Base. The Russians lost battles at Alma in September 1854 and then at Balaklava and Inkerman. After the prolonged Siege of Sevastopol (1854–55) the base fell, exposing Russia's inability to defend a major fortification on its own soil. On the death of Nicholas I, Alexander II became Tsar. On 15 January 1856, the new tsar took Russia out of the war on very unfavorable terms, which included the loss of a naval fleet on the Black Sea.

Nicholas died on 2 March 1855, during the Crimean War, at the Winter Palace in St. Petersburg. He caught a chill, refused medical treatment and died of pneumonia, although there were rumors he was committing a passive suicide by refusing treatment. He was buried in the Peter and Paul Cathedral in St. Petersburg. He reigned for 30 years, and was succeeded by his son Alexander II.
I thought I'd post up a bit about Russia, because as we see with Ukraine currently, the narrative has never changed. With Russia close to defeat, the king conveniently dies. There is a fair bit to comment on.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 1600
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 257 times
Been thanked: 467 times

Re: Baha'i movers & shakers

Post by rachel »

From the above, keep in mind, the whole reason for Mirza Hussein Ali Nouri aka Bahaʼu'llah being imprisoned was an attempted assassination of the new king, Naser al-Din Shah Qajar, son of Mohammad Shah Qaja.

I'm just going to put up a list of Iranian kings coving Queen Victoria to the end of WWI, really for my reference.

Shahs of Iran
Fath-Ali Shah Qajar - 17 June 1797 – 23 October 1834
Mohammad Shah Qajar - 23 October 1834 – 5 September 1848
Naser al-Din Shah Qajar - 5 September 1848 – 1 May 1896
Mozaffar ad-Din Shah Qajar - 1 May 1896 – 3 January 1907
Mohammad Ali Shah Qajar - 3 January 1907 – 16 July 1909

Isn't Iran one of the few places the U.S. hasn't tried to invade?

I'm not going to do this justice. So, in 1844 a merchant, Sayyed ʿAlí Muḥammad Shírází, claims himself messenger of God, aka, the Bab. As soon as King Mohammad Shah Qajar dies, his son Naser al-Din Shah Qajar becomes king, has the Bab arrested (both September 1848, having the Bab executed in 1850. Then there is an attempt on the king's life and Bahaʼu'llah is arrested. Prior to this, Bahaʼu'llah's father is an aristocrat of nobility, actually working directly for Mohammad Shah Qajar's grandfather and predecessor as king, before being moved further out during Mohammad Shah Qajar's reign, apparently falling out of favour.

Shah of Iran,Mohammad Shah Qajar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Shah_Qajar
In Nowruz of 1834, Mohammad Mirza was appointed as the Crown prince, and took the office of his father, governorship of Azarbaijan and left Tehran for Tabriz. As the Crown prince, Mohammad Mirza was under the complete influence of Qa'em-Maqam; on his orders, the prince imprisoned four of his brothers including Djahangir Mirza and Khosrow Mirza in Ardabil and later to invalid their claims to throne, blinded them. Announcing Mohammad Mirza as the crown prince angered Fath-ali Shah's fifth son, Hossein Ali Mirza, the Prince-Governor of Fars who thought that choosing Mohammad Mirza as crown prince would deprive him of his rights and was a sign of submitting to the Russian demands.

In October 1834, Fath-Ali Shah with intention to collect the 200,000 tomans tax arrears from Hossein Ali Mirza, and a hidden motive to revoke him of his lands, went to Fars but died in the process in Isfahan. Couriers were quickly sent to Tabriz, otherwise, the shah's death remained hidden. His body was then taken to Fatima Masumeh Shrine for burial. Only then it was publicly announced that the shah was dead. As expected, his death sparked riots across the country, with a number of princes, including Hossein Ali Mirza in Shiraz and Ali Shah Mirza in Tehran, proclaiming themselves kings.

In early November, John Campbell and Comte Ivan Simonich, British and Russian envoys respectively, arrived in Tabriz to proclaim their support for Mohammad Mirza. They provided him an army led by Col. Henry Lindsay Bethune which set off for Tehran, where Ali Shah Mirza had proclaimed himself king. Mohammad Mirza's army met the 15,000 Ali Shah's men, led by the latter's brother Imam Verdi Mirza, in Takestan, west of Qazvin. After a brief confrontation, Imam Verdi Mirza sought to surrender and recognise Mohammad Mirza. The new king agreed to waive his uncles' punishment. Eventually, in early 1835, Mohammad Mirza entered the capital with Qa'em-Maqam, his courtiers and Russian and British ambassadors, and was crowned king on 14 January.

In February 1835, Mohammad Shah sent an army under command of Manouchehr Khan Gorji to liberate Isfahan from Hossein Ali Mirza's forces, who were under the command of his brother, Shoja al-Saltanah. After reconquering Isfahan, Manouchehr Khan marched to Shiraz, where he captured Hossein Ali Mirza and ended his rebellion. He was imprisoned in Ardabil and soon died of cholera; with his defeat, the other rebel princes surrendered their claims and recognised Mohammad Shah as the king of Iran.

...

In his patronage of Sufism, Mohammad Shah was compared to Ismail I. He denoted the Sufi Islam as the rival for the Shi'ia and the ulama. The Sufis, who not so long ago were persecuted in Fath-Ali Shah's reign, now could freely promote their beliefs. Mohammad Shah himself was very dependent on his Sufi teacher, Aqasi, and gave away court positions to Aqasi's Sufi friends such as Mirza Mahdi Khui who became the chief scribe of the court. Concurrent with their new patronage, Sufis took the idea of the Hidden Imam from the Shi'ia and connected it to their Sufi saints. Figures such as Safi-ad-din Ardabili became a messenger of the Hidden Imam and the Sufi murshids (spiritual guides) were the only knowledgeable people who could read these communications, often through dreaming. The Sufis despised the acts of torture and violence, hence when Aqasi became the grand vizier, he pleaded for their reduction. Mohammad Shah wouldn't accept it in his early years, arguing that a culprit does not deserve sympathy. However, as he became older and ergo weaker by his pain from gout, he ordered the complete abolition of torture.

Mohammad Shah's approach to the Shi'ia clergy was through hostility and conflict. He abandoned Fath-Ali Shah's attempts to reconcile the demands of piety and the tasks of the absolute ruler. He never asked for a theoretical acknowledgment for his coronation and was more inclined to search his spiritual guide in the dervishes and Sufis than in the ulama of the state. On 24 November 1842, the shah issued a firman on abolishing the rights of sanctuary. He would constantly try to undermine the orthodox ulama position, first with the promotion of Sufism and then with the rise of Báb and Bábism. When Sayyid Ali Muhammad Shirazi first claimed to be the Báb or the gateway to the Hidden Imam, the ulama had declared a fatwa saying he must be killed. Mohammad Shah, on the other hand, called Báb to Tehran and promised him a shelter. This alarmed Aqasi, who had the Báb sent to Maku in Azerbaijan, where he was kept under confinement. However, facing dissent with Mohammad Shah, he did not take any drastic measures against the Báb and his followers.

Although Mohammad Shah did not have an enmity view towards any Christianity branches, he preferred to allow the French Lazarists missionaries into Iran rather than the English Anglicans. In hope of bringing modern education to the nation, he issued an edict that allowed these missionaries to open schools. The head of the Lazarists was Eugène Boré who opened a school in 1839 in Tabriz with students both Christian and Muslim. Though his school triggered unrest among ulama of Tabriz, ultimately, under the protection of Mohammad Shah, they could not harm him.
We have Britain and Russia having an influence over the new king. We have support to undermine orthodox Islam in favour of gnostic/spiritism. We have the country opened up to Catholicism but not orthodox Christianity. And if you are not sure what I mean by orthodox, it's the plain reading of the scriptures, whether the Koran or Bible, and not the "it doesn't say what it means and it doesn't mean what it says" of gnostic teachings, and why you need an extra shaman/mediator to impart the SECRET KNOWLEDGE.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 1600
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 257 times
Been thanked: 467 times

Re: Baha'i movers & shakers

Post by rachel »

Shahs/King of Iran
1. Fath-Ali Shah Qajar - 17 June 1797 – 23 October 1834
2. Mohammad Shah Qajar - 23 October 1834 – 5 September 1848
3. Naser al-Din Shah Qajar - 5 September 1848 – 1 May 1896 (assassinated)
4. Mozaffar ad-Din Shah Qajar - 1 May 1896 – 3 January 1907
5. Mohammad Ali Shah Qajar - 3 January 1907 – 16 July 1909

I don't find these names at all easy to keep track of, so to recap:
  • Bahaʼu'llah's father worked for king 1 in a high position.
  • When king 1 dies, king 2, his grandson becomes king with the help of the British and Russians.
  • Bahaʼu'llah's father is push out losing property in the process, but king 2 tolerates Babism and the Bab.
  • On king 2's death, king 3, his son, has the Bab arrested and eventually executed.
  • In retaliation, there is an attempted assassination of king 3, he then has Bahaʼu'llah put in prison.
The story is not consistent across wiki pages. King 2 is painted both good and bad, the original arrest of the Bab, in one entry, under his reign but directed by his Sufi Premier, Haji Mirza Aqasi, who is said to actually be the evil one manipulating everything while the king suffers a prolonged illness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haji_Mirza_Aqasi
Aqasi initiated Mohammad Shah into Sufi mysticism, and the two men "came to be known as two 'dervishes'." While he has often been criticized for contributing to the disasters of the reign, it is possible that he was attempting to use Sufism as a weapon against the growing hold of the official representatives of religion, the mullahs, who were opposing both modernization and foreign influence. In foreign affairs, he managed to "prevent Iran disintegrating either into autonomous principalities or appanages of Russia, and Britain," and internally he "revived the cultivation of the mulberry tree in the Kerman region, to feed silkworms; and he envisaged the diversion of the waters of the River Karaj for Tehran's water-supply." The failure of Aqasi's countrymen to praise him for his enterprise was partly no doubt due to an equally shrewd appreciation on their part that new economic alignments emerging during his period as Prime Minister were not destined to enrich the people, but only to make a rapacious aristocracy more powerful, while the situation of the cultivator became little better than slavery.

Shoghi Effendi, head of the Baháʼí Faith in the first half of the 20th century, described Aqasi as "the Antichrist of the Bábí Revelation."
In a sense it doesn't matter, the point is, it is a repeating script. In 1852 an assassination attempt by two people with guns on the king, this time he escapes with minor injuries; but it is an excuse to imprison and kill a lot of people. Without pulling it up, there were apparently eight different attempts on Queen Victoria's life, gunman and carriage feature.

https://bahaipedia.org/On_the_Attempt_o ... f_the_Shah
The following is an extract from the letter: -

"Constantinople, Sept. 23.

The Erzeroom post has brought letters to the 9th just(i.e. August - ed) from that city, and to the 28th of August from Tabreez. On the 15th of August an attempt to assassinate the Shah of Persia had taken place at tehran. The shah, accompanied by his Prime Minister and by a numerous suite, had quitted that day Kasri-Millak on a hunting excursion, and had reached the skirt of a word near Maveranda, when six ill-dressed Persian, with petitions, approached the Shah, who at once drew in the reins of his horse, and took the papers held out to him. It is usual in Persia on similar excursions for the Sovereign to proceed alone, and keep his MInisters and attendants at a distance of several hundred yards, and when he stops they do likewise. The petitioners were of the sect of Babi, and, after delivering their papers, two seised the bridle of the horse, and the other four surrounded the Shah, and loudly, and with menacing gesture, demanded redress for the insult done to their religion by having put their chief to death. The Shah courageously ordered them off, but before his suite came up, two of the fanatic ruffians drew their pistols and fired at him, two balls of which took effect; the first wounded him in the mouth, and the second slightly grazed his thigh. Immediately after this attempt they took to their heels, hotly pursued by the attendants. Three contrived to escape in the wood, one was cut down by the Multezim or Rikiab, and the other two were seized and conveyed to Tehran, for the purpose of obtaining a clue to the conspiracy. The Shah's wounds were so light that the next day he proceeded in grand pomp to the mosque, in order to offer his thanksgiving for his miraculous escape. On his return to the palace, the MInisters and the Russian and English Ambassadors, and the Chargé d'Affaires of the Porte, in full costume, congratulated him. Public rejoicing also took place, and the city of Tehran was illuminated at night. On the 16th of August intelligence had been received of the seizure of the three assassins who had effected their escape, and concealed themselves in the wood. They were discovered in a well, and were drawn out and cut to pieces, according to the orders given by the Prime Minister."
Then, after "modernizing reforms" we have the successful assassination on on 1 May 1896, note the date.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naser_al-Din_Shah_Qajar
Naser al-Din was assassinated by Mirza Reza Kermani, a follower of Jamāl al-Dīn al-Afghānī, when he was visiting and praying in the Shah Abdol-Azim Shrine on 1 May 1896. It is said that the revolver used to assassinate him was old and rusty, and had he worn a thicker overcoat, or been shot from a longer range, he would have survived the attempt on his life. Shortly before his death, he is reported to have said "I will rule you differently if I survive!" The assassin was prosecuted by the defence minister, Nazm ol-Dowleh.

Nasser-al-Din Shah's assassination and the subsequent execution of Mirza Reza Kermani marked a turning point in Iranian political thought that would ultimately lead to the Iranian Constitutional Revolution during his successor Mozzafar-al-Din Shah's turbulent reign.

Naser al-Din was buried in the Shah Abdol-Azim Shrine, in Rayy near Tehran, where he was assassinated. His funeral took place six months after his death. A British diplomat who spoke with some who had been present, Charles Hardinge, commented "... the corpse was conveyed on a very high funeral car and was 'high' in more ways than one". His one-piece marble tombstone, bearing his full effigy, is now kept in the Golestan Palace Museum in Tehran.
He doesn't need his tombstone then?

Another interesting quote from that wiki page, "he ascended to the Sun Throne", I'm guessing this is where Sunnis comes from. And since there is no longer a King of Iran, do you want to know where the Sun Throne is. -- "Until 1980 the Sun Throne was located in the Mirror Hall of Golestan Palace. In 1980 it was decided to move it to the vaults of the Iranian Crown Jewels at Iran's CENTRAL BANK where it is now on display." -- I think that tells us who is now Sun King.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Throne

1892_throne_of_Fath_Ali_Shah_Teheran.png
8c654ecb1abb115c4121e442bb539e28.jpg

If we step forward to King 4, it's the same story, heart attack this time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozaffar_ ... Shah_Qajar
Additionally, in order to manage the costs of the state and his extravagant personal lifestyle Mozzafar ad-din Shah decided to sign many concessions, providing foreigners with monopolistic control of various Persian industries and markets. One example was the D'Arcy Oil Concession.

Widespread fears amongst the aristocracy, educated elites, and religious leaders about the concessions and foreign control resulted in some protests in 1906. These resulted in the Shah accepting a suggestion to create a Majles (National Consultative Assembly) in October 1906, by which the monarch's power was curtailed as he granted a constitution and parliament to the people. He died of a heart attack 40 days after granting this constitution and was buried in Imam Husayn Shrine in Kerbala.
Does that ring a bell?

The People's Assembly
Image
Post Reply