Adib Taherzadeh, CON ARTIST

This is a blog entry devoted to a Baha’i “historian” and propaganda writer who used his fame among the Baha’is to get himself elected to the Universal House of Justice. His name was Adib Taherzadeh.

Adib Taherzadeh (April 29, 1921January 26, 2000) was a member of the Universal House of Justice, the supreme governing body of the Bahá’í Faith, from 1988 to 2000.

Adib Taherzadeh.jpg

Taherzadeh was born into a Bahá’í Family in Yazd, Iran. He studied electrical engineering at the University of Tehran, pursued advanced studies in Coventry, England, and worked as the chief engineer of an industrial concern from 1950 until 1984. His dedication to the Faith can be judged from the fact that while he was studying in Coventry, he would take public transport to get to Birmingham, where the nearest Feast was being held, and at the end of the Feast, by which time of the evening there were no further buses, he would walk back to Coventry.

Mr. Taherzadeh served on the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is of the British Isles from 1960 to 1971. He was elected to the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is of the Republic of Ireland when it was formed in 1972 and was appointed in 1976 to the European Continental Board of Counsellors, a senior advisory body. He was elected to the Universal House of Justice in 1988.

When I was a Baha’i. I bought two of his books, The Covenant of Baha’u’llah, and The Child of the Covenant: A Study Guide to the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Baha. The second book turned out to be a mere paraphrasing of the first rather than an actual sequel, thus I was tricked into buying a book I really didn’t need at all.

I lost both books after I deconverted, and thus was glad to discover that the text of both books have been posted online. All the better for me to dig them up and discredit them with logic, eh?

Encouraged by Siyyid Muhammad, Mirza Yahya made the preposterous claim of being the successor of the Bab — a position never contemplated by Him. Indeed, He categorically states in the Persian Bayan [4-5] that He appoints no successor to Himself. As a result of such harmful propaganda and acts of treachery and deceit, which kindled dissension among the believers, ‘the fire of the Cause of God’, as testified by Nabil, ‘had been well-nigh quenched in every place’.

Problem: Why would Mirza Yahya make such a claim if the Persian Bayan itself denies it? Wouldn’t the Babis have access to the Bayan to know if there was a successor or not? And of course, Taherzadeh doesn’t support this with a direct quote from the Bayan itself. Hmm….

It is important to recognise that every religion has had its beginnings characterized by the onrushing forces of divine Revelation vivifying the souls of men as in a spring season. But at the end of the Dispensation winter sets in and the spiritual energies die down. This process, in older Dispensations, lasted several centuries. For example, the springtime of Christianity, which lasted about three years during the Ministry of Jesus, was followed by the summer season a few centuries later when the Christian religion flourished. But with the advent of Muhammad, it lost its vitality and spiritual potency. The advent of a new Dispensation brings about the close of the older one.[1] All past religions have gone through this cycle of spring, summer and winter, and the Dispensation of the Bab is no exception. The only difference is that whereas this cycle in older religions lasted several centuries, in the case of the Bab’s it took only a decade for the spiritual winter to set in.

Problem: Didn’t it ever occur to Taherzadeh that this same issue would also plague the Baha’i Faith?

The most essential prerequisites for the spiritual survival of all those who were close to Bahá’u’lláh were humility, self-effacement and utter nothingness in His presence. If these qualities were missing in an individual, he would be in great danger of spiritual downfall and eventual extinction.

Problem: Baha’u’lah himself did NOT display these virtues. In the Kitab-i-Aqdas, he wrote:

O ye leaders of religion! Who is the man amongst you that can rival Me in vision or insight? Where is he to be found that dareth to claim to be My equal in utterance or wisdom? No, by My Lord, the All-Merciful! All on the earth shall pass away; and this is the face of your Lord, the Almighty, the Well-Beloved.

We have decreed, O people, that the highest and last end of all learning be the recognition of Him Who is the Object of all knowledge; and yet, behold how ye have allowed your learning to shut you out, as by a veil, from Him Who is the Dayspring of this Light, through Whom every hidden thing hath been revealed. Could ye but discover the source whence the splendor of this utterance is diffused, ye would cast away the peoples of the world and all that they possess, and would draw nigh unto this most blessed Seat of glory.

Say: This, verily, is the heaven in which the Mother Book is treasured, could ye but comprehend it. He it is Who hath caused the Rock to shout, and the Burning Bush to lift up its voice, upon the Mount rising above the Holy Land, and proclaim: “The Kingdom is God’s, the sovereign Lord of all, the All-Powerful, the Loving!”

We have not entered any school, nor read any of your dissertations. Incline your ears to the words of this unlettered One, wherewith He summoneth you unto God, the Ever-Abiding. Better is this for you than all the treasures of the earth, could ye but comprehend it.

Can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y?

In distinct contrast to Mirza Muhammad-‘Ali’s claim was Abdu’l-Bahá’s utter self-effacement. Many believers during Bahá’u’lláh’s Ministry used to write letters to Abdu’l-Bahá, but He would not respond to them. For instance, Mirza Ali-Muhammad-i-Varqa,[1] who was later martyred, wrote a great many letters to Him. To none of these did Abdu’l-Bahá send a reply. At the end Varqa wrote to Mirza Aqa Jan, Bahá’u’lláh’s amanuensis, and complained. When Bahá’u’lláh was informed about this He summoned Abdu’l-Bahá to His presence, and directed Him to send a reply to Varqa. Abdu’l-Bahá wrote a brief letter to him saying that when the Pen of the Most High is moving upon His Tablets, how could Abdu’l-Bahá be expected to write?

If I wrote several letters to anyone and he never saw fit to reply to me, I would not think him humble. Quite the opposite! It’s possible Abdu’l-Baha really didn’t give a damn about his fellow Baha’is as long as he wasn’t in charge yet.

Mirza Muhammad-‘Ali’s claim was not the only sign pointing to his ambitious nature, craving for leadership from this early age. His daily behaviour, even during Bahá’u’lláh’s lifetime, gave clear indications of his lack of spirituality and purity of motive, and his jealousy of Abdu’l-Bahá was apparent to those who were close to him. As Mirza Muhammad-‘Ali grew older, he acquired greater prestige among the believers. He thrived on the special consideration shown him by Bahá’u’lláh’s followers in order to honour his Father. But many of Bahá’u’lláh’s disciples who had spiritual eyes soon discovered his real nature and found him devoid of those divine virtues and spiritual qualities which characterize a true believer. Long before he broke the Covenant they were able to detect in him an air of superiority and self-glorification, and a craving for leadership and power.

Problem: Appearantly Baha’u’llah himself never noticed these character flaws in Mirza Muhammad-‘Ali. Otherwise, why would he mention both Abdu’l-Baha and Mirza Muhammad-‘Ali in his Book of the Covenant as his successors?

And yet, the Blessed Beauty, in spite of Muhammad-‘Ali’s reprehensible conduct, conferred upon him a rank next to that of Abdu’l-Bahá. These are the words of Bahá’u’lláh in the Kitab-i-‘Ahd, His Will and Testament:

“Verily God hath ordained the station of the Greater Branch [Muhammad-‘Ali] to be beneath that of the Most Great Branch [Abdu’l-Bahá]. He is in truth, the Ordainer, the All-Wise. We have chosen ‘The Greater’ after ‘The Most Great,’ as decreed by Him Who is the All-Knowing, the All-Informed.” [8-5]

This passage brought about many tests and misunderstandings. Some of the believers who had been in close contact with Mirza Muhammad-‘Ali knew him to be deceitful and materialistic, and avid for power. Others, reading the several condemnatory passages which Bahá’u’lláh had written about him, were sure that he was a perfidious individual who was related to Bahá’u’lláh only physically and had no spiritual relationship with Him. These people were deeply puzzled when they observed that Bahá’u’lláh had chosen such a person to succeed Abdu’l-Bahá. For it was concerning Mirza Muhammad-‘Ali that Bahá’u’lláh had issued this ominous warning in one of His Tablets:

“By God, the True One! Were We, for a single instant, to withhold from him the outpourings of Our Cause, he would wither, and would fall upon the dust.” [8-6]

To such a person, Bahá’u’lláh in the Kitab-i-‘Ahd grants the right to succeed Abdu’l-Bahá. And indeed, Mirza Muhammad-‘Ali publicly claimed this successorship both during the Ministry of Abdu’l-Bahá and after His Ascension.

Problem: Adib Taherzadeh is actually admitting here that Baha’u’llah was an idiot to give such an unworthy son a high rank in the Baha’i Faith!

Bahá’u’lláh was fully aware of Mirza Muhammad-‘Ali’s shortcomings, yet, as the second surviving son of Bahá’u’lláh, it was his birthright to occupy a station next to that of Abdu’l-Bahá. God did not pronounce judgement on him before his rebellion against the Cause. Mirza Muhammad-‘Ali was given the chance to mend his ways and take his rightful position within the Faith but he failed, as in a test, and thus perished spiritually.

That’s BULLSHIT! Being ANY son of Baha’u’llah should not have given someone a birthright to be Baha’i leader after him. I know Baha’is in the Middle East were used to living under absolute monarches, but if this religion was supposed to be a Faith to last 1000 years, then Baha’u’llah should have rejected the concept of monarchy and appointed the most worthy person to lead the Baha’i community, whether a relative of his or not!

On the fifth anniversary of the Ascension of Bahá’u’lláh, Mirza Aqa Jan, Bahá’u’lláh’s amanuensis, threw in his lot with the Covenant-breakers and became one of Mirza Muhammad-‘Ali’s most powerful tools. He created a great disturbance among the believers which brought suffering and anguish to the heart of Abdu’l-Bahá for some time.

Mirza Aqa Jan had been the first person to believe in Bahá’u’lláh as ‘Him Whom God shall make manifest’. He did not belong to the learned class, having only an elementary education. In his youth he used to make soap and sell it for a living. Soapmaking was a humble trade in those days, and it was often carried out in the home by people who were not well educated. Mirza Aqa Jan went to Iraq soon after the arrival of Bahá’u’lláh in that country, and his first meeting with Him took place in the house of a friend in Karbila.

There in the presence of Bahá’u’lláh he sensed a great spiritual power emanating from Him, a power that transformed his whole being. He was the first one to whom Bahá’u’lláh gave an intimation of the as yet unrevealed glory of His station. He also chose him as His personal servant and gave him the title of Khadim (servant), and later Khadimu’llah (servant of God).

At the same time that Mirza Aqa Jan was the ‘servant in attendance’, he was empowered by Bahá’u’lláh to act as His amanuensis in spite of his inadequate education. This he did till the end of the Ministry of Bahá’u’lláh. This man indeed served Bahá’u’lláh assiduously for years in the triple functions of secretary, servant and companion. In the whole range of Bahá’u’lláh’s companions, there was nobody so close to Him as Mirza Aqa Jan. He was for years a channel of communication between Bahá’u’lláh and the believers. It was a common practice for the believers to send their petitions or letters to Mirza Aqa Jan who would then present them to Bahá’u’lláh.

And why would such a close companion of Baha’u’llah betray him and Abdu’l-Baha? Perhaps because he actually knew the writings of Baha’u’llah better than most other Baha’is and thought it was ABDU’L-BAHA who had broken the Covenant. Why?

  1. Baha’u’llah called for Abdu’l-Baha to be the leader of the Baha’i Faith after him and that his brother Mirza Muhammad-Ali was to be Abdu’l-Baha’s successor. He did NOT claim anything for Abdu’l-Baha beyond that.

  2. Abdu’l-Baha broke the original Baha’i covenant by claiming to be infallible (Baha’u’llah in the Kitab-i-Aqdas said only God was infallible). Because his brother opposed this, that brother was denounced as a covenant-breaker, ironically. Abdu’l-Baha then appointed Shoghi Effendi as his successor (the “Guardian of the Cause of God”) and said that the Guardian and the Universal House of Justice would also be infallibly guided by God. This I consider to be blasphemy.

It is interesting that God establishes His Faith in the world with the help of the most unsuitable people. Mirza Aqa Jan was neither a learned person capable of assuming the awesome responsibility of an amanuensis to the Manifestation of God, nor did he have those qualities which are essential for serving Him. Abdu’l-Bahá also had some individuals who worked very closely with Him; among them were a few who proved to be both unfaithful and incompetent servants. Indeed, Bahá’u’lláh and Abdu’l-Bahá were both surrounded by a number of close companions who later became Covenant-breakers. Yet, in spite of this serious handicap of working with incompetent, unfaithful, and sometimes dangerous individuals, God promotes His Faith, and thereby demonstrates His power and omnipotence to His servants.

That is so illogical it blows my mind now to read it!

Among the party from the West which came to visit the Master was a man by the name of Ibrahim Khayru’llah. He was a Lebanese Christian who had embraced the Cause in Egypt during Bahá’u’lláh’s lifetime and had moved to the United States in 1892. Two years later he succeeded in converting Thornton Chase, the first western Christian to embrace the Faith of Bahá’u’lláh, and the Master referred to Khayru’llah as ‘Baha’s Peter’. For a few years Khayru’llah taught the Faith to several souls in various parts of the United States. He was the only teacher to whom the believers turned for enlightenment in that vast country.

But here is an example of how pride and ambition can extinguish the fire of faith which burns in the heart of a believer. There is nothing more vital for a follower of Bahá’u’lláh who becomes successful in teaching the Cause than genuine humility, utter self-effacement and complete servitude toward the loved ones of God. But alas, Khayru’llah was vain and egotistical. As the years went by and he saw the fruit of his teaching work multiply, he became proud and entertained the thought of dividing the Bahá’í world into two parts, he becoming the leader of the Bahá’ís of the West, and Abdu’l-Bahá that of the East!

Note that Adib Taherzadeh doesn’t provide any quotes or documentation of any kind to support the absurd claim in that last sentence.

In 1917 Khayru’llah wrote a letter to Professor Edward Browne of Cambridge which is indicative of his despair:

“The Bahá’í movement in America became slow and dull since the sad dissension reached the West nineteen years ago. I thought then that to call the people to this Great Truth was equivalent to inviting them into a quarrel. But the visit of Abbas Efendi Abdu’l-Bahá to this country, his false teachings, his misrepresentation of Bahá’ísm, his dissimulation, and the knowledge that his end is nigh, aroused me to rise up for helping the work of God, declaring the Truth, and refuting the false attacks of theologians and missionaries. Now I am struggling hard to vivify the Cause of God, after its having received by the visit of Abbas Efendi a death-blow.”

Most likely Khayru’llah was a follower of the Baha’i Faith as it was originally taught by Baha’u’llah and when Abdu’l-Baha made changes to the teachings to make them palatable to western audiences, Khayru’llah rejected this approach. He sided with Mirza Muhammad-‘Ali in his dispute with Abdu’l-Baha, which negates the earlier point about Khayru’llah wanting to be the leader of the western Baha’is.

Abdu’l-Bahá conferred upon His first grandchild the name ‘Shoghi (one who longs), but commanded everyone to add the title ‘Effendi'[1] after his name. He even told the father of Shoghi Effendi not to call him merely ‘Shoghi’. The Master Himself called him Shoghi Effendi when he was only a child, and wrote this prayer which reveals His cherished hopes for the future of His first grandchild.
[1 ‘Effendi’ is a title which is given to people as a term of respect.]

“…O God! This is a branch sprung from the tree of Thy mercy. Through Thy grace and bounty enable him to grow and through the showers of Thy generosity cause him to become a verdant, flourishing, blossoming and fruitful branch. Gladden the eyes of his parents, Thou Who giveth to whomsoever Thou willest, and bestow upon him the name Shoghi so that he may yearn for Thy Kingdom and soar into the realms of the unseen!”

After I left the Baha’i Faith, I figured out that because of the way he had been brought up to think himself superior to others, Shoghi Effendi suffered from a lifelong form of megalomania. It would eventually destroy his relationships with his relatives.

Concerning Shoghi Effendi’s schooling Ruhiyyih Khanum writes:

“Shoghi Effendi entered the best school in Haifa, the College des Freres, conducted by the Jesuits. He told me he had been very unhappy there. Indeed, I gathered from him that he never was really happy in either school or university. In spite of his innately joyous nature, his sensitivity and his background — so different from that of others in every way — could not but set him apart and give rise to many a heart-ache; indeed, he was one of those people whose open and innocent hearts, keen minds and affectionate natures seem to combine to bring upon them more shocks and suffering in life than is the lot of most men. Because of his unhappiness in this school Abdu’l-Bahá decided to send him to Beirut where he attended another Catholic school as a boarder, and where he was equally unhappy. Learning of this in Haifa the family sent a trusted Bahá’í woman to rent a home for Shoghi Effendi in Beirut and take care of and wait on him. It was not long before she wrote to his father that he was very unhappy at school, would refuse to go to it sometimes for days, and was getting thin and run down. His father showed this letter to Abdu’l-Bahá Who then had arrangements made for Shoghi Effendi to enter the Syrian Protestant College, which had a school as well as a university, later known as the American College in Beirut, and which the Guardian entered when he finished what was then equivalent to the high school. Shoghi Effendi spent his vacations at home in Haifa, in the presence as often as possible of the grandfather he idolized and Whom it was the object of his life to serve. The entire course of Shoghi Effendi’s studies was aimed by him at fitting himself to serve the Master, interpret for Him and translate His letters into English.”

It is possible that he was unhappy in those schools because the non-Baha’i children in them did not bow down to and serve him like Baha’is did.

Accompanied by his sister Ruhangiz and by Lady Blomfield, Shoghi Effendi sailed from England on 16 December and arrived in Haifa on the 29th, one month after the passing of the Master. The agony of bereavement had taken its toll, and Shoghi Effendi was physically a broken man. So frail was he that he had to be assisted up the steps of his home on his arrival. Grief-stricken by the absence of the Master, he then had to be confined to bed for a number of days.

Since Shoghi Effendi had arrived in Haifa, the shock of the announcement of his appointment as the Guardian of the Faith, coupled with the terrible ordeal of the passing of the Master, were taking their toll on his health. He was so crushed under the weight of bereavement that he could not even attend a memorial meeting for the Master which was held in His residence forty days after His ascension. Three weeks later, this latest transgression by the Covenant-breakers in laying hands on the sacred Shrine of Bahá’u’lláh Himself, came as a further blow.

These seem like massive exaggerations to make Shoghi Effendi look extremely devoted to his grandfather, but they also make him look weak. And weakness in leadership is never a good thing.

As time went on, the pressures from the Covenant-breakers increased. At the same time, there were some whom Abdu’l-Bahá had befriended, but who did not take Shoghi Effendi’s leadership seriously because they thought he could never manage to govern the affairs of the Faith after Abdu’l-Bahá. These people created an uneasy situation within the Family by their negative attitude. For instance, when they noticed that Shoghi Effendi was not following the practice of Abdu’l-Bahá in attending the mosque every Friday, and that he wore European clothes, they gradually distanced themselves from the Bahá’í community.

Reason: Abdu’l-Baha presented the Baha’i Faith as a form of Islam to the people in Palestine, which is why he attended the mosque. It was Shoghi Effendi who openly declared it an independent religion. Shoghi’s critics must have thought he had betrayed his grandfather’s legacy.

It is important to note at this juncture that although Shoghi Effendi did not find it appropriate in his day, there had been great wisdom in Abdu’l-Bahá’s attendance at the mosque during His Ministry. At the time of Bahá’u’lláh’s arrival, the people of Akka considered a man who did not attend a mosque or a church to be an infidel. The Faith had neither formulated its teachings and laws, nor was its true identity known to the inhabitants of the Holy Land. It had been presented to the population as a misguided sect of unbelievers. In these circumstances, refusal to go to the mosque would have stigmatized Bahá’u’lláh and His companions as infidels. By attending the mosque they came to be regarded in the eyes of the public as believers in God. One of the useful by-products of attending the mosque was that Abdu’l-Bahá established a marvellous relationship with the people, and in time emerged, in the words of an admirer, as the ‘Master of Akka’.

And yet less than a century later, the Universal House of Justice would teach this:

“.it was permissible in Shi’ih Islam for believers to deny their faith in order to escape persecution. since the time of Bahá’u’lláh such an action has been forbidden for Bahá’ís. We do not defend our Faith by the sword, as was permissible in Islam, but Bahá’ís have always held to the principle that when challenged they should `stand up and be counted’, as the modern expression is, and not purchase their safety by denying that which is most important to them in this world and the next. The principle is well known to the Iranian Bahá’ís and is upheld by the overwhelming majority of them when the penalty is martyrdom.

Can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y again?

In December 1949, Shoghi Effendi sent the following cable to the Bahá’í world.

“Faithless brother Hussein [Husayn], already abased through dishonourable conduct over period of years followed by association with Covenant-breakers in Holy Land and efforts to undermine Guardian’s position, recently further demeaned himself through marriage under obscure circumstances with low-born Christian girl in Europe. This disgraceful alliance, following four successive marriages by sisters and cousins with three sons of Covenant-breaker denounced repeatedly by Abdu’l-Bahá as His enemy, and daughter of notorious political agitator, brands them with infamy greater than any associated with marriages contracted by old Covenant-breakers whether belonging to family of Muhammad-‘Ali or Badi’u’llah.” [32-16]

The term ‘low-born Christian girl’ prompted the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the British Isles to seek further clarification from Shoghi Effendi. In answer to them he wrote through his secretary:

“Regarding his cable concerning Hussein: he has been very surprised to note that the terms ‘low-born Christian girl’ and ‘disgraceful alliance’ should arouse any question: it seems to him that the friends should realise it is not befitting for the Guardian’s own brother, the grandchild of the Master, an Afnan and Aghsan mentioned in the Will and Testament of the Master, and of whom so much was expected because of his relation to the Family of the Prophet, to marry an unknown girl, according to goodness knows what rite, who is not a believer at all. Surely, every Bahá’í must realise that the terms low-born and Christian are definitions of a situation and in no way imply any condemnation of a person’s birth or the religion they belong to as such. We have no snobbery and no religious prejudice in our Faith. But the members of the Master’s family have contracted marriages which cannot be considered in any other light than disgraceful, in view of what Abdu’l-Bahá wished for them.” [32-17]

Remember what I said about the “Guardian” having megalomania? Apparently that included outright bigotry against non-Baha’is, even if they married into his extended family! That last paragraph is an example of “damage control” in which an effort is made to compensate for an embarrassing statement or action made earlier. Only dishonest people need to do that!

That Shoghi Effendi did not write a Will was due to the circumstances of his ministry and of his life. It must be realized that he was a most meticulous person who never left anything to chance, especially in the case of such a vital issue as writing his Will and Testament to appoint a successor to himself. Only through reflection will a believer come to appreciate the wisdom and inevitability of Shoghi Effendi remaining silent on this question.

As to the appointment of a successor, the Master had stated in His Will and Testament that should the ‘first-born’ of the Guardian not inherit his spiritual qualities, he should appoint another Ghusn (Branch). The word Ghusn has been used by Bahá’u’lláh to signify His male descendants exclusively. Abdu’l-Bahá was designated as Ghusn-i-A’zam (The Most Great Branch) and Shoghi Effendi as Ghusn-i-Mumtaz (The Chosen Branch). Shoghi Effendi was not in a position to appoint a successor to himself because he had no son and there was not a single Ghusn who was faithful to the Cause of God. Every one of the descendants of Abdu’l-Bahá had been declared a Covenant-breaker.

Not only was Shoghi Effendi unable to appoint a successor to himself, but his hands were also tied in making a pronouncement about it. This is because Shoghi Effendi was the Interpreter of the Word of God. This allowed him to explain everything which was in the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh and Abdu’l-Bahá and apply their teachings and commandments within the framework of the exigencies of the time. However, what Shoghi Effendi could not do was to pronounce on subjects which were not recorded in the Holy Writings. These fell within the purview of the Universal House of Justice, which alone has the authority to legislate on matters which are not revealed by the Pen of Bahá’u’lláh or Abdu’l-Bahá. Since the Will and Testament of Abdu’l-Bahá did not indicate the course to be taken should there be no Ghusn (Branch) to succeed Shoghi Effendi, the resolution of this question did not fall within the domain of the Guardianship; it was the prerogative of the Universal House of Justice to find a solution. This is probably the main reason why Shoghi Effendi did not make any statement about his successor.

Nope! Baha’u’llah allowed NO exceptions. He said in the Kitab-i-Aqdas:

Unto everyone hath been enjoined the writing of a will.

Likewise, Abdul-Baha, in the very Will and Testament by which he appointed Shoghi Effendi to the Guardianship, stated:

“It is incumbent upon the Guardian of the Cause of God to appoint in his own life-time him that shall become his successor, that differences may not arise after his passing. He that is appointed must manifest in himself detachment from all worldly things, must be the essence of purity, must show in himself the fear of God, knowledge, wisdom and learning. Thus, should the first-born of the Guardian of the Cause of God not manifest in himself the truth of the words:—“The child is the secret essence of its sire,” that is, should he not inherit of the spiritual within him (the Guardian of the Cause of God) and his glorious lineage not be matched with a goodly character, then must he, (the Guardian of the Cause of God) choose another branch to succeed him.”(Abd’ul-Baha. Will and Testament, p. 12.)

No ifs, ands or buts about it. Shoghi Effendi failed to obey his grandfather and great-grandfather…..and…..

Every one of the descendants of Abdu’l-Bahá had been declared a Covenant-breaker.

Which discredits Abdu’l-Baha himself, really!

The greatest achievement of the Hands in this period is that they did not deviate a hair’s breadth from the teachings and guidance of Shoghi Effendi. For more than five years they held the reins of the Cause in their hands. This period may be regarded as the most critical stage in the history of the Faith of Bahá’u’lláh. From the day the Faith was born until the passing of Shoghi Effendi, divine protection had been vouchsafed to the community. For one hundred and thirteen years, the infant Faith of Bahá’u’lláh had been nurtured by the infallible guidance of its Central Figures[1] and its Guardian. But now it was entrusted to the care of a number of religious leaders, the Hands of the Cause, who did not have this promise of divine guidance.

The Hands acted with such loyalty that when they handed over the Cause of God, pure and unadulterated, to the elected body of the Universal House of Justice in 1963 the whole Bahá’í world acclaimed their devotion. This generation and generations yet unborn owe the Hands of the Cause an immeasurable debt of gratitude. Through their faithfulness they took charge of the Ark of the Covenant from the hands of the Guardian, steered it for over five years through treacherous waters, brought it safely to the shores of salvation and humbly delivered it into the hands of the Universal House of Justice.

A Universal House of Justice that was established with NO GUARDIAN at its head, thus negating those two paragraphs above.

This period witnessed the emergence of a new brand of Covenant-breakers, headed by Mason Remey, who had himself been appointed a Hand of the Cause of God by Shoghi Effendi and was one of the signatories of the first declaration of the Hands issued after the passing of Shoghi Effendi. In order to appreciate the genesis of this rebellion against the Covenant, we must look back at the Bahá’í community as it was then. At that time there were some believers who thought that the Faith must always have a Guardian. This belief was partly due to the following statement by Shoghi Effendi in The Dispensation of Bahá’u’lláh:

“Divorced from the institution of the Guardianship the World Order of Bahá’u’lláh would be mutilated and permanently deprived of that hereditary principle which, as Abdu’l-Bahá had written, has been invariably upheld by the Law of God. ‘In all the Divine Dispensations’, He states, in a Tablet addressed to a follower of the Faith in Persia, ‘the eldest son hath been given extraordinary distinctions. Even the station of prophethood hath been his birthright’. Without such an institution the integrity of the Faith would be imperilled, and the stability of the entire fabric would be gravely endangered, Its prestige would suffer, the means required to enable it to take a long, an uninterrupted view over a series of generations would be completely lacking, and the necessary guidance to define the sphere of the legislative action of its elected representatives would be totally withdrawn.

Yes, in plain language, the idea that the Baha’i Faith must always have a Guardian is exactly what one would assume from reading that direct quote from Shoghi Effendi! So what is Adib Taherzadeh’s explanation?

Concerning the statement by Shoghi Effendi quoted above: ‘Divorced from the institution of the Guardianship, the World Order of Bahá’u’lláh would be mutilated’, it must be emphasized that although there are no more Guardians after Shoghi Effendi, the institution of the Guardianship will always exist. Consider for example, that when the Prophet leaves this world, the position He occupies within His religion is not lost. For instance, Bahá’u’lláh is the Author of the Faith. Access to Him during His ministry was mainly through His Writings. It is the same after His ascension, He will always be the Author of the Faith, and the way to approach Him is through His Writings. Likewise, Abdu’l-Bahá will always be the Centre of the Covenant of Bahá’u’lláh. The fact that He has ascended to the next world does not alter His position in the Faith. In order to turn to Him, one must turn to His Writings.

It is the same with the institution of the Guardianship. Shoghi Effendi is the Guardian of the Faith. During his ministry the believers received guidance through his writings and continue to do so after his passing. The institution of the Guardianship will always serve as a pillar supporting the mighty structure of the Administrative Order, regardless of whether the Guardian is living or not.

Would that idea make any sense in any other context? Let me paraphrase:

Although there are no more Presidents of Utopia after the death of Rhona Millo, the institution of the Presidency will still exist. We can access that institution through his writings, though he is gone.

No, I don’t think so! Plus, we know what the Will and Testament of Abdu’l-Baha said about the Guardianship and the Universal House of Justice, period!

And now, concerning the House of Justice which God hath ordained as the source of all good and freed from all error, it must be elected by universal suffrage, that is, by the believers. Its members must be manifestations of the fear of God and daysprings of knowledge and understanding, must be steadfast in God’s faith and the well-wishers of all mankind. By this House is meant the Universal House of Justice, that is, in all countries a secondary House of Justice must be instituted, and these secondary Houses of Justice must elect the members of the Universal one. Unto this body all things must be referred. It enacteth all ordinances and regulations that are not to be found in the explicit Holy Text. By this body all the difficult problems are to be resolved and the Guardian of the Cause of God is its sacred head and the distinguished member for life of that body. Should he not attend in person its deliberations, he must appoint one to represent him. Should any of the members commit a sin, injurious to the common weal, the Guardian of the Cause of God hath at his own discretion the right to expel him, whereupon the people must elect another one in his stead.

And that is why I call Taherzadeh a CON ARTIST! That man had NO integrity whatsoever!

Cartoon Jokes (80)

4 thoughts on “Adib Taherzadeh, CON ARTIST

  1. Pingback: If your Spiritual Orientation is BAHA’I… | Dale Husband's Intellectual Rants

  2. Pingback: Silencing the truth is unacceptable, from ANYONE! | Dale Husband's Intellectual Rants

  3. Pingback: A Question About Translating the Baha’i Writings | Dale Husband's Intellectual Rants

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s