The Baha'i Perfume
Commands, Hunting Instructions,
for a the Next Thousand Years:
Very Fancy Coffins, and Marriage-Verses, & Official Translation
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
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."
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."
was an active member
of the Baha'i Faith for 13 years, then a casual observer
of Baha'is and
religious seeker for 20 years after.
is plain that the rose water and perfume are intended to be
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
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
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.
rose-water and perfume could be "made use of" as a disinfectant?
In scientific experiments? As a diffuser to make the house
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
Aqdas messies, and the hired-gun translator has at least made a
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
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
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
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
made no rules about rape or sexual assault.
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
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
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
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,
Baha'i work, when it comes to
their Most Holy Book, is figuring out ways ignore it, annul
years after Baha'u'llah
with the Baha'i Faith getting established in the west,
all other major works translated --
Baha'i administration still
avoided publishing "Most Holy Book."
didn't want it to be seen. So somebody else had to translate it for
long after Miller & Elder published the first
1961, the Baha'i administration continued to say
hasn't been translated yet."
one pleasure of the Elder-Miller version is reading it straight without
the verbal emollients, filler, padding, and
official Baha'i bureaucrats. One finds out that the original
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
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
-- Nothing on pornography, incest, and nothing apparent regarding
only mentions boys), homosexuality, etc.
-- No guidance on bio-medical ethics or euthanasia
-- No punishments for rape or even acknowledgment of it as a
-- 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
And a host
of dire problems. God's Thousand-Year-Guidance for man has
at all about sex crimes. But it does contain rules
for falcon-hunting and a great deal of regulations for
and how to get buried. Their royal
enjoined Baha'is be buried in some fancy coffins! Two samples worthy of
The coffins verse
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."
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,
that graven rings should be placed upon their fingers."
Official Baha'i, 1992
The falcon-hunting verse
hunting you use birds
of prey, make mention of God. Then whatever they catch for you is
lawful, even though you find it dead."
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
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
the case of the hunting verse they rounded out things by
adding "beasts" to Baha'u'llah's "falcons." Were they trying
help Baha'u'llah be
systematic and complete? Nothing could make the
either systematic or
complete! The hunting verse by officialdom became so
elaborate it exceeds Baha'u'llah's entire century's
of instructions about marriage! Oddly, it adds a
detail Elder-Miller never saw about when you say the
Officialdom's coffins verse rendering is
especially revealing to analyze. It has likely
leadership sweating bullets for a good while. Even if it were not an
of deforestation and dwindling hardwoods, the command to be buried in
such rarefied coffins is absurd to modern eyes. It is
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
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.
that hardwoods are no longer needed, just "fine and
durable" wood. Now, hard woods (hardwoods) are a
genus of wood and everybody knows what they are -- Mahogany, Oak,
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?
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
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
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
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.
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
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."
already used durable coffins before Baha'u'llah showed up.
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
its word. It's also a demonstration of
a particular Baha'i
mindset for raising up science and objective rationales
equal or superior to their own religion -- despite the real orientation
of their founders. The translation choice by the
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
continually -- things like the 'splitting the moon,' the 'odour of
God,' and a 'red spot' beside an extremely-placed
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.
approach that Haifa Baha'is take is intended to avoid damage to their
fortunes. It is not an honest approach that respects
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:
has ordained marriage for you. Beware lest you go beyond two (wives),
whoever is satisfied with one of the handmaidens, his soul is at rest
and so is hers."
and has a natural feel. Quite clearly this verse assumes polygamy
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.
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.
"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
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.
He was not
reported to be a grammarian or a
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.
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
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
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.
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...",
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
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
translation did not confound Baha'u'llah's words
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
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
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
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
that the real tricks are.
First, in soft-focus,
formal. It has an atmosphere of warning not present
in Elder-Miller which sounds casual by comparison. And it
with the appearance
both forms of polygamy -- two-wives and also 3-or-more -- are
being prohibited by Baha'u'llah, with monogamy required. How
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
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.
the Elder version above. It clearly assumes two wives as
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
"beware!" and "careful!" to a young man considering three or more
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
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
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"
the phrase "take not"
does not exist in Elder-Miller nor anything like it. There is
no "do not," "don't," "refrain"
in their version. How did officialdom manage to find "take not"?
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
and it sounds just like the prohibitive phrases of The Ten
Commandments. I am sure this associative trick was intentional.
guy-talk to fiery admonishment
Elder's "Go beyond" implies
a soft border to wife acquisition. How
men go in these matters? It sounds as if collecting wives was easy and
official rendering) has negative connotations to the mind
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,
loud moments are well-represented throughout
But in their version Baha'u'llah was not
saying anything so
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
This makes sense
is the realm of the
personal and there had to be many believers with more than 2
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
of the 120-year Delayed Official Marriage Verse Compared to
marriage for you."
("Beware of" -- Browne)
||"Ordained" = The
will of God, chosen
meant to be, made holy, inevitable by divine will
|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.
|"Beware that ye..."
not unto yourselves more wives than two."
Baha'is are apparently now negative about natural marriage. Marriage is no longer "ordained"
(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
With this one translation distortion, a strange and puzzling new
phenomenon has arisen in the Baha'i Faith. Baha'is are now the
religion in which young, marriage-phobic men and women go around saying
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
ended up being used by the Wilmette-Haifa
sentence expansion the vexingly vague "beware," a key word in
the Elder version, is shunted off to the side and made a
"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...
the sentence is much longer. With their restructuring three
critical words in the terser versions have been made superfluous. You
actually cut out the entire middle pane of both versions ("Beware lest you/Beware not to")
left with a functioning sentence, after "ye." That sentence
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
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
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
passive description to a prescribed action
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
himself" admonishes "Content
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
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
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.
use of 'shall live'
(in describing the monogamous couple) employs the classic
prophetic, ordaining voice -- a voice common to
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
monogamous Baha'i couples and ordaining
their monogamy together with their happiness: "He
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
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
unseen in either Haddad or the Elder version -- the monogamous
has been subtlety associated and correlated with 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
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"
Corruption 103, Continued
| is satisfied
||"...with one of the
||"...his soul is
| at rest
and so is hers."
volunteerism and evokes some
members of a group. (Not all.)
satisfied" passively describes
evokes an indistinct
and humble pool of
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.
||"...with a single
partner from among
he and she shall | live
Two important message-differences -- in great contrast
to Elder -- have appeared in this 4-word creation by
"Whoso" evokes a particular
individual, not random or plural "whoevers." The mind
is forced to interpret whoso
-- 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
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
Baha'is. The action requested by the word is:
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
instead of "one
of the handmaidens."
The humble, human "handmaidens" --
evoking Man-Woman human relationship plus female service to family
a grandiose mystical
term related only to God.
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
either Elder or Haddad. The introduction of "shall
live" injects an ordaining,
prophetic voice that
future. (The Baha'i future.) No longer a mere observation
of "good results" for
the monogamous, it creates the impression monogamy
by Baha'u'llah as the only acceptable state for the
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
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
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
alter the impression that Baha'u'llah's verse makes on Baha'is
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
All this subtle
by Baha'i officialdom is effective for unthinking,
people -- the sort of people who populate the Baha'i Faith.
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
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:
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:
contenteth himself with a single
partner from among the maidservants of God, both he and she shall live
still remains: The text of the Baha'i "Most Holy Book"
clearly allows Baha'i men to have two wives. To
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.)
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
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
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
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.
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!
Hiding history, context, and reality
version Baha'u'llah does not specify "wives" in his "go beyond" phrase,
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
who inserted "wives" in parentheses. However,
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
Why do you think they did this? The reason is that
Baha'u'llah saying a terse "go
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
Evidence that the Kitab-i-Aqdas is directed to male ears crops
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
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)..."
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--"
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
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
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
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.
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
Killing out "handmaidens" (or women
who serve their men)
to the Baha'i women as "the
handmaidens" in the
Elder-Miller book. This very term has been commonly found in
translations for many a year. But here in his intimate
distinctly conveys the reality-of-view that both Baha'u'llah and the
men comprising the movement had toward women. It also evokes the idea
of wifely service to a husband, and I think this is the
human sense in which Baha'u'llah used the term. That is, I
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
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.
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,
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!
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.
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
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
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
Does it not disgust?
Yet it gets worse even so...
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
every aspect of the day. In the
text above a husband is traveling with his family which
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
"sit in the temple of Unity." This refers to what
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.
Baha'i-suppressed "Kitab-i-Aqdas shows that Baha'is were meant to be a
God-centered people set apart, and much like Islam. As in
Hinduism and Christianity, Baha'i life was to feature profound
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
other religions. But materialistic, worldly Baha'i
officialdom downplays and ignores these central mystical
of both genuine
religion -- and of their own texts.
Making marriage optional for
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
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
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"
(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
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
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
this would have been "wife." The recently trendy and
"partner" had never occurred in
any translations of Baha'u'llah relative to marriage, but only
"wife," "husband," or "spouse."
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
of the Marxists and the gay agenda. The bare and generic term
"partner," used in place of spouse, is a modern culture-bomb employed
wish to redefine marriage as any sort of amalgam and explode the natural,
holistic institution of the family. Traditional
respecting marriage, use "spouse" as the generic and this was
term used in Baha'i translations
heretofore. "Partner" is
especially favored by homosexuals and family-reconstruction
place of "wife" and "husband" to destroy the assumption that such
sexual specificity is relevant to marriage, and even discredit the
"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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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."
"The wives of your fathers are unlawful to you. We are ashamed to mention the
commandments regarding boys (pederasty)."
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."
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"?
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.
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
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.
Notice that Baha'u'llah mixes the question of a maid or female
domestic "servant" with
about wives. This implies that, in his mind, the "virgins in service"
were on a platform
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
Dump this talk of "virgins" -- Monkey
Business in the Official
Baha'i "Virgin in Service" verse
|"Authorized" version, 1992
120 Years Late -- 1992
one does no harm in taking a virgin into his service."
is no objection to the one who employs a maid in his domestic service"
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
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
"Authorized" version is longer that Elder's. Adding things again.
Wilmette-Haifa crew used the same Victorian euphemism
as Haddad 100
years ago! But it was certainly for very different reasons
than Victorian sensibilities!
that in this era of sexual frankness it would be no problem to use
"virgin" if that is the more correct word. Did
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
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
but we can't have that! Obviously "virgin" would
challenge and offend well-experienced women and especially feminists
neo-Baha'i Aqdas translation. (Likely all the female
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
"propriety" not even sketchily present in the others. There is no
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
translators took care to nip that possibility in
performing a bit of Aqdas activism to keep men from
with hired females in the New Dawn though it wasn't a concern
Thus these ladies have revealed new Aqdas verses to us from
the Dayspring of Propriety.
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.
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
the others, and an interesting spin trick because they had to
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"
a thrice-divorced, well-worn 50-something.
And verily, the neo-Baha'is in their "Book of Laws" -- our
guidance for the next "Thousand Years" -- have purged the idea that
something to be valued.
Was Baha'u'llah a brazen hypocrite?
Continuing on in my
deconstruction of the Official Baha'i marriage translation:
Kitab-i-Aqdas was finished between 1873 and 1875. According to Miller
& Elder Baha'u'llah had married a 3rd wife, Gohar,
(She bore him a daughter, Furuqiyya. See scanned
above.) This means at the time Baha'is want us to
Baha'u'llah was prohibiting 2+ wives he himself had three.
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
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
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
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:
Language in the Kitab-i-Aqdas
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
and the Kitab-i-Aqdas is no exception. Baha'is tend to appreciate it
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
is one from by Elder-Miller from the
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
is the official
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
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
Haddad translated the verse around 1900:
snow-white faces and radiant hearts..."
Anton Haddad, 1901
Haddad not only used
the color "white,"
but emphasized whiteness with "snow
"Hearts full of light"
has been turned into Hallmark greeting card copy: "illuminated hearts."
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.
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
"white" probably conveys to us historical Islamic usage
of the word "white" in spiritual and religious contexts. But
Baha'is, as usual, would like to cover up history and even ancient
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
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
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
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?
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.
more evocative and instructive "Lote
Tree of the Extremity" has been
shortened to simply "Lote Tree." This is another truncation
anti-mystical attitudes of the Baha'i administration. I have to assume
that "Lote Tree of the
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.
In Vedic/Hindu terms I immediately register this as a
Sufic concept of Nirguna-Brahman, an all-seeing Pure
that is not necessarily concerned as contrasted to the caring, active,
protecting aspect of God (Saguna Brahman). It's also evocative
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.
Wilmette/Haifa translation team, probably without the slightest bit of
education about either Sufic or
Hindu God-concepts, turned
into a protector.
This would be, in Hindu terms, the other form of God, the knowable,
perceivable, Saguna-Brahman with functions and activities. How
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.
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
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
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
degradation, is the following. This is a sad one:
aside that which ye have, then with the foremost wings of separation
(from the world) fly away above all creation;"
Anton Haddad, 1901
you have! Then fly
with the minions of Separation beyond Innovation."
that which ye
possess, and, on the wings of detachment, soar beyond all created
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
separate from the other
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
This is a state only gained through asceticism and a
profound detachment from the world, matter, the body itself.
attained by getting in touch with the divinity with in and locking onto
it, making one impervious to outer conditions and established
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
but dumped by in the official version, most definitely referred to
Baha'u'llah's ideal of a profound,
ascetic people separated from world. Review the pink-and-orange verse
traveling family saying special prayers
upon merely resting at a place along the road. It is the image of an
detached, God-oriented people.
Only Elder-Miller got
"minions" out of the verse. (I do invite verification from Arabic
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
king's attitude through the Aqdas, was visualizing for the Baha'is. Or
combination of the two (both an esteemed people and a loyal, devoted
any case, the Baha'i administration decided they didn't want the
to be God's minions.
the official version, instead of flying with his fellows in Baha'i
"wings" disappears into a metaphor for personal
group of rarefied people taking to the skies of Baha, the line
addresses a solitary person. Nobody to fly with
-- some of the richest and most spiritually-resonant words in the
Miller-Elder verse -- have been excised from the Wilmette
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
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
all is in an uncreated state. We each merge in this Brahman
nightly in deep, dreamless
according to the Vedas and Upanishads. The purpose of
Baha'i mantra is to contact That; to get in touch with that uncreated
God-bliss, which is yet God's pure creativity itself,
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.
Baha'i Faith was originally highly mystical, inward
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
throats, killing each other and getting killed. He
"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":
thy sight unto thyself, that thou mayest find
Me standing within thee, Powerful, Mighty, and Supreme."
of Perception! Look thou to My Face and turn from
all save Me"
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
the content of other religions and having near-phobias about that
content, Baha'is suffer two tragedies: 1) They fail to see the
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.
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
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:
the joy of My Greatest Name
with which hearts are entranced
the minds of those brought near (to God)
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
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
been the original true heart of the Baha'i
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."
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
The Hindu yogis say "the
nectar." Chanting and repetition is a powerful device for
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
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
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
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
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
all save Me and commune with My spirit. This is of the essence of My
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
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
that I was able to learn what this Hidden Word meant
Curtis Lee Mickunas
March 2012, The Saint Francis
Curtis Lee Mickunas is of Lithuanian and Norwegian heritage and raised
Catholic. His profession is astrologer, writes
and sings songs,
a racial activist
European survival. Author of "The Yoga Sutra -- A New
his chief interest is religion. He was a
very enthusiastic member of the
from the age of 21 until the age of 33. He lives in Portland, Oregon.