Picture of Baha'i Man, Baha'u'llah, Red Laws
     
       
\



           

        


         By J. Curtis Lee Mickunas



 




 

Part One   |   Part Two

Mankind's Guidance for a the Next Thousand Years:
The Baha'i Perfume Commands, Hunting Instructions,
Very Fancy Coffins, and Marriage-Verses, & Official Translation Monkey Business

Now the Baha'i perfume command. The Baha'is are trying to moot and sideline this one in very clever ways. The following analysis will demonstrate how the official Baha'i organization works systematically to create loopholes in their own laws and gradually "evolve" their text into something mooted or meaningless. First the earliest English translation by Haddad:

Anton Haddad: "Use rose water, then the pure attar of roses: 
This is that which God hath desired from the beginning which has no beginning, that from you may be diffused what was wished by your Lord, the mighty, the wise."

 
Elder-Miller: "Use rose water, then pure perfume. This is what God, who has no beginning, loved from the beginning. This is in order that there might be diffused from you the odour that your Lord, the Mighty and the Wise, desired."

The author 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 is plain that the rose water and perfume are intended to be worn on the skin in the sense that is obvious here. The "diffusion" is clearly meant to come from the person of the Baha'is bodily. But the 120-year-late official version translates it -- and I am sure this is deliberate -- in a way that makes it possible for other interpretations to arise:

Official Baha'i: "Make use of rose-water, and of pure perfume; this, indeed, is that which God hath loved from the beginning that hath no beginning, in order that there may be diffused from you what your Lord, the Incomparable, the All-Wise, desireth."   

Note the change to "Make use of." Neither Haddad nor Miller employed this blur-creating word device. The clever Official rendering is designed to sidestep the simple, patent intention of the verse -- as specifying the conventional use of perfume etc. on the body -- and open up loopholes for re-interpretation: Rose-water/perfume do not need to be something worn on the skin; they just need to be "made use of" some how or other. 

Perhaps the rose-water and perfume could be "made use of" as a disinfectant? In scientific experiments? As a diffuser to make the house smell good? For medicinal purposes? Maybe a clever, enterprising Baha'i could 'fulfill the Aqdas' by using  perfume-like substances for things like insecticide, bug repellent, or to burn to keep the mosquitoes away from his bar-b-que night on the deck. (In my years in the Baha'i Faith there were actually Baha'is who took this approach in responding to their strange scripture!) The Baha'i mind can surely find a way around these Aqdas messies, and the hired-gun translator has at least made a start. 

Besides, western women are fussy about things like that. Some of them don't like being told they have to wear perfume. Likely, modern Baha'is won't want even want to use rose water for their guru. Why burden them? This doesn't sell the faith. So the Baha'is translated it in such a manner that both the central thought of substances applied to the person, and the idea of a sequence for their application, are dumped. They clearly wanted to produce a translation that would allow Baha'is to avoid even needing to use either rosewater or perfume at all.

Loopholes.  Skipping any inclusion of a word such as "odour" (found in Elder) further adduces that they badly wanted to cut the rosewater and perfume out of the rosewater and perfume verse!


Is a little perfume too much for a Manifestation to ask? Baha'u'llah commanded Baha'is to wear perfume for a thousand years but he made no rules about rape or sexual assault.

Instead of a good odour being diffused, 'something' would be diffused but it is not specified what. But Baha'u'llah clearly wanted the smell of rose water and perfume to be diffused from the Baha'is. Is this little nicety too much for a Manifestation of God to ask the People of Baha? Apparently so. Haddad had this as "attar of roses." Could it be this was what Baha'u'llah actually wanted? Rose smell and not just "perfume"? (Later Officialdom is found going cheapo on Baha'u'llah's intended World Class coffins for the Baha'i corpses.)

It's highly fascinating that in the straightforward Elder rendering Baha'u'llah is seen giving personal hygiene advice. He is instructing: 'First you use the rose water, people, then you apply the perfume,' specifying a sequence. As an insider to the upper classes (his daddy was the manager of a governor's house) he likely enjoyed sharing these royal niceties with his "People of Baha." His instructions about hygiene and applying applying perfume are an interesting moment in the Aqdas, and one of the few where we catch him speaking in an attitude that could be called paternalistic and human. But the materialistic, utilitarian Haifa/Wilmette sect covered up this almost charming moment. Perhaps it is too 'personal' for modern western Baha'i prospects to cope with: the whole idea of this guru giving them personal hygiene advice. Especially once they see the Itty-Bitty Beauty's glaring photograph in which he looks as if he just crawled out of a dark hole.

Elder-Miller Kitab-i-Aqdas


This is loophole-building. This spin-doctoring and effective alteration of inconvenient passages is frequent throughout the official translation and only the Elder-Miller version (and others) make this clear. Their belated 1992 version also contains a great deal of explanations, apologies, and padding to help to shift the meaning or outright annul Baha'u'llah's statement and help current Baha'is live with the strange text. This occurred early on with Baha'u'llah's apparent assumption of polygamy as a norm. The Baha'i administration wrote a treatment that says, essentially, 'This can't be so.' Indeed, the primary Baha'i work, when it comes to their Most Holy Book, is figuring out ways ignore it, annul it, or render it void. 

Holy Book Suppression!


 
Eighty-eight years after Baha'u'llah wrote it,
and with the Baha'i Faith getting established in the west,
and all other major works translated --
the Baha'i administration still avoided publishing "Most Holy Book."
They didn't want it to be seen. So somebody else had to translate it for them.
Then long after Miller & Elder published the first English translation
in 1961, the Baha'i administration continued to say to believers:
"It hasn't been translated yet."

Indeed, one pleasure of the Elder-Miller version is reading it straight without the  verbal emollients, filler, padding, and apologetics of faceless official Baha'i bureaucrats. One finds out that the original Kitab-i-Aqdas was a terse, thin volume. The original book is only 74 pages with 10-pt. type. The Baha'i administration and spin doctors added so much to their version that their Aqdas ballooned to 315 pages! Most of it written by the administration, not Baha'u'llah. The scholarly Elder-Miller version, intending to present the Arabic as it really was written, makes these  manipulations by modern Baha'is clear to see. That is its value.

Baha'is promote their religion as one that is superior due to access to the original founding texts. Further, they state that the problem with religions is that change creeps in, with the original texts and their meanings lost. The Baha'i Faith, is, they say, different. One of the interesting things about the Baha'i Book of Laws, given it is presented by them as full guidance for mankind for a thousand years, is the content it lacks. It requires that marriage be effected with a dowry. Adulterers have to give the Baha'i "House of Justice" "nine mithquals of gold." (Elder/Miller explain that this amounts to 1-7th of an ounce of gold.) But the Most Holy Book contains no advice or laws about the following urgent problems of mankind:
 
-- Nothing about technological manipulation, genetic and bio-engineering, or food monopoly
-- Nothing on pornography, incest, and nothing apparent regarding pedophilia (he only mentions boys), homosexuality, etc.
-- No guidance on bio-medical ethics or euthanasia
-- No punishments for rape or even acknowledgment of it as a human crime
-- Nothing about Industrialization, pollution, the environment
-- No guidance about forms of government
-- Nothing about mass media
-- Nothing on business or monopolies
-- Nothing on economics, banking, usury, or money


And a host of dire problems. God's Thousand-Year-Guidance for man has nothing at all about sex crimes. But it does contain rules for falcon-hunting and a great deal of regulations for funerals and how to get buried. Their royal founder Baha'u'llah enjoined Baha'is be buried in some fancy coffins! Two samples worthy of analysis:

The coffins verse

"God has commanded that the dead be buried in (coffins of) crystal or rare stones or beautiful hard woods, and that engraved rings be placed on their fingers."
Elder-Miller, 1961

"The Lord hath decreed that the dead should be interred in coffins made of crystal, of hard, resistant stone, or of wood that is both fine and durable, and 
that graven rings should be placed upon their fingers."

Official Baha'i, 1992

The falcon-hunting verse

"When in hunting you use birds of prey, make mention of God. Then whatever they catch for you is lawful, even though you find it dead." 
Elder-Miller

"If ye should hunt with beasts or birds of prey, invoke ye the Name of God when ye send them to pursue their quarry; for then whatever they catch shall be lawful unto you, even should ye find it to have died." 
Official Baha'i

Notice both official versions are much larger. Comparative Elder/Official word-count is 20/42 words for the falcon-hunting verse -- 25/38 for the coffins. Words have been added to change their outcome. 

In the case of the hunting verse they rounded out things by adding "beasts" to Baha'u'llah's "falcons." Were they trying to help Baha'u'llah be systematic and complete? Nothing could make the Kitab-i-Aqdas either systematic or complete! The hunting verse by officialdom became so elaborate it exceeds Baha'u'llah's entire century's worth of  instructions about marriage! Oddly, it adds a detail Elder-Miller never saw about when you say the invocation, while falcon-hunting.

Officialdom's coffins verse rendering is especially revealing to analyze. It has likely had Baha'i leadership sweating bullets for a good while. Even if it were not an age of deforestation and dwindling hardwoods, the command to be buried in such rarefied coffins is absurd to modern eyes. It is interesting indeed to see what they have done to the verse, and clearly their gears have been grinding on this one. It also will provide an example of a common human error in religion: To think like religious managers, analyzing "What if?" That is, many people take an approach to religious scriptures and doctrines that analyzes "If people  do Thing A, then that will lead to Thing B, which would lead to Thing C." Based on this, they decide if a religious teaching is good or not, or they try to alter it to fit with their logical ideas about outcomes. This is thinking like a franchise manager instead of a devotee, and it's one way that religions wander from their original impulses.

Notice that hardwoods are no longer needed, just "fine and durable" wood.  Now, hard woods (hardwoods) are a definite genus of wood and everybody knows what they are -- Mahogany, Oak, Ebony, etc.  But the Baha'i managers were thinking, "We'll get criticized for this, this will lead to more deforestation of declining hardwoods," etc. So they changed Baha'u'llah's intention to mean any sort of wood -- even a composite or false wood probably -- that is "fine" and durable. This makes the assumption that Baha'u'llah wanted the hardwoods because of their durability. How is this known? It isn't. The Baha'i officials are deciding "The reason Baha'u'llah specified hardwoods must have been for logical reasons because they are durable." This is invention, and making religion into crass utilitarianism. Maybe he wanted hardwoods because he liked them? Maybe there was some esoteric, occult reason? Maybe it was just God's Command etc.? It also begs the question: If Baha'u'llah was an omniscient "Manifestation of God," why did he not know that hardwoods would become rare and threatened, requiring Baha'is to get coffins made from them?

Elder-Miller Kitab-i-Aqdas

I find it very interesting that "beautiful" is missing from the official version and has been replaced with "fine." This is a downgrade from "beautiful." It is hard to think that neither Elder nor Miller, nor the consultants they consulted, knew what the Arabic word for "beautiful" was or that they mistook it. Milder and Elder had no difficulty translating "Blessed Beauty." But the Baha'i administration apparently did not want the word beautiful here. Knowing how they think, "beautiful" further indicated something expensive. The translators were trying to think Communistically and come up with burial rules that the common masses could follow. 

But is this what Baha'u'llah intended? It seems to me that he wanted the Baha'is, indeed, to be opulent people and a cut above. Indeed, the Persian Baha'is that I knew during my years in the Baha'i Faith tended to be a glamorous type of Iranian -- nice clothes, nice cars, jewelry. And they were closest to the Baha'i cultural source. Or is "beautiful" too subjective? Not objective enough? But didn't he really say "beautiful"? And isn't the Kitab-i-Aqdas loaded with subjective statements by Baha'u'llah?

Finally the administration altered the command for "rare stones." They don't have to be rare, but merely "hard, resistant." Again, this is Baha'is assuming it was all for practical purposes. But maybe rare was what Baha'u'llah wanted? According to Baha'i verse engineers a Baha'i coffin can now be made of any commonplace material so long as it's "hard" and "resistant" -- including fake stone, composites, or epoxy. 

Although Baha'u'llah said nothing about "hardness" or "resistance" the Baha'is introduced that idea with two separate words not found in Elder-Miller while jettisoning "rare." He also said nothing about "durability" (relative to the wood) which the Baha'is added while dispensing with a truly intended "beautiful." Baha'i translators decided that Baha'u'llah -- in his request that Baha'is have coffins of beautiful hardwoods, rare stones, and crystal -- was speaking in error. He didn't know his own true intent. All that he was meaning to say was: "God has commanded that the dead be buried in durable coffins." 

Note that people already used durable coffins before Baha'u'llah showed up.

These verse changes demonstrate, indeed, the the human tendency to approach religious scriptures like franchise managers applying logic and asking "What might happen?" instead of taking a religion at its word. It's also a demonstration of a particular Baha'i mindset for raising up science and objective rationales as  equal or superior to their own religion -- despite the real orientation of their founders.  The translation choice by the administration betrays a belief that everything in religious law is given for practical, logical reasons having an objective and scientific basis. But where is the objective content in things Baha'u'llah refers to continually -- things like the 'splitting the moon,' the 'odour of God,' and a 'red spot' beside an extremely-placed divine lote tree?

Baha'i Style
 
Photo of Baha'i Faith fashion styles.
 
According to Baha'is God gives new laws to humanity when we are finally ready for them. Give thanks that for the next 1,000 years mankind will finally be turned out in stylish furs.

Everything about the translation approach that Haifa Baha'is take is intended to avoid damage to their fortunes. It is not an honest approach that respects  this decidedly mystical religion. The Elder-Miller translation lets you see all the invention and alteration-of-texts that Baha'i officialdom is engaged with. And it becomes clear why they hid the text from the west for 120 years.

How to Get Rid of the Polygamy in the Baha'i Faith? Translation Tricks!

Here is how the Baha'i Administration rendered the line allowing more than one wife to make it come out differently. It is an exercise in subtlety and mind-spin well worth studying:

Elder-Miller:

"God has ordained marriage for you. Beware lest you go beyond two (wives), 

and whoever is satisfied with one of the handmaidens, his soul is at rest and so is hers."

That's straightforward, clear and has a natural feel. Quite clearly this verse assumes polygamy as normative, but gives a warning connected to "going beyond two" wives. Then the fellow content with one wife is praised. A fourth translation of this verse exists, used in Samuel Graham Wilson's book "Baha'ism and It's Claims" (1915). By all appearances it is a translation by the English Orientalist and scholar Edward G. Browne. If that is the case it has some authority. It is probably the oldest translation we have, and closest to the source, and by an Englishman into English. Look at it carefully:

Edward Granville Browne:

"God hath decreed you to marry. Beware of marrying more than two, 

and whosoever is content with one, attaineth peace for himself and her."

Notice the "beware lest" of Elder and the "beware of" of Browne and how similar those are. Based on these it's merely advising care and caution in going beyond two wives. That is to say, Baha'u'llah is simply saying: Be wary about going beyond two wives.

Anton Haddad, a member of the faith and a Baha'i promoter cited as the first Baha'i in America, proffered a version very different. In the Haddad translation the words "beware lest" (Elder) and "beware of" (Browne) come out as "beware not" --a critical difference in meaning.

Anton Haddad:

"Marriage is enjoined on all, but beware not to marry more than two wives, 

and he who is contented with one only, he and she will be in ease and happiness."

This is a drastic difference from both Elder and Browne. A sense of prohibition is evoked. It should be noted that Anton Haddad, who had a western first name, was a Baha'i, the first Baha'i to set foot into North America according to Baha'i sources. Thus we would have had both western sensibilities averse to the Aqdas' polygamy content, plus a strong motivation to alter the meaning in his translation to make it palatable to the west.

Baha'i Faith

He was not reported to be a grammarian or a scholar of Arabic. By contrast Earl Elder, the lead translator for the translation from Great Britain, was a scholar of Arabic. Further, Elder's preface states that he had his translation reviewed by two other Arabic scholars, Will Orick and Rev. Cady Allan, who was able enough in Arabic to make punctuation recommendations to Elder. Obviously the "marriage verse" would have been a point of particular focus in the minds of the translation team; they would have certainly known that this was the biggest "scandal" element in the text from the point-of-view of the western Baha'i promoters and the verse of greatest interest. Thus they would have taken  care with it so as not to be accused of distortion. Remember Earl elder was a scholar of Arabic whose translations of Arabic were published by academia. He had a translator's reputation to protect. Thus Elder-Miller have more credibility than the Baha'i evangelist-to-America Anton Haddad.

Haddad's "Beware that" seems to set up a rule; a requirement compared to Elder's "beware lest" and Browne's "beware of" which merely warn. Yet Haddad's "beware not to marry" is still not a firm prohibition in any case. Not a clear prohibition such as could be easily seen in any simple phrase like: "Do not marry...", "Thou art forbidden to marry," or "Thou shalt not marry" or simply "marry not more than..." The warning "Beware not to go through the Ghastly Gulch" is not the same as the directive "Do not go through the Ghastly Gulch." And clear "do not" statements were no difficulty for Baha'u'llah elsewhere in the Kitab-i-Aqdas. 

Meanwhile, Haddad leaves it obvious, in the "more than two" sentence, that two wives are at least no problem in Baha'u'llah's New World Order. Thus this translation did not confound Baha'u'llah's words adequately for the neo-Baha'i translation committees of Wilmette and Haifa. Based on the Elder-Miller translation, Baha'is had two problems with Baha'u'llah's marriage sentence. Namely, the first half of it, and the second half. The first half makes two wives seem fine. The second half fails to forbid anything -- even when tricked out by the partisan Baha'i promoter-to-the-west, Anton Haddad. Watch how differently Baha'u'llah's two sentences later 'developed' in official Baha'i hands:

Official Baha'i Version:
 
"God hath prescribed matrimony unto you. Beware that ye take not unto yourselves more wives than two. 

Whoso contenteth himself with a single partner from among the maidservants of God, both he and she shall live in tranquility."

A little word-switching and word additions go a long way

It feels even more different still, doesn't it? And suddenly sounds clearly prohibitive! Lots of engineering and fakery, I think, is in that translation. Let's analyze it.

Notice that they took the Haddad approach of constructing the sentence as a sharper prohibition like his "beware not to," but used "beware that you..." instead. This opened it up into a question (Beware that you what?) requiring new words. They could then double back and build the sentence as something clearly prohibitive. 

Notice Elder-Miller came up with 30 words for Baha'u'llah's statement, Haddad 31. The official Baha'is cranked out 38 words.  They also expanded it from two sentences to three. Your mind should immediately alert you: They have added words. More significantly, the feeling of the verse is now different from start to finish. It is a very carefully constructed translation. (It must be, it took them 120 years.) It's in the way officialdom's version gives you "impressions" that the real tricks are.

First, in soft-focus, it's far more formal. It has an atmosphere of warning not present in Elder-Miller which sounds casual by comparison. And it somehow ends up with the appearance and feeling that both forms of polygamy -- two-wives and also 3-or-more -- are being prohibited by Baha'u'llah, with monogamy required. How does it conjure this impression not found in the other two versions?

Notice that the Baha'i officials used a sharp construction similar to Haddad's "beware not," that is, "beware that." This allowed them to expand the sentence and rebuild it carefully, making it prohibitive.  They developed his "beware not to marry" -- already looking like an elaboration compared to Elder/Browne -- into a more complex "Beware-that-ye-take-not..." The nebulous problem word "beware" has been effectively sidelined by sentence expansion, made into a prefix instead of a central player in the sentence. Then a powerful phrase "take not..." rises up at center stage. 

After creating their own "beware that..." they even doubled-up prohibitory constructions by using Haddad's "not" in their 2nd construction "take not." 

"beware that" | you | "take not." 

The sentence contains two sharp word pairs; a redundancy of prohibitory word-constructions, whereas there was not even one prohibitory construction in the earlier Browne/Elder translations. 

Elder-Miller Kitab-i-Aqdas

Review the Elder version above. It clearly assumes two wives as normative and quite acceptable in these two simple lines: "God has ordained marriage for you. Beware lest you go beyond two."Baha'u'llah reportedly had at least four wives. 

What kindly uncle wouldn't say "beware!" and "careful!" to a young man considering three or more wives? 

Let's start with an understanding of the word "lest." The direct meaning of "beware lest..." in the Elder-Miller version is simply: Be cautious or you'll end up going beyond two wives. "Lest" is soft. It is refers to possible events that might occur. 'Let us not do this thing, in case [lest]  this other thing might happen.' In this case, the Elder-Miller phrasing means: 'Marry, but be cautious or you might end up with more wives than is best.' The official version of "beware that" implies that a hard line is being drawn and a requirement is being made. 

Note: I invite all those with qualifications to translate Arabic into English to give their opinions about the most honest translation of this particular verse, where Elder-Miller got "beware lest" and officialdom got "beware that." Please send your opinions to me at julian "at" west.net. I will post them. Many of the Arabic-script pages are available online for viewing.

From cautionary advice to "thou shalt not"

Significantly, the phrase "take not" does not exist in Elder-Miller nor anything like it. There is no "do not," "don't," "refrain" or even "avoid" in their version. How did officialdom manage to find "take not"? This is probably the cleverest thing in the translation. It subliminally tweaks western conditioning from the "shall nots" of the Bible. Even though it's a sentence technically allowing two wives, the mind hears "Take not" and it sounds just like the prohibitive phrases of The Ten Commandments. I am sure this associative trick was intentional.

From gentle guy-talk to fiery admonishment

Elder's "Go beyond" implies a soft border to wife acquisition. How far can men go in these matters? It sounds as if collecting wives was easy and typical. "Take" (the official rendering) has negative connotations to the mind -- taking resources, stealing something. "Take" sounds aggressive and implies weddings. Both the Elder and Haddad versions are relaxed and informal in tone. Elder-Miller seemed well capable of translating Baha'u'llah's many fire-and-brimstone moments; the many hyper-adamant demands he makes, and those loud moments are well-represented throughout their translation. But in their version Baha'u'llah was not saying anything so challenging to the polygamous order as to warrant an adamant phrasing or even precise words. Fitting with this view, Baha'u'llah's use of "handmaidens" and soft-edged "go beyond" imply he intends a collegiate, 'one-of-the-boys' tone as he addresses his men about the matter of marriage.

This makes sense considering this is the realm of the personal and there had to be many believers with more than 2 wives.  By contrast the official rendering -- with terms like "take not," "shall," and "contenteth himself" -- is unctious and sharp, loaded with stern rebuke.  I simply don't buy that this is an accurate translation. I believe that the Elder-Miller rendering is the honest translation, and not the 120-year-late offering by the Wilmette/Haifa Baha'i establishment.

Scripture-Crafting:
Analysis of the 120-year Delayed Official Marriage Verse Compared to Earlier Elder Translation

Elder "God has ordained marriage for you." "Beware lest you..."
("Beware of" -- Browne)
"...go beyond two (wives),..."
"Ordained" = The will of God, chosen by God, 
meant to be,  made holy, inevitable by divine will for Baha'is.
A mere warning about the risk of ending up with more than two. Contains the soft "lest" which means "or else" or "in case." "Go beyond" is vague, collegiate, implies a soft border to wife-acquisition.

"Wives"
is not even specified, revealing that he was speaking to men.
Official "God hath prescribed matrimony
unto you."
"Beware that ye..." "...take not unto yourselves more wives than two."

Baha'is are apparently now negative about natural marriage. Marriage is no longer "ordained" (Elder)
or "enjoined" (Haddad) -- but merely prescribed. Of course we all know one can choose to take a doctor's prescription, or not. Under officialdom the verse now only means marriage is "strongly suggested."

Note: With this one translation distortion, a strange and puzzling new phenomenon has arisen in the Baha'i Faith. Baha'is are now the only religion in which young, marriage-phobic men and women go around saying "Marriage is not obligatory for us!" as a teaching point to promote their religion!
 

"Beware that"
has a very different meaning than "beware lest" and has a harder edge. It's still ambiguous. But 3+ wives has begun to sound as if
it's prohibited, especially with the rest of the sentence to come...

Note: The British Arabic scholar and dweller-in-Arabia Earl Elder translated it "Beware lest." Sixty years earlier the amateur translator and partisan Baha'i evangelist-to-America Anton Haddad employed a different, harder "Beware not." Phrasing almost exactly like the amateur Haddad's ended up being used by  the Wilmette-Haifa "authorized" Aqdas.


By sentence expansion the vexingly vague "beware," a key word in the Elder version, is shunted off to the side and made a non-essential prefix.

"Take" is an aggressive, unpleasant word. More effectively, Wilmette-Haifa produced the Biblical meme "take not" 
which doesn't exist in the other translations. The use of the word "unto" -- also not present in the others -- provides a further evocation of prohibitory Biblical verse-memes. "Take not unto yourselves" then becomes the centerpiece of the sentence, with the troublesome, vague "beware"  now out of the way, no longer significant or even necessary...

Indeed, notice the sentence is much longer. With their restructuring three critical words in the terser versions have been made superfluous. You can actually cut out the entire middle pane of both versions ("Beware lest you/Beware not to") -- and 
be left with a functioning sentence, after "ye." That sentence creation, if taken alone, finally contains the prohibitive language (see above) Officialdom sought. At least for the 3+ wives prospect. Oh, how much you can achieve if you mix-and-match words like a scrabble game, and especially add a few helpful words! Sort of like how plastic surgeons fashion an ear from other pieces of your body. Note that two hard-edged word-pairs -- "Beware that" plus "take not" -- are combined and placed side-by-side, increasing the feeling of prohibition. This doubling-up of negative phrases doesn't exist in the other translations.

From a passive description to a prescribed action

Another neuro linguistic trick in officialdom's version is the use of "whoso contenteth himself" as against Elder's "whoever is satisfied." Elder's phrase passively describes a situation: "Here are some polygamous men. A few of them are contented with one wife." In the official version the passive description of a few contented men has morphed into a phrase that sounds like a prescribed action. "Is satisfied" refers to what some men "are." "Contents himself" refers to what men should do. The phrase "contenteth himself" admonishes "Content yourself!"

Mind games: From 'consider the wisdom' to -- "This is how it's going to be"

In the second half of a brief sentence giving fundamental Baha'i marriage advice for 1,000 years, the Elder version has Baha'u'llah simply pointing to a wisdom in having just one wife. He commends it to the men as having results that are worthy of consideration: "whoever is satisfied with one...his soul is at rest." (He apparently had some disharmony among his wives.) It's as if he's pointing out to them: 'Look at men like Hassan and Hamid, with just one wife. Such fellows tend to have less drama.' For this section the Baha'i translators pull out every trick in the book to change it's feeling and direct the mind differently.

The "whoever" of Elder implies a random volunteerism; that perhaps a few men might consider the wisdom of one wife. But officialdom's "Whoso contenteth himself..." makes monogamy appear to be specified; as if requested

The use of 'shall live' (in describing the monogamous couple) employs the classic prophetic, ordaining voice -- a voice common to Baha'i literature that points toward a future world. From a sentence that merely made an observation about the advantages one-wife husbands may have ("his soul is at rest') the Baha'i officials transformed it into a sentence that appears to prescribe it as the one mode-of-life for the future. It became prescriptive and predictive  instead of merely observational, as if Baha'u'llah is describing an army of future monogamous Baha'i couples and ordaining their monogamy together with their happiness: "He and she shall live..." 

Then this state is associated with good things, better things than Baha'u'llah had mentioned in the Elder-Miller version. The modest "his soul is at rest" of Elder-Miller comes out differently in the official version:  "He and she shall live in tranquility." Somehow Elder-Miller missed "live" and also the future-pointing "shall-- but the Baha'is found it. With "shall live" -- unseen in either Haddad or the Elder version -- the monogamous state has been subtlety associated and correlated with life. Life is always naturally counterpoised against death. "Life" and "living" are powerful concepts. Everybody wants life. "Shall live"suggests both the continuance of life itself, but also prosperity, nice things, everything humans want.  (And yet it's the polygamous Muslims who are presently taking over Europe and out-birthing the Europeans.) "Tranquility" is also a richer term than "at rest." Thus the Baha'i translation, once it points to the one-wife idea, associates even stronger positive ideas with it than Baha'u'llah himself did. And where did "his soul" go? 

Scripture Corruption 103, Continued

Elder "...and whoever | is satisfied with..." "...with one of the | handmaidens,..." "...his soul is | at rest and so is hers."
"Whoever" implies volunteerism and evokes some members of a group. (Not all.)

"Is satisfied" passively describes and observes.
"The handmaidens" evokes an indistinct and humble pool of Baha'i women.

"Handmaidens" also implies a woman's natural service to husband and children.
A passive observation. Points to the one-wife situation and
commends it as worthy of consideration.

"His soul is at rest" is a modest description of the advantage of monogamy.
Official Whoso | contenteth himself with... "...with a single partner from among
   the maidservants of God..."
"...both he and she shall | live in tranquility."
Everyman Appears
 
Two important message-differences -- in great contrast to Elder -- have appeared in this 4-word creation by Officialdom:

 
"Whoso" evokes a particular individual, not random or plural "whoevers." The mind is forced to interpret whoso as Everyman -- i.e. Everybahai.

This is very nuanced, clever,  and subliminally effective for guiding the verse import in their intended direction.


Next, Elder's passive, observational "is satisfied" becomes an active "contenteth himself."
"Is satisfied" has a different meaning than "satisfies himself." "Is contented" is different than "contents himself." The first only describes a state; the 2nd refers to an action taken. So the official "contenteth" solicits an action from the Baha'is. The action requested by the word is:  "Content yourself." This is only the first way they tried to make the 2nd half of the problematic sentence sound as if it prohibits two wives.


The persnickety, explicit "a single partner" is inserted instead of "one of the handmaidens."


The humble, human "
handmaidens" -- evoking Man-Woman human relationship plus female service to family -- becomes a grandiose mystical term related only to God.

"Partner,"
 a modern sexless anti-family word promoted by homosexuals, has been bizarrely inserted to pay obeisances to the gay agenda. Two nouns for "wives" are present instead of Elder's one (handmaidens). This was so Wilmette-Haifa could insert the degenerate, politically-correct "partner" plus have a word to use for crafting the highly explicit term "single partner." That monogamy-explicit dyad -- not present in Elder/Haddad, creates a strong impression that, although contradicting the first sentence, Baha'u'llah is erecting  a one-wife law.
Now the Baha'i Scripture Managers Really Go for Broke

"Shall live" is not found in either Elder or Haddad.
The introduction of "shall live" injects an ordaining, prophetic voice that points to the future. (The Baha'i future.) No longer a mere observation of "good results" for the monogamous, it creates the impression monogamy is specified and ordained by Baha'u'llah as the only acceptable state for the future.

Next, stronger positive associations are created for monogamy. 
The modest "his soul is at rest" is enlarged to a richer tranquility. Through the use of "shall live" monogamy is associated with general prosperity and life itself. By giving much stronger positive associations to monogamy the impression is created that monogamy is being specified. ("Why would Baha'u'llah attach such lofty, ringing themes to monogamy if he were not specifying it?") No reference is made to their souls. This is the most devious piece of the "Authorized" version from Haifa-Wilmette. Read and compare again to the Elder version above after reading this! The psychological tricks become  obvious. It ends with the verse giving the impression that both 2-wives plus 3+ wives are forbidden, though this conflicts with the first sentence.  These are very clever efforts at neuro-linguistic programming to alter the impression that Baha'u'llah's verse makes on Baha'is and observers.

 General tone: Elder-Miller is casual, vague, and collegiate in discussing a delicate matter. The "Authorized" tone is unctious, fiery, explicit, exacting, and forbidding -- and gives a very different impression of what's been said.

All this subtle neuro-linguistic programming by Baha'i officialdom is effective for unthinking, impressionable people -- the sort of people who populate the Baha'i Faith. They have built in a "flow" to their two sentences. With the first sentence the possibility of two wives is acknowledged, but with a feeling of admonishment and criticism of that state not present in Elder-Miller. The next sentence creates a feeling that the "two wives" is suddenly, in a trice, outlawed with monogamy raised up as the  ordained state, and the one acceptable state, of the future.

So in the official Baha'i translation a mere warning about the difficulties of having 3+ wives, and an approbational comment about the men who keep one, has become an apparent prohibition  of any form of polygamy.

Yet the thing still faileth. Because the thrust they created for the final sentence contradicts the first sentence:

"Beware that ye take not unto yourselves more wives than two."  

Only the artful, meme-resonant construction of their last sentence held any hope, for Baha'i obfuscation artists, of burying Baha'u'llah's first sentence in oblivion:

Whoso contenteth himself with a single partner from among the maidservants of God, both he and she shall live in tranquility."

It still remains: The text of the Baha'i "Most Holy Book" clearly allows Baha'i men to have two wives. To combat this perception, all the confused minions of officialdom can say to a Baha'i harem-seeker is, perhaps: "Yeah, but then you won't live in future. Um, er, at least not with "tranquility!" The fact stands, too, that many monogamous marriages are stormy and contain conflict, while many polygamous marriages are relatively happy. Studies of the Mormons easily reveal this. Thus the suggestion of Baha'u'llah, even in Elder-Miller, that monogamy guarantees harmony or prevents divorce is not particularly valid in the first place. America has long had laws against polygamy and all marriages in our two  centuries have been monogamous; yet our divorce rates are sky high! (Perhaps if the Baha'is had accepted the fundamentally Islamic worldview present in their actual scriptures they would have grown much more powerfully than they did.)

It took Baha'i officialdom 120 years to come up with an Aqdas rendering containing enough monkey business to try to slide the Aqdas past their constituency without a mass exodus. Certainly their long suppression of the book starting early is the only reason a "Baha'i Faith" even exists today, rather than being some forgotten Islamic sect long dead. Yet they had to come out with it eventually. I imagine they sent the verse back to translator after translator saying, 'No, it needs to come off differently.' But notice how they have still failed, after all that holding off, to transform an ancient Islamic viewpoint into an honest feminist religion. 

I have not acquired a copy of the belated 1992 Aqdas Apology of 315-pages. I don't enjoy reading the words of anonymous would-be world-controllers as they create sophisticated lies. But I have no doubt it contains paragraphs and paragraphs of spin-doctoring, associated with this verse, to convince Baha'is that this verse doesn't say what it apparently says. They were abrogating and annulling this verse already by the time of their preliminary controlled leak called the "Synopsis and Codification of the Kitab-i-Aqdas."  That was where the first noises arose in Bahailand that there was 'something wrong with the Kitab-i-Aqdas.' In that belated sop thrown to the believers in 1973 we saw the first obvious "administrative" efforts in damage control.

I believe that the translation offered by the Baha'i institutions -- of this marriage verse and other verse -- is mendacious. I believe it falsifies Baha'u'llah's Arabic statements in pursuit of their agenda to keep their constructed religion popular and growing no matter what the reality of the original religion. And yet there is more nasty  business in the official translation...there is more!

 
Elder-Miller Kitab-i-Aqdas

Hiding history, context, and reality

In the Elder-Miller version Baha'u'llah does not specify "wives" in his "go beyond" phrase, but tersely says "go beyond two." It was the objective translator Elder, seeking to make the sentence comprehensible, but also showing us that "wives" was not in the original -- who inserted "wives" in parentheses. However, the official version does not retain this detail. It uses "beyond two wives" as though that's what Baha'u'llah wrote. Thus they end up with two instances of words for wives instead of Elder's one "handmaidens." Why do you think they did this? The reason is that Baha'u'llah saying a terse "go beyond two" reveals undesired contextual information to the reader. Baha'u'llah had no need to specify "wives" and did not say "spouses" because he was not speaking to a mixed audience: He was addressing himself to men. Evidence that the Kitab-i-Aqdas is directed to male ears crops up in other places of the Aqdas, such as his travel rules: "You and the women are to sit..." (See image below.) The truth is that the Kitab-i-Aqdas was directed to males and the Baha'i administration did not want you to know this. It's one more instance of the chronic Baha'i problem of effacing their own true history. In similar manner Baha'i officialdom has re-engineered another similar verse:

"After completing the prostration, you and the women are to sit at the temple of Unity (haykal al-tawhid)..."

Elder-Miller, 1961

Baha'u'llah refers to "the women," indicating his words are directed to men. Look what Wilmette/Haifa did with it:

"Upon completing your prostrations, seat yourselves cross-legged--men and women alike--"

Official Baha'i, 1992

How clever and artful. What invention. Compared to the naturalesque construction of the Elder verse, does the Official verse sound natural? Do you think Baha'u'llah would have used that cold, obtuse, bureaucratic "men and women alike" as he spoke to the men? "You and the women" is an intimate, 2nd-Person construction. "Men and women alike" is detached, formal, like a government manual. This phrase was concocted for only one purpose: To obscure the fact that Baha'u'llah addressed himself to men!

Is it not rather disgusting? It is clear that Baha'i Officialdom changed Baha'u'llah's words, changed reality, and decided what he "should have said." Oh well. Why not do as you like with a text if it was never important enough, in the first place, to to even transmit to your constituents for your critical first 120 years?

No Mystical Yogic or Sufic Asanas for Baha'is -- Rip it Right Out of There!

I also find it very sad -- ugly really -- that the materialist Baha'is of Wilmette/Haifa removed the unique Islamic and Sufic religious term for a  religious sitting posture. From a sitting term that meant "The Temple of Unity" it has been made crass and material, and stripped of the genuine spiritual potential associated with worship postures, the straightness of the spine, religious asanas (sitting postures) -- and what little potential the Baha'i Faith had to make conceptual common ground with the mystical content of Hinduism, Yoga, and Buddhism! Just imagine: The prospect of experiencing unitive consciousness or encountering "the temple within" through religious chanting in a particular religious posture. The Baha'i image controllers obviously said: "Can't have that!" The religion marketers were thinking, "Calling a sitting posture the "Temple of Unity" might seem too woo-woo or strange to our target demographic. And anyway we want to be a practical, utilitarian religion now that raises up "science" as supreme. Thus let's not call the sitting posture anything too mysterious." In point of fact, such language -- associating one's worship and one's body with ideas like "temple" or "unity" -- is one of the elements that makes worship, prayer, and chanting divinely effective; attitudinal secrets of worship that bring one into God-contact within. It is another example of the anti-mysticism that took up residence in what was originally, indeed, a highly mystical and devotional religion.

And it's very sad. And it's truly enough -- in my mind -- to convince me that those who ride herd on the Baha'i Faith and act as its "lords" have no spiritual or religious legitimacy. But the life-corruption continues...

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...

The Real Baha'i Faith


 
I grieved when I first opened the Aqdas and saw what Baha'is were originally meant to be. The unadulterated Book of Laws draws the picture of an austere, God-focused people living Islam-like devotional ideals. In the picture of Baha'i life that emerges, religion informs every aspect of the day. In the text above a husband is traveling with his family which probably includes several wives. Addressing himself to men, Baha'u'llah says "you and the women" are to speak a particular devotional invocation whenever they come to rest. They are to "sit in the temple of Unity." This refers to what Hindus call a yogic asana. When I was a Baha'i I never heard of any of this. These things were never taken seriously by Baha'i promoters even after 140 years. Yet this religious devotionalism and repetition of religious words was the real core of the Baha'i Faith.



 
The Baha'i-suppressed "Kitab-i-Aqdas shows that Baha'is were meant to be a world-renouncing, pious, God-centered people set apart, and much like Islam. As in Hinduism and Christianity, Baha'i life was to feature profound devotional ritual, especially repetition-of-verses -- a highly effective spiritual technique for coming to know God within. This is called "japa" and "bhajan" in Hinduism and "mantra" repetition in other  religions. But materialistic, worldly Baha'i officialdom downplays and ignores these central mystical aspects of both genuine religion -- and of their own texts.

Making marriage optional for neo-Baha'is

I didn't notice the next official distortion until some time after starting this text. Along the way I discovered the Wikipedia page on the Kitab-i-Aqdas. I always avoid that place because it tends to be a leftist agenda infection. There I found Baha'i activists swarming all around the "Kitab-i-Aqdas" page for damage control, misrepresenting the book to the public. That was to be expected. They seemed to to have taken up permanent residence there, carefully watching over the page.

One of the strangest items was how the anonymous Baha'i Wikipedia activists would say, in describing the contents of the Aqdas, "Marriage is strongly recommended in the Kitab-i-Aqdas but not obligatory." By my life, I knew of no statement in the Aqdas saying "marriage is not obligatory" or anything to the effect. I corrected the site, and while doing so, used the words of all three translators in the case of the marriage verse: That marriage was "ordained" (Elder), "enjoined" (Haddad), and "prescribed" in the "Authorized" version. This to make it clear that the language of the Aqdas contrasted to their statements about marriage being "not obligatory." I was astounded to find the Baha'i activists repeatedly deleting my innocent and honest correction!

My mind thought, "Sheesh, are the modern Baha'is now marriage-negative?" When I was in the Baha'i Faith there was high esteem given to marriage and family, and indeed that atmosphere led me to marry. It clued me in to look at the official verse more carefully, and sure enough, "prescribed" is another a corruption. Clearly, it is intended to open up a loophole in the verse for the Baha'is, as with the perfume verse. Something "prescribed" is not something one is obligated to do. (The doctor may prescribe something, but you don't have to take it.) The word is like "strongly recommended." Compare that to Elder's very strong "ordained" and Haddad's stronger "enjoined," one definition of which is "to direct or order to do something." So it seems modern Baha'i officialdom is even throwing marriage under the bus. But it gets worse, and perhaps the next corruption is related:

Baha'i Officialdom introduces the gay lexicon into The Most Holy Book

There is more strangeness in the official (Haifa-Wilmette) version: The appearance of the word "partner" in the modern version is inventive, not to mention ominous. A few decades back this would have been "wife." The recently trendy and amorphous term "partner" had never occurred in any translations of Baha'u'llah relative to marriage, but only "wife," "husband," or "spouse." 

The Baha'i Faith has long been morally conservative even in the west and, because of the morally conservative Islamic impulse of the Baha'i founders and the Christian heritage of most Baha'i membership,  resistant to the moral "reconstruction" of the Marxists and the gay agenda. The bare and generic term "partner," used in place of spouse, is a modern culture-bomb employed by those who wish to redefine marriage as any sort of amalgam and explode the natural, holistic institution of the family. Traditional people, respecting marriage, use "spouse" as the generic and this was the term used in Baha'i translations heretofore. "Partner" is especially favored by homosexuals and family-reconstruction advocates in place of "wife" and "husband" to destroy the assumption that such sexual specificity is relevant to marriage, and even discredit the concepts of "husband" and wife." It is truly disconnected from time and the word traditions of both the west and the east. I find it bizarre that this word has ended up in the Baha'i "Most Holy Book." Note also that no generic word  (such as spouse) is contained in the Elder-Miller verse, only "handmaidens," which is sexually specific. Thus it seemed that the ones involved with this Aqdas production really wanted to insert this demoralizing culture-bomb into the text. It is safe to say that even ten years prior to 1992, in cobbling together their translation, the Bahia's would not have even considered the use of this degenerate word in the Kitab-i-Aqdas. The word always serves to anticipate and accept continued degradation of natural sexual roles and traditional marriage. My, how things change.

I remember the strangeness of visiting the Theosophical Library in Ojai. Just a few short decades earlier the Theosophical movement had been a purveyor of traditional India to the west by translating Indian texts heavy with conservative and ancient Indian morality, including the ideals of austerity, renunciation, and celibacy as found in so many texts such as the Jivanmukti Viveka. But through time and cultural alchemy, this movement that represented traditional India was now the interest of cultural liberals in America. And oddly but expectedly, I found that the movement had begun to attract lesbians. They were inserting themselves into administrative positions up on the hill that overlooked the mountain town, even taking up residence in the Theosophical-only neighborhoods as official members, and likely very aware of the astoundingly valuable real-estate owned by the organization and even the value of their library. The teaching curriculum of the Ojai Theosophical Library was changing accordingly, becoming oriented toward female concerns and liberal social ideas. In like manner, the appearance of the jarring gay-agenda culture-bomb of partner" in the Baha'i text is likely a sign of new 'cultural' elements stirring in the Baha'i culture. 

When I was an active Baha'i, in the 1970's and 80's, as with so many other things the Baha'i view of homosexuality matched that of the surrounding culture: It was not morally acceptable. And I never knew of any Baha'i who openly stated that they were homosexual. The Baha'i view up to then was, in reality, even more conservative than the surrounding culture: Homosexuality in the Baha'i Faith simply did not come up. It was never an issue among Baha'is of that time. The Baha'i Faith was attracting the more liberal-minded from those of Christian heritage. However, the moral conservatism found in Islam and well-present in the Baha'i scriptural worldview, served to clarify and firm up the moral conservatism of Christian-sourced Baha'is rather than befuddle it. 

Most Christian-sourced Baha'is viewed the Baha'i Faith as a welcome bulwark against moral confusion they saw developing. After the mess created by Hugh Hefner and the so-called "sexual revolution" of the 1960s, they embraced the Baha'i Faith as a welcome delineator of clear moral values. While their Christian churches had become less explicit and clear, the Baha'i Faith offered traditional clarity. This was clearly reflected for them in the Baha'i Laws not even explicitly found in the still-hidden Kitab-i-Aqdas but developed by Shoghi Effendi. Baha'i law required that Baha'i men and women even shacking up be hit with a hard, toothy sanction called "removal of administrative rights." It meant that they could not vote in Baha'i elections, and I think they could not attend the "Baha'i Feast" (as I recall). Feasts were the social and spiritual nexus for the religion. It definitely happened. Removal of "administrative rights" applied to mere booze drinkers or drug users, and it was a terrible blow to a Baha'i, giving him or her pariah-like status. The same sanction existed, on the books, for the never-seen prospect of any Baha'i openly practicing homosexuality. 

The basis for Shoghi Effendi's regulations was well present, it turned out, in the Kitab-i-Aqdas. Baha'u'llah did make one statement bearing on the question:

 "It is forbidden you to wed your fathers' wives. We shrink, for very shame, from treating of the subject of boys."

Official Baha'i, 1992

 "The wives of your fathers are unlawful to you. We are ashamed to mention the commandments regarding boys (pederasty)."

Elder-Miller, 1961

That's pretty clear you might say! He references homosexuality in the same breath with pederasty. He was obviously saying "I find this perversity so vile, and its wrongness so obvious, that I hoped I would not even need to mention it."  Thus you can imagine how homosexuality was viewed in the Baha'i Faith, at least in the 197o's. Baha'is viewed it as "beyond the pale." 

Thus it is, in a way, amusing to see what's happening now in the Baha'i Faith. Acceptance of homosexuality is part of the cultural-Marxist idea-package that Baha'i promoters chose to emulate in the crafting of their religion. After Baha'i promoters spent decades crafting the religion into a vehicle for liberal and leftist cultural ideas while covering up the austere atmosphere of its texts, it naturally attracted homosexuals and those newly sanguine about homosexuality. It dismays these to find a religion so liberal on many fronts having an explicitly negative view of homosexuality.  They get roiled by these "archaic" ideas about perversity and thus roil the hapless Baha'i religion-inventors at the home office! So what do we have in consequence? In a text in which Baha'u'llah considered homosexuality so despicable as to be beneath his mention, Baha'i Officialdom inserted nomenclature that is trendy and explicitly gay-friendly!

What can one do but "l-o-l"?

Best-case-scenario: It's a subtle sop Baha'i image crafters threw to homosexuals and their minions to mollify them and at least appear gay-friendly, even to the extent of adulterating their Most Holy Book, without really being caught doing anything too dire. You know, more Neuro Linguistic Programming or spin doctoring for the Aqdas. Worst-case-scenario: Like the Theosophical Society, the Baha'i Faith now contains cultural activists who think they know better what the Baha'i religion should be, and the direction it should head. After all, if the Kitab-i-Aqdas was declinable for the past 120 years, it's surely declinable now. "Partner's" presence likely reflects decadence creeping into the modern Baha'i Faith and a failure of resistance to moral corruption that is spearheaded by gay activists, giving a hint as to which way the Baha'i Faith is now headed. Based on this sign I predict that this Wilmette-Haifa generated Aqdas-loathing Baha'i Faith will end up as morally liberal and degenerate as the surrounding culture. Baha'is have always, in fact, matched up to their surrounding culture. How could they not do so, never even having had their own Book of Laws from the git-go? In any case, I suspect that the Baha'i image handlers are grateful that, as with so many other realms of life and dire moral questions facing humanity, Baha'u'llah was typically vague and unforthcoming in his statement about homosexuality. Thus they can finesse something or make accommodations to social corruption. Finally, with their text, the Baha'is got lucky.

Baha'i concubines

Notice that Baha'u'llah mixes the question of a maid or female domestic "servant" with his instruction about wives. This implies that, in his mind, the "virgins in service" were on a platform that is similar to a wife. It probably refers to the Islamic reality of men having concubines in addition to technical wives. The only requirement is that they start out as virgins.

It is instructive to look at how official Baha'idom rendered another verse just following the marriage verse: the "virgin in service" verse. Here are the three versions by Haddad, Elder, and Wilmette-Haifa. Note that this is the close of Baha'u'llah's brief thousand-year guidance about marriage. Even a cursory look at these comparisons reveals more about the thoroughly modern values, perspectives, and agendas that infect the official neo-Baha'i organization:

Dump this talk of "virgins" -- Monkey Business in the Official Baha'i "Virgin in Service" verse

Earl Elder
1961
Anton Haddad
Circa 1900
"Authorized" version, 1992 (Wilmette-Haifa Sect)
120 Years Late -- 1992

"...and one does no harm in taking a virgin into his service." "There is no objection to the one who employs a maid in his domestic service" "And he who would take into his service a maid
may do so with propriety."

The simple rendering by the Arabic scholar Elder uses "virgin" and this value was the cultural reality.

His verse takes it as a given that this refers to domestic female servants -- cooks, maids, and the like. (See Haddad translation to the right which explicitly states that.) It could not have referred to female employees in business. Women did work outside the home in Baha'u'llah's time and it was not considered moral or proper for them to do so.

Haddad promoted Baha'i in America during the Victorian age. His "maid" was almost certainly a euphemism for the ears of his Victorian-age audience. "Virgin" was both too sexually frank, plus  evoked primitivism in western minds even then. Yet Baha'u'llah's culture was primitive and did speak of "virgins."

See the word "domestic." This clearly referred to women hired in the home -- not to  any other type of employment.
Notice again that the "Authorized" version is longer that Elder's. Adding things again. Oddly, the Wilmette-Haifa crew used the same Victorian euphemism as Haddad 100 years ago! But it was certainly for very different reasons than Victorian sensibilities!

Now, one would think that in this era of sexual frankness it would be no problem to use "virgin" if that is the more correct word. Did Baha'u'llah use a euphemism for virgin? Doubtful! And not according to the Arabic scholar Earl Elder! Was virginity unimportant in Baha'u'llah's culture? No, it was very important. So there appears to be more monkey-business and obfuscation in this Authorized translation. 

My, how times change. Nowadays people are not offended with "virgin" because it's too sexual and the people too pure. Instead, they are offended with the thought that there's anything worthwhile about virginity! Baha'u'llah seemed to think so, but we can't have that! Obviously "virgin" would challenge and offend well-experienced women and especially feminists involved with the neo-Baha'i Aqdas translation. (Likely all the female committee members and faceless female bureaucrats on the Wilmette staff were very put out by this Aqdas verse!) And yet, "virgin" is probably exactly what Baha'u'llah said. (Independent Arabic-to-English translations are being arranged to verify this.) Why do I think women's sensibilities have been a force in the development of this translation? I just know. 120 years have gone by, women have dominated the Baha'i offices and the Baha'i Faith in general, flocking to a "feminist religion." And it's obvious from how the text came out.

Most interesting: Wilmette-Haifa seems to have added a line about "propriety" not even sketchily present in the others. There is no allusion, in the Haddad/Elder versions, that the male of the house might engage in hanky-panky with his female domestic. On the other hand, there is, you know, some sense of the possibility given the context. Men! You never know about men! Thus the modern feminist Wilmette translators took care to nip that possibility in the bud, performing a bit of Aqdas activism to keep men from flirting with hired females in the New Dawn though it wasn't a concern of Baha'u'llah's. Thus these ladies have revealed new Aqdas verses to us from the Dayspring of Propriety. The "Mother-May-I?" phrase of "may do so" -- not present in the other translations -- is all the more cringe-worthy when you realize it's just the voice of unhappy control-the-world feminists in Wilmette and Israel.

There is another very subtle alteration the neo-Baha'is have introduced into this verse. I wonder if you can see it? Its very subtle. It's in the phrase "he who would..."  The people who created this translation don't want men thinking they should hire women, whether as domestics or otherwise. They don't want them to think of anybody as "women" at all (even if they are). Especially in hiring. You know, "affirmative action" and all that. Plus the whole idea that women can be assumed to be the more appropriate maids and domestics is "sexist" in their eyes. (Even though it's true.) So these translators wanted to jettison the very assumptions implicit in the verse reflecting Islamic life around Baha'u'llah and traditional understanding. They simply don't want Baha'is to think this way; in the Old World way, or put it out there that this viewpoint should be normative. So the one taking in a female domestic is "called out" as exceptional by their phrase "He who would take into his service...". ('Only a few dumb men would hire a woman with the idea she's a woman, or because she's a woman!') It's a more complex phrasing not used by the others, and an interesting spin trick because they had to add words to the verse to do it, which they were probably trying to avoid.

Verily, there is a big difference between "virgin" and "maid." A "maid" can be a thrice-divorced, well-worn 50-something.

And verily, the neo-Baha'is in their "Book of Laws" -- our only guidance for the next "Thousand Years" -- have purged the idea that virginity as something to be valued.

Was Baha'u'llah a brazen hypocrite?

Continuing on in my deconstruction of the Official Baha'i marriage translation:

Historians estimate that the Kitab-i-Aqdas was finished between 1873 and 1875. According to Miller & Elder Baha'u'llah had married a 3rd wife, Gohar, already in 1867. (She bore him a daughter, Furuqiyya. See scanned pages above.)  This means at the time Baha'is want us to believe Baha'u'llah was prohibiting 2+ wives he himself had three. (Then later a fourth, Jamaliyya, who he added to his harem in old age.) There was never any report in the literature about controversy or scandal, among the Baha'is or the Muslims, over Baha'u'llah making a change to Muslim custom and prohibiting 2+ wives. It does not exist in the literature. That must be because the native readers of Arabic knew that the language of the Aqdas does not make any such prohibition. Remember that simply dispensing with the veil rule for women was considered radical, even kill-worthy, in his time. Is it reasonable to think Baha'u'llah -- constantly dealing with challengers and critics -- would have banned the 3+ wife situation when he himself had three? Or when his movement, already heavily challenged and relying on the support of wife-ample sons of Islam, was new and fragile? 

It is more reasonable to believe that the Elder-Miller version -- which presents Baha'u'llah as simply giving a wisdom-warning to men with harem ambitions -- is the honest presentation of the Baha'i founder's words. Here is a handy chart showing how Baha'i officialdom appears to have twisted Baha'u'llah's statements in the Kitab-i-Aqdas:

Dumbing Down Their Text:
Mystical Language in the Kitab-i-Aqdas


One fascinating aspect of Baha'i writings is the Sufic mystical content, and the Kitab-i-Aqdas is loaded with that. After reading official Baha'i translations for a while it becomes very interesting to see how Elder & Miller translate certain mystic phrases compared to official versions. The Elder-Miller translation appears to be more direct with less attempt to fit Baha'u'llah's words into decorous English literary forms. I also perceive the official attempt to "dumb down" the language in the "authorized" version, as if trying to remove  'strangeness' and turn it into pabulum for a modern American demographic. Elder's evocative "Lote Tree of the Extremity" became just "Lote Tree." Under official hands it loses both its rigor and its metaphysical dimensions.


 
Does anybody have any idea what he's talking about? Do Baha'is?
There is a great deal of phantasmagorical content in the Baha'i writings,
and the Kitab-i-Aqdas is no exception. Baha'is tend to appreciate it primarily for
atmospherics. They don't even try to explain this Sufic lexicon, and in the anti-mystical religion that the Baha'i Faith became, there is a taboo against trying..

Here is one from by Elder-Miller from the Aqdas:  Elder-Miller version:

"O People, direct your steps with white faces and hearts full of light towards the Blessed Red Spot where the Lote Tree of the Extremity (sidratu l-muntaha) calls, "There is no god besides Me, the Self-Subsistent Overseer."

Here is the official Baha'i version:

"Turn, o people, with bright faces and illuminated hearts towards the blessed red spot in which the Sadrat-El-Muntaha (divine tree) crieth out, "Verily there is no God but Me, the protector, the self-Existent."

Is this a case where unimaginative and religiously uneducated Baha'is are complaining about Elder-Miller being "too literal"? Let's analyze it:

"White" has become "bright." What is wrong with "white"? An anti-White European phobia here? The stars are white. The sun is white, so is the moon, the light we encounter at death, and the light the Buddhists speak of. Things in a state of purity are often white. The official Baha'is wanted it as "bright" instead. But doesn't "white" say it better plus evoke the thought of purity? Is "white" not what the text said? Here is how Haddad translated the verse around 1900:

"Advance, O people, with snow-white faces and radiant hearts..."

Anton Haddad, 1901

Haddad not only used the color "white," but emphasized whiteness with "snow white." 

"Hearts full of light" has been turned into Hallmark greeting card copy: "illuminated hearts." Whereas the Elder-Miller had two distinct concepts -- white (a color) and light -- the Wilmette version has created redundancy by referring to "light" twice. ("Bright" plus "illuminated.") The Elder-Miller rendering is richer and hits you in more places of the mind.

I approach these words of Baha'u'llah with a prospect that they contain religious (and metaphysical) validity; that they have religious integrity. But modern Baha'is prefer to construe much of what Baha'u'llah says as mere poetic window dressing, something for atmospherics. They reduce his mystical language down to pretty metaphors devoid of metaphysical meaning.  The "white" probably conveys to us historical Islamic usage of the word "white" in spiritual and religious contexts. But the Baha'is, as usual, would like to cover up history and even ancient knowledge.  

The official "illuminated" is more timid and less active than Haddad's "radiant." Elder's "hearts full of light" is robust, dynamic. It implies power related to spiritual attainment. It implies a shining, like the sun. It is, for me, one of the lines that makes me think there was something to Baha'u'llah and his tradition. Let's dig deeper: 

As a yogi and one conversant with the Upanishads, I find "hearts full of light" is deeply evocative. The religions of both India and Buddhism teach that an actual light is seen, indeed, in the heart in meditation. (At two main points in the body. And I can vouch for it.) The light is blissful and is God. The Hindu and Buddhist scriptures speak of an inner sun -- aditya, jyoti, bindu -- that is perceivable to the devotee within the "heart" and which is the basis of the outer sun. In other words, there actually is light within, perceivable to the God-seeker and chanter, and it is seen in places referred to as the "heart" in mystical traditions. The Upanishads are laden with references to it. It is quite possible that the mystic traditions of Sufism, from which Baha'u'llah's seems to have evolved are also aware of the inner light. Thus Baha'u'llah's reference to "hearts full of light" probably had occult significance that resonated across other profound religious scriptures and practices. Yet the Baha'is jettisoned it for the vaguer "illuminated hearts" which reduces it to mere metaphorical value and evokes only inner attitude and not anything with esoteric meaning. Why would the Baha'is not wish to relate the "hearts full of light" to the loftiest spiritual lore and traditions of the religions they claim to supersede?

A sad thing about Baha'is is that they are terribly incurious about the contents of the other religions that they so avidly hope to supplant. Thus it's likely that both the Baha'i translators and the committees that breathed over their shoulder had no clue about the possible religious implications (for "hearts full of light") that I have just broached, or registered the simple, pithy beauty of the Elder-Miller rendering from a mystical point-of-view.

As I read the Kitab-i-Aqdas years later informed by Hinduism and yoga, I see that the Elder-Miller version likely broaches many secrets and esoteric references. The thought that Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i Faith might actually have some parallels to some of the most pristine knowledge of Hinduism/Buddhism adds more creditability to the Baha'i Faith and the Aqdas. But the officials, thinking it meant nothing and only thinking about "image" and "what will sell" to a particular demographic and time, are eager to dumb-down the real Aqdas content into stale and conventional cliches.

The  more evocative and instructive "Lote Tree of the Extremity" has been shortened to simply "Lote Tree." This is another truncation reflecting the anti-mystical attitudes of the Baha'i administration. I have to assume that "Lote Tree of the Extremity" or similar versions carries some kind of metaphysical information about reality, at least reality from the mystical point of view of the Baha'i founders. Why could the Baha'i officials not let the Baha'is nourish their minds on that thought and perhaps learn more about it? Must they be left now talking about a plain "Lote tree" in future without the esoteric context? So Baha'is will have goofy smiles in future as they apologetically refer to a "lote tree" concept they don't understand. Just as they stupidly grin now about their "Number Nine" business -- just a meaningless leftover from the Bab who was immersed in numerology. Both crying lote trees and numerology will be subjects Baha'is eschew and shrug their shoulders over, something too mystical that might embarrass them if they don't manage to drop it along the side of the road somehow.

Elder-Miller contains the word overseer. In Vedic/Hindu terms I immediately register this as a Sufic concept of Nirguna-Brahman, an all-seeing Pure Consciousness that is not necessarily concerned as contrasted to the caring, active, protecting aspect of God (Saguna Brahman). It's also evocative of "foreman" and "boss. A "self-subsistent overseer" is clearly a Nirguna-Brahman conceptualization of God resonant with a very important philosophical system in India, Non-Dualistic Vedanta. Yet the Wilmette/Haifa translation team, probably without the slightest bit of education about either Sufic or Hindu God-concepts, turned the overseer into a protector. This would be, in Hindu terms, the other form of God, the knowable, perceivable, Saguna-Brahman with functions and activities. How this reversal? 

"Subsistent," a term with a philosophical and mystical heritage, got dumbed-down to "existent." Maybe because modern westerners no longer know the word "subsistent"? Why not teach it to them? "Subsisting," as Elder-Miller used, used to occur frequently in Baha'i writings. It's not the same thing as "existent," and probably refers to the "sat" (beingness) of God as the must subtle, unmanifested essence or reality, whereas existent implies the more patent God. 

It is a noteworthy characteristic of the Baha'i Faith -- and I was an active member for 13 years -- that none of these curious mystical terms and statements, so abundant in their writings, are ever explained or discussed. In fact, Baha'is get uncomfortable if anybody -- including their own people -- tries to discuss or understand the highly mystical language of Baha'u'llah. But if Baha'is would study other religions better I think they would translate their own Aqdas more intelligently. But Baha'is do not study religion. They study their race-mixing and race-destruction agenda and ways to fund impressive buildings. So how could they be expected to understand the profound things Baha'u'llah says in the Kitab-i-Aqdas? This tendency of Baha'is to throw out their own gold, to do violence to their own texts, only thinking about "what's attractive" and 'what will sell to the masses' -- is disgusting.

Another example of the mystical language in the Aqdas along with Official Baha'i verse degradation, is the following. This is a sad one:

"Set aside that which ye have, then with the foremost wings of separation (from the world) fly away above all creation;"
Anton Haddad, 1901

"Leave what you have! Then fly with the minions of Separation beyond Innovation."
Elder-Miller, 1961

"Cast away that which ye possess, and, on the wings of detachment, soar beyond all created things."
Official Baha'i, 1992
 
No more minions. 

This verse, one of my favorites, capsulizes Baha'u'llah's vision for the Baha'is: That they be a unique and world-renouncing people separate from the other peoples.

They were certainly to be a mystically-oriented people. The whole Aqdas displays a strong ascetical, world-renouncing attitude and the Sufic language breathes with mysteries. Baha'u'llah wanted his community to stand apart from others. Incidentally, based on the actual Baha'i writings the common bromide that the Baha'i Faith "doesn't teach asceticism" is an absurdity. The founder held out a highly spiritual ideal for the Baha'is in which they would be "detached from all save God" and detached from the world, which Baha'ullah referred to contemptuously as "the world of dust." His book called the "Seven Valleys" speaks of an ideal for the devotee in which he is "cool in the fire, dry in the sea." This is a state only gained through asceticism and a profound detachment from the world, matter, the body itself. It is attained by getting in touch with the divinity with in and locking onto it, making one impervious to outer conditions and established in the blissful state with God. This impervious and detached state was apparently attained by Babi martyrs who died astounding, heroic, joyful deaths under horrific tortures. "Separation," seen in Haddad and Elder-Miller but dumped by in the official version, most definitely referred to Baha'u'llah's  ideal of a profound, emotionally ascetic people separated from world. Review the pink-and-orange verse above about the traveling family saying special prayers upon merely resting at a place along the road. It is the image of an austere, detached,  God-oriented people

Only Elder-Miller got "minions" out of the verse. (I do invite verification from Arabic translators.) One definition of minion is "a favored or highly regarded person." Another is "a servile follower or subordinate of a person in power." That is obviously what Baha'u'llah, a kingly sort with a king's attitude through the Aqdas, was visualizing for the Baha'is. Or a combination of the two (both an esteemed people and a loyal, devoted citizenry). In any case, the Baha'i administration decided they didn't want the Baha'is to be God's minions. 

In the official version, instead of flying with his fellows in Baha'i skies, "wings" disappears into a metaphor for personal  detachment. From a distinct group of rarefied people taking to the skies of Baha, the line now addresses a solitary person. Nobody to fly with anymore. 

Both "minions" and "separation" -- some of the richest and most spiritually-resonant words in the Miller-Elder verse -- have been excised from the Wilmette translation. And maybe it's not cool to be too humble or subordinate to God in this New Day. 

Finally he urges Baha'is to soar "beyond all created things." Now think about how utterly focused on the world Baha'is are! They shun the inner search characteristic of Hinduism, yoga, and Buddhism that would even give them a concept of what such language means. (There's nothing out there. It's all "in there.") This is a profound mystical statement students of the Upanishads would appreciate. It again refers to God as Nirguna Brahman, Pure Consciousness, where all is in an uncreated state. We each merge in  this Brahman nightly in deep, dreamless sleep according to the Vedas and Upanishads. The purpose of chanting the Baha'i mantra is to contact That; to get in touch with that uncreated God-bliss, which is yet God's pure creativity itself,  increasingly during waking. 

In truth, the chanting of the Baha'i mantra ("Allah'u'abha") was and is the true heart of the Baha'i Faith, the center of everything. All the secrets of religion are in that. And there is one line in the Kitab-i-Aqdas that clearly betrays this fact. But 139 years went by and, lacking their own central scripture and Most Holy Book because of the agendas of world plotters -- Baha'i leaders whose concept of religion encompasses merely outward, material goals -- Baha'is could never know this.

The Baha'i Faith was originally highly mystical, inward oriented, and world-disdaining along with a bit of advice about the Baha'is mixing with other religionists in a friendly attitude. That 'friendly consorting with the followers of all religions' -- typical of most religious visionaries, had special urgency for Baha'u'llah because of a history in which Babis, Baha'is, and Muslims were at each others throats, killing each other and getting killed. He  articulated a "get along with other religions" view to keep Baha'is from being killed and persecuted any further. The general sense of Baha'u'llah's vision for the Baha'is, both in the Kitab-i-Aqdas and his "Hidden Words," is that of a rectified and rectifying, God-focused people completely oriented to God who stood apart from the rest -- the People of Baha.

The essence of their founders intent for them is found in these two verses of Baha'u'llah's "Hidden Words":

"Turn thy sight unto thyself, that thou mayest find Me standing within thee, Powerful, Mighty, and Supreme."

"O Son of Perception! Look thou to My Face and turn from all save Me"

There is no question that the Baha'i Faith is a mystical religion. An honest man cannot read those two lines and deny it. The technique of mantra repetition, enjoined on Baha'is in their Kitab-i-Aqdas, is the prime technique for uncovering the meaning of the above verses. But it is regarded by Baha'is as a triviality, even an embarrassment. By insulating themselves from the content of other religions and having near-phobias about that content, Baha'is suffer two tragedies: 1) They fail to see the opportunities in their very own scriptures to relate themselves to the best things in the religions they hope to replace, and 2) They fail to get the hints and clues that would cause them to value -- and actually discover -- the profound gold in their own traditions. Meanwhile, their shallow, world-oriented leadership deletes that content from their texts and gives them a dumbed-down religion.

The guru-devotion element so painfully present through out Baha'i writings, in which "Baha" refers to himself in a continuous stream of superlative terms like"Blessed Beauty," has been supplanted in Baha'is by love of buildings. It's their inert buildings (The Shrine of the Bab) that get the royal appellations like "queen" rather than their tucked-away guru. The buildings, like their oversized $25 million-dollar "Universal House of Justice" burdening a hill in Israel, symbolize for them the worldly affirmation, power and prestige they crave. These, and an unpleasant race-fetishism for "diversely" formed human bodies combined with disloyalty to their own natural heritage -- are what they have come to love under their Haifa-Wilmette leadership more than their guru or the inner God. The Baha'is instead, under the tutelage of the Haifa/Wilmette corporations, became world-focused and world-centered. People for whom the mystical statements of the Aqdas and Hidden Words are an embarrassment. The most poignant piece of the Hidden Aqdas, after discovering myself the spiritual potency of chanting and mantra meditation, was these words:

"Rejoice in the joy of My Greatest Name

with which hearts are entranced

and the minds of those brought near (to God)

are attracted."

This line is the greatest secret of the Aqdas. But only the mystical traditions of Hindu Yoga and Sufism can explain it. Baha'is don't want to know about it. But I know what it means. The ironic thing is that Hindu gurus had long been sweeping the west, attracting storms of young people to this kind of religion, religion that points to the God who is knowable personally within, as joy. When I found this in the suppressed Kitab-i-Aqdas I knew that this had been the original true heart of the Baha'i Faith. But for me it was too late. I had found a religion -- Hindu Yoga -- that really believed in words about"God within thyself," and one not embarrassed about ancient techniques to "commune with His spirit."

This a mystical statement and bears on the divine experience of religious chanting and mantra repetition. It pairs up with Baha'u'llah's command that Baha'is repeat, out loud, their "Allah'u'abha" mantra in one sitting each day and it is highly significant.


The Hindu yogis say "the mantra becomes nectar." Chanting and repetition is a powerful device for both concentrating the mind and directing all of your feelings to God. The kind of joy one gets through religious repetition, or "repetition of the name of God" -- is a causeless bliss (ananda) that comes from contacting God Himself, within. It opens out onto the spiritual worlds within.  It is most likely that Baha'u'llah, being part of the Sufi-like mystical traditions of the Bab, did a lot of chanting and had himself found that joy in chanting. When I saw this verse I knew that this one sentence was, in truth, the real heart of the Kitab-i-Aqdas and was meant to be the true heart of the Baha'i Faith.

It was during the chanting of the Baha'i "greatest name," in fact, that I had  my first experiences with the eternal inner power the Hindus call "kundalini." Yet when I had asked the Baha'is about chanting it, they only said "We don't have to do that."

A Religion of "the World," Indeed

Through the original suppression of the Kitab-i-Aqdas, which spanned 120 years, the Baha'i Faith collapsed into a religion obsessed on the world, and one with a phobia, even rejection, of their own mystical "God-communion" roots -- their own "Baha'i yoga." Baha'u'llah told them to turn away from the world and consider its transient nature, calling it "dust." Now because Baha'is daily carry a painful burden of "fixing the world," which they believe to be real, they are more world-focused, world-obsessed, and world-burdened -- than even average, irreligious people. I think it's one reason why Baha'is are basically unhappy people rife with neurosis. Though they have "prayers for contentment,' they never did grasp religion's purpose of "removing all difficulties" and showing them the inner solace and fulfillment of God within that requires no external conditions.

It is perhaps completely understandable that official Baha'i translators wanted to keep the word "innovation" out of their Aqdas. The official Baha'i translators were loading their Kitab-i-Aqdas with too much innovation and invention. And maybe they'd rather just not think about it.

What really made me leave the Baha'i Faith was pondering this verse from Baha'u'llah's Hidden Words:

"Forget all save Me and commune with My spirit. This is of the essence of My command."

That seemed so simple and clear. I thought I should take it seriously. Yet I knew I didn't really know what it meant. "Forgetting all" -- all worldly thoughts, all worldly memories, all outwardness -- even for a moment is very difficult. Directing the mind to God with everything else excluded, is very difficult.The sages and rishis of India say it is the hardest thing of all. When I discovered the Yoga-Sutras, the Bhagavad-Gita, and Yogananda I saw that the entire purpose of those scriptures was to teach a man how to do that one thing -- that very thing Baha'u'llah says to do above. And I could see the Baha'is were not interested at all in the meaning of this verse, much less pursuing it. But I wanted to know. It was only by leaving the Baha'i Faith that I was able to learn what this Hidden Word meant and follow that command.

Julian Curtis Lee Mickunas
March 2012, The Saint Francis

J. Curtis Lee Mickunas is of Lithuanian and Norwegian heritage and raised
Catholic. His profession is astrologer, writes and sings songs,  and a racial activist
for White European survival. Author of "The Yoga Sutra -- A New Commentary,"
his chief interest is religion. He was a very enthusiastic member of the Baha'i Faith 
from the age of 21 until the age of 33. He lives in Portland, Oregon.

BahaiFace.com Kitab-i-Aqdas.info BahaiAwareness.com
Back to Part One