|Here to save the day:
Guide Humanity For the
Next 861 Years --
The Baha'i Faith's Bizarre "Book of Laws"
& Miller published the first English translation of the
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
This was for obvious reasons: Release of the text in any
unadulterated form would have damaged the religion's
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."
was an active member
of the Baha'i Faith for 13 years, then a casual observer
of Baha'is and
religious seeker for 20 years after.
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
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
in the Wilson book. Obliterating any trace of an E.G. Browne
translation from western awareness could have only occurred through
strenuous efforts by Baha'i managers and possibly in collusion with
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
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.
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
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.)
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.
living in Persia and exposed to Baha'is, was keenly interested in the
them, and interviewed early Baha'is and Babis. I am fortunate
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
They even extirpated the writings of
The Bab, so well that no copy of his central scripture, the
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
and finding many "no no" books about the Baha'i Faith that she
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
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 a
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
westerners to see. They were buying time, waiting for the religion to
grow enough before it had to receive that blow.
an official version was finally offered by the Baha'is in
1992, the starkness and directness of the both the
earlier translations were softened and obscured. Certain
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
bear on the "marriage" verses until two simple sentences that
apparently assume polygamy as normative end up feeling
as if polygamy is being prohibited. (See extended analysis
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
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
about this line from Elder-Miller, regularly missed, is the
spouse." He was to inform that
spouse -- the spouse he' leaving. In the scenario above a fellow is
leaving one wife, perhaps
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 trans. 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
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
(singular) would have been confusing to himself and everybody else
('His "spouse," master? Wait. We usually have more than one wife, and
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
the male-centric, patriarchal, and polygamy-approving reality of their
founders is explored further below.
Royal Asiatic Society and Oriental Translation Fund evidently felt that
a translation of a "missing Aqdas" was well in order. Elder
Miller's agenda was to make available an important
religious work that was,
unaccountably, still unavailable in the west. Dr. Elder
on this oddity in his preface:
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
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
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
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.
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
worthy project. Miller was so peripheral to the book -- mainly writing
the introduction -- that he is not even on
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.
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.
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
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,"
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
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
As if that's not the
way people already made coffins before Baha came along.
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
version, one sees
original Baha'i religion was something quite different from
program that later came
to be sold as "The Baha'i
ancient Islamic world
Baha'i Book of Laws.
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.
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
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
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
aware of it.
Thus the first
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
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.
a feature of the Baha'i culture, if you can call it that, that
believers are very susceptible to fear in connection
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.
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
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
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
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
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
it, making their disinterestedness a demonstration
piety. We dutifully shipped off Ruth Moffett's confiscated
(from places all over America as she was
a traveling Baha'i teacher) to the Baha'i World Headquarters
Haifa, Israel. I remember we gravely marked the box "Covenant
Breaker Books," as in "hazardous
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.
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
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
involving a signed repudiation of Baha'u'llah for those who wish to
have their names removed. Most are not interested or don't
to be bothered. The constant loss of old members, the arrival
wide-eyed new ones seeking to Be Good, the incessant voice of
Baha'i administration, and overall Baha'i culture-of-conformity --
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
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
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
I can confidently assert that their claim to value this is
pure mendacity. Oh, there are so many things Baha'is are avid
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?
internet has seriously downgraded the ability of organizations to
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
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.)
approach to Aqdas-suppression, when obligated to translate the text,
was to distort and
obfuscate its content with the translation. Examples given
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,
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
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.
Growing Gap Between the Baha'i Promotional Package And the
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.
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."
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
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
be shy about
branding thieves on the
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
the time it's released?
The text gradually made void, with each
piecemeal rollout, with nullifying explanations and "this-can't-be-so"
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.
say God gives guidance to man in a "progressive revelation" as
mankind evolves and becomes ready. Baha'u'llah promulgated his "new
1873. 139 years
have now passed and Baha'is still have to say "Mankind
this more advanced Baha'i Revelation. Their "manifestation of God"
seems to have misfired and mis-timed.
Baha'is would make to their
newcomers to explain the Aqdas-delay was: "Mankind is not ready for it." But
developed, each passing year made mankind more "unready" for the
content of the
Kitab-i-Aqdas, until now those contents are positively
Their "Most Holy
Book" was to
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
Baha'is are spinning it as a book of laws that will apply
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
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
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!
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.
refused their own Book of Laws, turned it away at the door. First they
kept it at bay and hidden.
"hidden words.") Now they are abrogating it's laws before
they arrive. They will no doubt consider it null and
the next 861 years as during the first 120 -- when it
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
Upon reading the
"Book of Laws" the reader will notice a few things. One
a definite Islamic tone and attitude -- of the harsher
law in the
case of arson is put bluntly: "Whoever
burns a house intentionally,
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."
Strange Laws of the Kitab-i-Aqdas / The Textual Manipulations by Baha'i
Officials Perceivable Thanks to the Elder-Miller Translation
was a prince. He wanted his followers to be an attractive
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
Elder-Miller Kitab-i-Aqdas, 1961
No John, Paul, Ringo
and George! The scripture instructs them to use perfume, to wear silk
This is succinctly and cleanly stated in the form of one of many
commands in the Elder-Miller:
sable (sammur) just as you
wear silk and squirrel-skin and other things."
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
silk..." The Elder-Miller translation has this as a
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:
are free to wear the fur of
the sable as ye would that of the beaver, the squirrel, and other
Official Baha'i, 1992
turns it into a mere option; as something not prohibited. The
version has Baha'u'llah both instructing them to wear furs while
explaining that past Muslim priests only banned it because of
"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
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
Now time for the
Baha'i perfume command...
Curtis Lee Mickunas is of Lithuanian and Norwegian heritage and raised
Catholic. His profession is astrologer, writes
and sings songs,
a racial activist
European survival. Author of "The Yoga Sutra -- A New
his chief interest is religion. He was a
very enthusiastic member of the
from the age of 21 until the age of 33. He lives in Portland, Oregon.