Baha'i Texts and Pictures

Baha'is pride themselves on having an authentic religion unchanged by man. Not much point to that if you don't even

let people read the original texts. Then after hiding it for 120 years, altering its content with mendacious translation and

"this can't be so" abrogations and nullifications.

Finally when the "authorized" translation came out, it was

mostly man-made filler and apologetics. They turned a short work -- only 74 pages in the Elder-Miller translation even

with all their notes -- into a 320 page behemoth of bureaucratic spin-doctoring and distractions. But the

Elder/Miller version shows what the simple text originally said.

'

Above: Baha'u'llah communicates to one of his wives in the bizarre Baha'i scriptures.

Perhaps they had had a fight and he's trying to 'make up.'

Keepin' it in the family:

Baha'u'llah's full brother, a tough customer who helped his glorious Lil' Bro to get control of the Babi movement. One of the

Saints of the Baha'i Faith. It's likely he had a hand in Baha'i poisonings.

Kitab-i-Aqdas.info

☼

Baha'i Most Holy Book

☼

KaliYuga.info

An Authentic Summary of the Baha'i FaithThat scary-looking fellow is the founder of the Baha'i Faith, who they call "Baha'u'llah." He gave himself the name. It

means "The Glory of God."

It's work to pronounce it correctly, and "bu-HOO-luh" will do. The Baha'i leadership successfully hid this photo from its members for around 150 years. Then along came the internet.

He was a member of an Islamic sect in the 1800s known as the "Babis" led by a charismatic, rapturous, Sufi-oriented

mystic called "The Bab" who wrote plans for a 2,000-year Babi dynasty. Based on photographs of Baha'u'llah and some of his sons he appears to have had dwarfism. (See one of his sons, below left.) It is strange that nothing has ever

been written in the Baha'i literature about his or his sons' unusually small stature even though physical characteristics of other Baha'i figures are sometimes mentioned in their literature. But he turned out to be a dwarf with a fiery and princely attitude. As we shall see, I think Baha'u'llah had a Napoleon complex to beat the band...

The Babis ended up in armed battle with the Persian authorities, at one point holed up in a fort at Tabriz for months. They tried to kill the Shah. The king finally had the Bab shot. The Babis then scattered.

The Bab had appointed the spiritual, gentle Mirza Yahya as his successor (search "Mirza Yahya" online) calling him "Dawn of Eternity." (Sometimes rendered as "Everlasting Dawn." See him lower down in the left column at age 80.) The Bab had great affection for this young follower and considered him to be one who deeply grasped his (the Bab's)

revelation. Mirza Yahya seemed to be a gentle soul by all reports, highly religious in the Babi way, and inclined to seclusion. By now he had seen many of his fellow Babis put to death, often in horrible ways. When Mirza Yahya was

given the weight of leadership for a highly controversial sect -- one hunted by all the forces of the Shah -- he was only nineteen years old.

The fellow at the top of this page, Mirza Husayn Ali, was a high-status follower of the Bab who's daddy had been the Vizier or overseer for the household of an Imam and governor, so he was like a royal insider. Importantly, he was

the half-brother of the Bab-appointed Everlasting Dawn.

☼

Baha'i Faith Compared to

Hinduism

☼

Krishnamurti.info

☼

Baha'i Laws||||

Baha'i Marriage Laws||||

Wives of Baha'u'llah ||||

Baha'i Men Must Tell Wives When They Will Return From Abroad!

||||

One of Mirza Husayn's (Baha'u'llah's) henchmen, Mirza Aqa Jan. A tough customer and the closest associate to Glory Man

(his secretary), he ended up declared a "Covenant Breaker" too. It seems whoever knew Baha'u'llah well turned against

him -- even his own family.

Mirza Husayn Ali was 13 years older than the newly anointed Dawn of Eternity, and had been his brother's tutor. In those times an older brother was a natural, lifelong authority over a younger brother. And there was typically competition and some animosity between half-brothers in polygamous Muslim society. Even in monogamous

Gentile, post-patriarchal society we observe that older brothers typically do not respect their younger brothers and do not wish to be subservient to them. It likely annoyed Husayn Ali that his younger half-brother had acquired his lofty

station in the movement he was a part of. But obviously having his half-brother as leader of the spectacular movement obviously raised his own status, and he used it to his advantage during tumultuous times. (I have seen,

and more than once, the phenomenon of a male taking on guru status, with a wife or family member rendering him a guru's respect in front of others while not really buying it personally, only paying obeisance because the elevation of her husband elevates her. This is all humanly understandable.) But Yahya's appointment to lead the movement was,

in the end, a terrible test for Husayn Ali.

The movement was in disarray after the Shah shot the Bab, and Mirza Yahya was more of a mystic than an organizer. Thinking that his half-brother was doing a desultory job of leading the movement he cared about, the fierce Mirza

Husayn Ali began challenging the authority of Everlasting Dawn for leadership. The Bab had prophesied about "Him Whom God will Make Manifest," a future divine manifestation understood to be far in the future, likely two thousand

years away based on the Bab's statements.

Mirza Husayn had apparently experienced a kundalini awakening during his imprisonment, probably due to the devotional attitude and the Sufi-esque chanting that was part of Babi life. (He reported a few phenomena associated

with kundalini later in his writings -- sleeplessness, head flows, etc.) This gave him the impression that he was a prophet. In any case whether for the practical purpose of providing better leadership for the scattered movement, or a naive belief that he his spiritual experiences made him an avatar -- Mirza Husayn began saying 'I'm the promised

one.'

Being steeped in the portentious "voice" associated with Mohammed and Muslim religious writings, he was easily able to start writing a good jag of "revelations," basically grandiose pronouncements about himself. These simple

men tended to compete with each other over the idea of who could write, and whose verbiage was more impressive, and Baha'u'llah said his fulminating "verses" were so astounding that it proved he was the Promised One. Two

samples from his brief "Most Holy Book":

"By God he is certainly in the lowest hell-fire! Say: O assembly of the learned, do you not hear the scratching of my Most High Pen?"

"Say: O liar, by God, what thou hast is husks. We have left it for you as bones are left for the dogs. By God, the Truth, if one were to wash the feet of everybody in the world and worship God in thickets and in green valleys,

on mountains, hill-tops, and summits, and at every stone, and tree, and clod, and yet the fragrance of My good pleasure be not diffused from him, he would never be accepted. This is what the Master of Mankind has

ruled."Al-Kitab Al-Aqdas, "The Most Holy Book," Elder & Miller, 1961

This is Baha'u'llah's first son by his 2nd wife, Mohammed Ali, who quite apparently was a dwarf. Somehow in the oceans of

Baha'i propaganda about him the past 160 years this interesting fact about Baha'u'llah's dwarfism has been hidden. (It can be noticed in Baha'u'llah's present Wikipedia picture.

He must have been about 4 feet tall.) It's always image, image with Baha'is. Now, this little fellow was appointed as the

Second-in-Command to succeed his kingly father. However, he was excommunicated as a "Covenant Breaker" -- like

almost all of Baha'u'llah's descendants. There was not a lot of family unity in Baha'i history!

BahaiAwareness.com

☼

SectsOfBahais.com

☼

BahaiFact

☼

Baha'i Digest

Some stuff, huh? In both of the above verses Baha is, it is believed, haranguing his hapless half-brother, the Bab's appointee Mirza Yahya. Older brother calls him a "liar" and compares him to a dog. The "Say" business

is Baha'u'llah syncing up with the Koran.

Muslim tradition has it that Mohammed had an angel standing over his shoulder dictating what to say -- "Say [this]!" -- and that Mohammed simply wrote what he was told. It is not likely that Baha'u'llah was hearing a voice telling him

what to say, and Baha never claimed that was the case unlike Mohammed who did say it was. Apparently Baha'u'llah's "Say!" was just a cheeky bit of theater. But it helped give his "verses" storied atmosphere for any Babis

inclined to consider him as their divine prophet. In the second quotation Baha'u'llah is saying that Mirza Yahya's divine knowledge is like "husks" and dog bones compared to his. (Truth be told, the writings of Mirza Yahya are every

bit as mystically fantastical as those of Baha'u'llah -- and a good sight more pleasant not-to-mention beautiful.) Baha'u'llah ends with a poetic meander that trashes and makes worthless anything a man might do -- even worship of

God -- if not done in his graces, and with his "good pleasure."

So you can see that Baha wrote mighty impressive verses indeed. Baha'is state that we here in the west just can't see it; that Mirza Husayn used really clever rhymes and mathematically interesting sentence construction. In any case, as

the new claimant to avatarhood he began to crank out a blue streak of mighty verses to prove himself avatar.

At this new claim those standing with the new would-be boss fought with the Babis over who was the true leader. There were murders of varied variety. Sort of like a crime family the Babis from the start -- and Baha'u'llah was an early leader in the movement -- were highly creative in murder. An inconvenient Babi was thrown in the river to

drown by the Baha'is. In one anecdote related by Wilson (1905) one of the wives of the Mirza Yahya, Rukayya, after deserting her husband, had to break up household again after Baha'is murdered the followers of "Dawn" who she was

living with. But the higher-ups preferred poisonings. It is said that Babis tried to poison Mirza Husayn, and his people tried to poison Babis. In one rather funny account, "Glory" at his dinner table tried to poison his little half-brother when "Dawn" was visiting Glory's home. One side of a dish had been poisoned, not the other. When Dawn

took no interest in the plate offered by Glory, Glory tried to allay any fears by eating some from the unpoisoned side. But the dish had sat there long enough that the poison had suffused slightly to Baha'is side, and Glory ended up

becoming immediately violently ill. This is the Babi and 3rd-party account. The Baha'is, of course, claim it was little brother trying to poison big brother. However, the event took place in Glory's house, and the dish was prepared by Baha's harem. ('Abdu'l-Baha, son of Glory, was also suspected of using poison when the competitor for the woman he'd long sought died of strange causes eight months after marrying her. Then 'Adbu'l-Baha immediately wed her.)

Whatever the Babi-Baha'i cloak-and-dagger details during this period, tensions and competition of leadership ratcheted up between the mystic and the glaring and imp-like older brother thus that Husayn and Mirza Yahya had to

watch what they ate.

But Baha's grandiose statements about himself continually outdid anything Everlasting Dawn was willing to write, and these "verses" impressed Mirza Husayn's partisans muchly. Wilson (Baha'ism and Its Claims, 1905) comments

on a poem written about Baha by a follower:

"The Temple of God's glory is none other than Baha;If one seeks God, let him seek Him in Baha.

☼

The Baha'i Insider

☼

Sects Of The Baha'i Faith

VIDEOS

☼

Baha'i Faith Exposed

BLOG

☼

Who Are the Baha'is Really?

Mirza Yahya or "Everlasting Dawn" who was appointed by

"The Bab" as successor. The Babi Mirza Husayn Ali turned

out to be a more aggressive organizer than the gentle Mirza

Yahya and ended up with control of the movement.

The Baha'is continually falsified their own history, especially

the history of the Bab and Mirza Yahya. Though claiming to

be the successorship of the Bab, they extirpated all copies of

the Bab's writings including his main book "The Bayan."

'Adbu'l-Baha, the son of Baha'u'llah and his successor,

continued to falsify the past in his history called "A Traveler's

Narrative," and the omissions and distortions were remarked

upon by the orientalist E.G. Browne of Cambridge, who had

studied the Babis and early Baha'is right in their own locales,

including a meeting with Baha'u'llah.

Mirza Yahya:

Thou art the King of the Realm of the everlasting,Thou art the Manifestation of the essence of the Lord of Glory,

The Creator of Creation."

Wilson comments:

"Such are some of the "great swelling words" with which his followers exalt Baha. Yet when we examine his life we find nothing to justify such extravagance. He was simply a man of like passions as others. It may seem invidious to refer to scandalous stories of Baha's youth in Tehran. But does not truth demand that it be stated that his reputation in Persia is sullied by definite accusations of

vice and immorality? I have heard such narratives with statements of the time, place, and associates who were partakers of his guilt. His family in riper years exhibits no higher example than a bigamous household. According to the narrative of Abdul Baha in the "Traveler's Narrative," he planned in duplicity to reach the headship of the Babis; for while purposing all the while to set forth a claim for himself, he put forward his half-brother, Subh-i-Azal, as the successor of the Bab -- to protect himself and to insure his own safety during times of danger, He outwardly supported Azal for many years, while secretly planning to supplant him. While

acting as Azal's trusted minister, he was drawing the people to himself. We pass over the attempts of these brothers to poison each other."

Everywhere these remnants of the Babi movement went they brought trouble. Thus governments cooperated to

isolate them by moving them around like a difficult prisoner in the State Penn, trying to keep the Baha'is separated

from the Babis. This worked in Mirza Husayn's favor: He started to cultivate his own following in the "prison city of

Acca." Baha'u'llah had no known skill, profession, or work. Mirza Husayn's daddy had been a Vizier before the Shah

chased them out of Persia. Having good family connections an an income from Persia, he began to get influence in

the city as a new leader for the Babis. He even had a welfare payment coming to him from the governor of Acca. Who

knows how.

Though steadily bemoaning his status as a prisoner in Acca, using it to make dramatic 3rd-person wailings about

"This Prisoner," Baha'u'llah seemed to live pretty well. He seemed to have connections, and even had a pension from

the governor. There is no record of what his income may have been from family connections back in Persia, but he

was clearly set. For he would have immediately begun to receive a monthly (every 19 days) income from any Babi who

took his side and became a "Baha'i." Babis had always tithed, giving 19 percent of their income to the Bab. (About 20

percent!) You can understand the stakes, then when it comes to "Who's the Avatar" back in these lands. Big money

was involved.

After a disease outbreak a lot of people cleared out of the area. His able son 'Adbu'l-Baha -- the tall one -- swung a

An astounding photograph of Mirza Yahya, the Bab-

appointed mystic, who Mirza Husayn beat in the struggle

for leadership. He is 80 years old in this photo! Notice the

serenity of his face compared to Boss Man Baha. A

picture's worth a thousand words. A righteous, God-

focused life shows on one's face and reduces the effects of

aging. Note his lucid, calm eyes.

One reason for the suppression of the Bab's writings was that

it contained doctrines like reincarnation which were now

being denied by the Baha'is. Another was that the Bab's

writings made it seem unlikely or impossible that Baha'u'llah

could be his successor or that the new Baha'i Faith could be

legitimate.

This falsification of history then extended to the complete

suppression of the Baha'i Faith's central scripture in the west,

the "Kitab-i-Aqdas" or "Book of Laws," touted by Baha'is as

their most important scripture and the blueprint and laws to

guide mankind for the next "thousand years." Baha'is have

long dismissed the value of other religions by stating,

disingenuously, that "they don't have their original texts, we

have the original texts." Or, they state that distortions have

deal to live in a very fancy place, a large and stately mansion abandoned by a pasha and his family. This was the

beginning of great things for the diminutive new "manifestation."

He used his residence in the mansion to boost his nimbus as a Divine Personage. The kingly digs served all the more

to draw Babis to his side. After all, he had the mansion, it must be a sign of God. Around this time, likely as a theme

to go along with the mansion and color-match to his glorious surroundings for effect, he openly began calling himself

"The Glory of God" (Baha'u'llah). He changed the movement's name to "Baha'i" (after himself) instead of "Bab'i. ('of

the Bab').

He finally stripped the Bab's appointee Mirza Yahya of many followers, which meant that soon he was getting the

serious income (tithe) from former Babis and Baha'is, that is to say, a substantial income that used to go to Mirza

Yahya. There in his posh digs the stern-faced, "Worship My Beauty" midget began to interact with curious westerners

and, looking westward, honing his message based on the wide-eyed hipsters he was meeting.

In the earlier transitions of leadership there was bloodshed and murder. But at every stage in the religion's

development there was conflict. Appropriately, their World Center is now located in a genocidal state that was

created by violence and still carries out ethnic cleansing against the natives.

Each leader's death resulted in confusion and division. Thus its first 150 years produced more major controversies --

and even sects -- than other religions. (See Sects of the Baha'is.) Baha'is early on had terms for various kinds of

apostates and black sheep: Covenant Breaker, Enemy of the Faith, etc. Conflict over leadership was so rife that

'Abdu'l-Baha, the successor and son of Baha, excommunicated most members of his own family and shunned them as

Covenant Breakers.

They're still producing fresh crops of Covenant Breakers still today! That is appropriate, since Baha'u'llah rejected the

rightly appointed successor to the Bab, he was a Covenant Breaker himself. The religion was moved forward only by

Covenant-breaking since then.

Baha'u'llah's religious project, presented in his "Book of Laws" (Kitab-i-Aqdas) is like a strain of Islam -- with the

crept into the old religious texts. But Baha'is did that up 10

times better by simply suppressing the text (along with the

photo of Baha'u'llah) and not allowing anybody to read it.

Then, when finally obligated to offer up some sort of

translation of embarrassing scriptures, the Baha'i authorities

regularly introduce their own distortions to doctor the text.

Something Went Wrong

when they killed the Bab by firing squad. The modest

Mirza Yahya looks down in this sad photo. If his older

brother had not commandeered the religion, might the

Baha'i Faith still be a true mystical, God-oriented religion

of world-renouncing devotees instead of a religion of

world domination and race-fetishism?

harshness characteristic of Islam --along with major helpings of mysticism characteristic of Sufism. This includes his

command to chant a mantra daily ("Allah'u'abha"). Women must say a certain chant during their periods. Men are

required to keep short hair but can have more than one wife. "Glory" was a Persian prince. He gives instructions

about falcon hunting, tells his followers to "wear sable," silk and squirrel skin. There are dowry laws for marriage. He

stressed devotion to God (himself), calling himself the "Blessed Beauty" and many other superlative terms. As in

Islam, obedience was highly emphasized. In a sense, the religion revealed in the Kitab-i-Aqdas looks like any religion

you'd be able to construct from any Islamic Religion Toy Construction Kit, and it really boils down mostly to a

message of "I'm the promised one, not that guy; you worship me, not that guy."

Like most amateur philosophers (including my mother), Baha'u'llah uttered a few universalist statements. Not any

more, or any better, than the average mystic. But these morphed into Baha'i bromides like "mankind is one" and "all

religions are one" which were brought forward as the prime Baha'i message. In religious annals there was nothing

new about these ideas. The essential oneness of all external religions was enunciated by the rishis of India thousands

of years ago in the Upanishads far more elaborately and profoundly than anything Baha'u'llah wrote. And of course,

the brotherhood of man is a perennial platitude across philosophers, mystics and avatars. In reality, Baha'u'llah had

advised his followers to 'consort with the followers of all religions in a spirit of friendliness' for good and practical

reasons: The Baha'is and Bab'is had been at war with each other, and it placed him and his movement into trouble

with their host governments.

It developed that those westerners first attracted to the movement, mostly out of London and New York, were

Marxist type progressives. As many Marxist ideas eventually spread through the west under the influence of Jewish

media ownership, a more moderate type, the intellectual progressive, became the main fodder for Baha'i recruitment.

To attract these over-influenced progressives the Baha'is created a "Ten Basic Principles" list that bore no real

resemblance to the content of their scriptures. (Hire ten scholars to survey Baha'i scriptures and offer up "Ten Basic

Principles" -- they'd never come up with the list that Baha'i promoters use.)

As Baha'i promoters shaped their talking points to appeal to cultural progressives, a difference developed between

the Baha'i sales package and the founding literature, particularly the "Most Holy book" or "Book of Laws." Its content

was increasingly alien, an unwelcome stranger to the developing program. To deal with this problem the leadership

Lives of the Idle Rich:

Another one of Glory-man's sons, the brute-mouthed, dwarfish Mirza Mihdi fell through a skylight on the roof of one of his father's pads and died. Perhaps because he was

drunk. Or perhaps because, like his father, his eyes couldn't focus properly. Or perhaps because of evil acts by Baha'u'llah

which gave him immediate fruits of bad karma.

This son had not had time yet to become alienated from his father and be declared a "Covenant Breaker." Thus Baha'u'llah turned him into a saint-martyr and built up a big legend about him so he could moan all the more about his Trials. In photos

the Baha'is place a nimbus around his head. Now formerly sane White people in the Baha'i Faith worship this rich man's

son for falling through the roof.

Physical notes for a physically-oriented religion:

This son of Baha'u'llah had a rather large mouth in which the lower lip jutted out slightly more than the upper lip, giving a loutish appearance. Sensual, his lower portion was raised up

in a permanent pout -- an upside-down smile. A smaller version of it can be seen in the imp-like son Mohammed Ali

(and an apparently misshapen left ear):

simply suppressed it. They effectively hid the text from western eyes for 120 years, telling the believers "It's not been

translated yet" so as to assure continued recruitment of the naive. Only recently have American Baha'is been able to

read it. (And now it's contents get regularly mooted, explained away, or annulled by the Baha'i explainers.) This

suppression of their central scripture played a critical role in enabling the religion's teachings to diverge greatly from

its original nature.

Was the Baha'i Faith Originally a Feminist Religion?

In the religion's early development in the west, Baha'u'llah's successor, son 'Abdu'l-Baha, came to the Communist

hotbed of New York City. There he encountered Suffragettes. (Feminism is one of the planks of Communism for the

weakening of the family.) He developed an approach to these Marxist women by emphasizing "equality of men and

women" as a religious teaching, though this is little-present in the founding scriptures. Samuel Graham Wilson in

"Baha'is And It's Claims" (1915) comments on the complete lack of any feminist teaching in the entire body of Baha'i

scriptures:

"Examination of the chief books, the "Kitab-ul-Akdas," the "Ikan" and the "Surat-ul-Haykal" disclose no such teaching. Neither the 155 paragraphs of the

"Hidden Words," nor the " Seven Valleys" have any such delectable thoughts for Oriental women. Neither the six "Ornaments" of the faith nor the four

"Rays," nor the nine "Effulgences," nor the eleven "Leaves of the Words of Paradise," nor the nine precepts of the "Tablet of the World," nor the fifteen

"Glad Tidings "--though they announce many blessings, from freedom to cut the beard as you please to constitutional monarchy as the best form of

government--give the teaching of the equality of woman with man. Neither Mirza Abul Fazl in his "Bahai Proofs," representing the new Bahais of Abdul

Baha, nor Doctor Kheiralla in his ponderous volume on Beha Ullah, representing the old Behais, in this bitter and rancorous schism; nor Myron Phelps

in his "Life of Abbas Effendi," nor Professor Browne of Cambridge University in his learned and impartial investigations regarding the religion makes

the statement that Baha Ullah teaches the equality of man and woman. On the contrary, investigation confirmed my previous conviction that the

position of woman under Bahai laws and customs is inferior to that she holds in Western lands and that her lot is far lass desirable and less blest than in

Christian civilization. I reached the conclusion that this doctrine as enunciated by the "Interpreter" is a late addition to Bahaism, intended to attract the

attention and tickle the ears of audiences in Europe and America."

"Equality of men and women" was never a teaching of Baha'u'llah. 'Adbu'l-Baha created it after consorting with

charming and curious western women of New York City.

In Baha'i scripture women are barred from membership on the Baha'i Faith's highest body, the "Universal House of

This upside down smile was a trait of Baha'u'llah's whole family, and one can discern it in the bearded photo of Baha

above. The same mouth is suggested under the beard of Baha'u'llah's brute-like little brother below (who looks like the

perfect enforcer and heavy for getting rid of Babis):

It seems merely hanging out with Baha'u'llah and his crew put a pout on your face. The same dour reverse-smile is even seen

on the face of Baha'u'llah's secretary Mirza Aqa Jan:

Justice" in Israel. One Baha'i law states that a husband should send his wife home (and pay for her expenses) if they fight while traveling. The entire Baha'i "Book of Laws" (Kitab-i-Aqdas) is clearly addressed to men. This is obvious,

for example, in Baha'u'llah's dictums regarding marriage. In that instruction (below) two wives is assumed as normative; 3 or more wives receives a "warning" but it's not actually forbidden. Baha'u'llah often referred to women

as "handmaidens." This is his simple statement in the Baha'i "Book of Laws" (Most Holy Book):

"God has ordained marriage for you. Beware lest you go beyond two, and whoever is satisfied with one of the handmaidens, his soul is at rest and so is hers, and one does no harm in taking a virgin into his service."

Al-Kitab Al-Aqdas, Translation of Earl Elder and William Miller, Royal Asiatic Society, 1961

Note that he merely warns "Beware" as in "Be careful!" It's a warning that any man who's had more than one wife

might give to a man considering it, and probably good advice. "Beware lest you go beyond two" -- literally means: "Be

cautious or you'll end up with more than two." Then it merely praises the fellow satisfied with one-wife and opines

that it's likely to yield more peace. (Not necessarily true.) Baha'u'llah had no problem articulating unambiguous

don'ts and "do nots" elsewhere in his text. Remember he was speaking to supporters who had 2-and-more wives, and

he himself is reported to have had at least three by the time he wrote this. And this somehow was massaged into a

Feminist religion?

The Kitab-i-Aqdas has been especially problematic for Baha'i promoters. On one hand Baha'is touted the Kitab -i-

Aqdas as mankind's new, flawless message for our "new age," one uncorrupted by translations or time. On the other

hand, it contained things strangely at odds with the "Baha'i Faith" being constructed by Baha'i marketers. So to keep

the religion from dying off in the west, the Baha'i promoters needed to corrupt the text themselves.

But the first strategy, which they pursued for 120 years, was to simply suppress the text and keep it away from

western eyes for well over a century. The standard line was, "It's not been translated yet." (As if all possible Arab

translators had died.) Yet its contents began to leak out, especially in a sop thrown to the believers in the form of a

"Synopsis and Codification." In that "Synopsis," in the footnotes and "explanatory" paragraphs, the Baha'i

Administration began to do their intellectual gymnastics to explain away and nullify the content of their Holy Book.

One early gambit was to say that a polygamy allowance, though apparently present in Baha'u'llah's sacred text,

'couldn't be so' because the Baha'i Faith emphasized justice. Justice couldn't obtain if a man could have more than

one wife, etc. (Is there ever perfect justice in any family?) When the Baha'is finally released the contents of the Kitab-

The downturned smile can be seen on the face of the grim-and-wan wife of 'Adbu'l-Baha, Baha'u'llah's best son:

Note the deep-set eyes from a life of stress with a harsh husband too busy to care about the children. (When informed of the death, from long fever, of one of his daughters 'Adbu'l-

Baha had not even been aware she was sick. Supportive husband! Baha'is take this as evidence of his saintliness, since

he was busy caring about 'everybody else' instead of his family.) I can understand why his wife looks sad. But did no

one in the Baha'i camp ever smile? (Creepily, the woman who married Baha'u'llah's son has the same strange V-shaped

lower face -- plus eyes -- of Baha'u'llah's midget son Mohammed Ali. Was she actually her husband's half-sister?)

We can surmise that beneath Baha'u'llah's woolly beard lay a similar erp-like mouth: One fish-like, as if you'd expect it to make the sound "erp," with the lower portion jutting upwards

in permanent dour judgment. But a smaller mouth like his impish son Mohammed -- a shrew-like mouth often found on those who speak many sharp words and who are ungenerous,

and on creatures that have a sharp bite.

i-Aqdas the verse above was translated in clever ways to make it sound as if polygamy was being forbidden. (See:

"The Miller-Elder Translation of the Baha'i Book of Laws" for comparative translation commentary.)

The Baha'is are chronically riven with controversy as the ostensible "equality of the sexes" jams up against realities

like females barred from the UH and the Most Holy Book's apparent allowance of polygamy for men. The answer is

that the Baha'i Faith, at it's foundation, was never feminist nor did it it teach "equality of the sexes" per se. There is

no explicit feminist teaching contained in the Baha'i Faith's three important scriptures, much less any radical ones.

These are The Kitab-i-Aqdas, the Hidden Words, and the Kitab-i-Iqan. Certainly the phrase "equality of men and

women" does not occur in any of these foundational texts, nor any similar phrase.

The original Baha'i Faith is as patriarchal as Islam; as patriarchal as its founders. Feminism -- a version much tamer

than what the founders could have conceived of -- was added later. This was apparently because some of the

westerners first attracted to it, charmed by 'Adbu'l-Baha and charming to him and having money, were feminists.

'Adbu'l-Baha was a practical man. (He made deals with the British government during WWII and functioned as a spy

for them.) What would you do if you had a few suffragettes willing to be your foot soldiers?

Though Baha'u'llah considered it virtuous for a man to "satisfy himself" with one wife but assumed 2 as normative,

as the Alpha Male of his milieu it seems he had at least 4 wives. Two were early reported by the traveling English

orientalist E.G. Browne, Nawwab and Mahd-i-'Ulya.(Mahd-i-'Ulya was his cousin.) "It has been stated by other

authorities who were in a position to know." (Kitab-i-Aqdas, Elder/Miller, p. 41) that Baha'u'llah married a 3rd wife

in 1867, Gohar, bore him a daughter named Faruqiyya, then a 4th wife in old age, Jamaliyya who was the niece of one

of his favorite followers. It is said that all wives survived him, thus Baha'u'llah himself had at least 4 wives. (And six

children.)

The most that can be said is that Baha'u'llah moderated the Islamic rules regarding women a bit, such as freeing

Baha'i women of the requirement to wear a veil, something that was radical for the time. There is no question that the

highly patriarchal and traditional founders of the Baha'i Faith would have been appalled to see the state of society

today, the collapse of sexual identity and sexual roles, and the destruction of the family wrought by radical feminism.

They would have wanted no part of it.

The roof-falling son of Baha'u'llah was also walleyed like his

father (had one eye pointing a slightly different direction.) You cannot see it in the first photo. (It may have been

doctored, like many Baha'i photos are. Baha'is regularly Photoshop the eyes of 'Adbu'l-Baha to make them beautiful and mystical, a look they do not have in the actual photos.) But you can see Mirza Mihdi's eye defect in other photos

easily, such as here:

Just like his daddy Glory Man, it's the right eye that's askew.

Even in my early years as a Baha'i I heard Baha'is who had gone on pilgrimage processing their experience of seeing, at

long last, the photo of their founder in Haifa, Israel. To account for Baha'u'llah's wild-and-crazy looking eyes, one said: "Baha'u'llah's eyes were affected when Everlasting Dawn tried to poison him." This is one of many lines that

Baha'is memorize and repeat to each other. (Babis and other observers make a solid case it was the other way around:

Baha'u'llah's harem had prepared the food, which was eaten at Baha'u'llah's table. Baha accidentally poisoned himself when, trying to assure Dawn that the food was safe, he ate a bit from the side he believed was free of poison. Poisonings by Baha'is

of Babis, Bahas competitor group, are documented and "Dawn" was the leader of the Babis having an uneasy dinner

with his half-brother.) Since hearing those fresh-returned pilgrims rationalize Baha's look, I have read the same stuff

from Baha'is promoting their fake religion online. They want

But 'Adbu'l-Baha's strategy was canny and paid off: The Baha'i Faith basically got established in the west through the

interest of suffragettes and feminist women. Wilson remarks:

"Of the two or three thousand Americans who are following the cult of Bahaism, most are women. Concerning

this Abdul Baha says in a tablet: "Today the women of the West lead the men in the service of the cause

(Bahaism) and loosen their tongues in eloquent lectures." [1][2] Hence it is timely to consider the teaching and

practice of Baha Ullah with regard to women. The editor adds, "Nine-tenths of the active workers in the cause

are women."

By now the mystical, spiritual, and austere teachings of the Baha'i Faith have been largely supplanted by externalist and worldly Marxist goals like world government, feminism, deracination, and elimination of nations. Baha'u'llah

regularly dissed the world, calling it "the world of dust." But like Marxism, the Baha'i Faith became a world-focused religion. The founders had a negative view of science and technology (both the Bab and Baha'u'llah) and taught that

science should be subject to religious values and not exceed them. But Baha'is became technology-worshippers; science can do no wrong. (This is also a value of Marxism, which believes mankind's problems can be solved by

materialistic science.) Compared to religions like Buddhism or Hinduism, the metaphysics of the Baha'i Faith are very sketchy. Yet there is a strong Sufi-like element of mysticism. Notwithstanding that content the Baha'i Faith

became anti-mystical. The administration's attitude, and life in the ranks of the Baha'is, demonstrates an aversion to the mystical. For example, the Baha'is are given a mantra to say in their "Book of Laws" (as is common to the three

other great world religions) but Baha'is are uncomfortable with the word "mantra" and refuse to view it as such. This very easy-to-do practice, typical of Islam and mystical Sufism, was apparently considered "too exotic" by western

Baha'i promoters. Though easy to do, the western Baha'is were not even asked to perform it for their first 120 years! This is because image and hope of enrollment growth was always more important to the Baha'i promoters than the

real religion itself.

In Buddhism and Hinduism one "saves himself" here-now by encountering and merging with God within, which also alters the nature of the projected external world. They focus on freedom from a dualistic, ephemeral samsara. In Christianity, there is a focus on the afterlife. But in the Baha'i Faith of today, the other-worldly and God-focused

content of their own texts is abandoned for a wholly rational, materialistic focus and questionable worldly goals like deracination, race-mixing, salvation via technology, and one all-controlling world government. For this reason I say that the Baha'i Faith is a Sufic movement that was hijacked by Marxist types as a vehicle for Marxist goals, manned

and fueled largely by idealistic, well-meaning White people who have been afflicted with White-guilt syndrome.

The Baha'i Faith was built substantially by Jews, and Whites with magnified ideas about a "race problem." They flee to it as a way to "be good" and expiate falsely-induced "White." "Glory" claimed he was "the return of the promised

one" -- of "all religions" at once. The Canadian William Sears interpreted a few arcane Biblical factoids to to create a rather tenuous rationale for the idea that 'Glory' was the Return of Christ.

you to believe that their "manifestation of God" to rule mankind the next thousand years was not a wild-looking

midget with one eye pointing off to the side.

But based on his son's eyes, this is age old Baha'i history-fabrication and reality-distortion. Baha'u'llah's Marty-Feldman

eyes, which he transmitted to a son, were his own lifelong karma, the body he was born with, and as with all bodily

traits, a sign of his true inner nature.

This is a bodily defect that gives problems with vision. Did his vision defect play a role in his falling through a skylight

on the roof of his father's house?

Note how Mirza Midhi, in the frontal undoctored photo, has a peculiarly sharp V-shaped facial structure. His face is the shape of a wedge, with his chin the point. The first chair-

sitting photo, an obviously doctored one, uses a side-view to obscure this. Based on the one above it has also also been re-

drawn to give him a much fuller lower face. A strong chin and full lower face is, after all, one of the timeless masculine

ideals in faces.

The same sharply narrow V-face is seen in his dwarfish full

Though non-scriptural, racial intermarriage (miscegenation) is now a tacit high sacrament for some Baha'is, an extra measure to expiate White 'guilt' and show they are true believers in the "oneness of mankind" ideal against all

psychological naturalness or respect for nature and Time's heritage.

In a nutshell, the Baha'i Faith started as a sect of Islam, became Sufism-writ-large under "Glory," then was transformed into a materialistic and humanist program pursuing Communist goals and lacks the profound analysis of reality, or focus on inner development, characteristic of Buddhism and Hinduism while functioning as an affront

to the traditionalism of Islam.

As a longtime student of religions and religious practices, my view is that the devotional content and attitudes in the Baha'i writings are its best content and the best influence on its believers. In Hinduism/Yoga this is termed "bhakti-yoga" and is considered to be itself a religious technique. (And the best one.) The significant fact is that

Baha'is do not even have a valuation for this fact and lack a lexicon for it. For example, the average Baha'is would not be able to tell you that their religion is, at the textual level, heavily "bhakti-oriented." This blindness and unawareness exists in the Baha'i Faith because, notwithstanding their pretensions to unite all religions and show us their common

ground, Baha'is have little interest in learning about what the other religions teach.

Notwithstanding, the cultivation of devotional attitudes toward God is a valuable and positive aspect of membership in the religion; the very best aspect. Baha'is should be discouraged from having race-mixing fetishes, encouraged to

be loyal to their own families and ethnic people, learn that words like "family" and "country" actually mean something, and encouraged in their devotional attitude and love of the God found within. Perhaps then maybe they

will end up doing less harm to the world.

In fact, Baha'is should finally take their "Most Holy Book" seriously, discover the good things that are in it, and give up their obsession with the world, worldly power, and give up their fetish for different colored human bodies.

-- J. Curtis Lee Mickunas

brother Mohammad Ali (Again, above). Note in this son also the oddly narrow lower face and the smallness of his

chin compared to the neck behind it. His look is highly unnatural. There's not much chin there at all. And this is with the head raised up and back a bit, which widens the look and

increases the apparentness of chins.

We can gather from the photos of his sons that beneath the full beard Baha'u'llah had a strange, narrow, V-shaped face --

the sort of face artists and cartoonists use when drawing a male who is a "geek" or "nerd.".

Baha'u'llah was a physically unattractive man. Without the beard, maybe even ridiculously unattractive. Baha'is realized

this, and they hid both his face and body from us.

Nabil's history of the Bab and the Babis called "The Dawnbreakers" is an important text to Baha'is. They use it to establish a divine validity for Baha'u'llah by documenting the attractive personality and mystical atmosphere surrounding

the Bab, things lacking in their own founder. (While miracles are associated with the Bab and all other religious founders -- even advanced devotees and yogic adepts -- these divine signs did not take place around Baha'u'llah.) In the text the Bab is

found stating to his first prospective disciple that one sign of a "manifestation of God" is perfection of the body. The official

Baha'i text takes pains to point out the physical beauty, symmetry, and grace of the Bab.

This idea comports with present Baha'i notions of the "attributes of God," presented without much explanation by

official Bahaidom, which are said to include "beauty," "perfection," "grandeur" and "loftiness." The idea is that a divine thing would have these Godly attributes of beauty,

perfection, etc. This also fits with Hindu ideas. Krsna in the Bhavagad-Gita is found listing similar divine attributes in its

10th chapter. They include beauty. In one case Krsna describes himself as chief among the ghandarvas, which are

celestial beings of great physical beauty.

Thus it is understandable that Baha'is have been energetic and firm in hiding available photographs of their founder, this

even though Baha'u'llah posed for photographs that he apparently intended to be seen. The photo of him beside a

table is obviously set up carefully and he is showing his "best

side."

Baha'is explain that they hide their photo because they revere Baha'u'llah so much that any display of his photo -- except in

the most reverent of circumstances -- is disrespectful to it. This flies against Hindu concepts of the guru (and Hinduism is a religion Baha'i hopes to supplant.) In their view, the guru represents God -indeed and in truth. Thus there is nothing that

should be more attractive or comforting than the image of one's guru. All Hindu homes feature photographs of a guru plus images of divine characters like Ganesh or Visnu. And

these are very pious, religious people. They even use "meditation on the guru's form" as a divinely

effective meditation technique and develop great "bhakti" (felt devotion) toward it, the feeling of bhakti itself being a high and auspicious spiritual state. Does having photos of their

guru harm them? No, they can't feast their eyes on their guru enough.

Quite different from the devotional delight Hindus get from images of their eminently adorable divine incarnations -- the

satvic-faced Anandamayima ma, the noble and radiant Swami Shivananda, or the endearing bhakta Ramakrishna -- a Baha'i recoils upon seeing his guru. He explains that he is terribly

offended by seeing it. You ask him why, and he'll say "it's in "the wrong place." And yet he never wants to see it at any

time or at any place. Except perhaps once, at near the end of life, in Haifa, Israel briefly while on pilgrimage.

How many must be the shocked moments by westerners in the cloistered place where the photo is viewed! Many, in a state of

very heightened emotions associated with the pilgrimage, probably view it through the benign distortion of devotionally misty eyes. But I have long noticed that Baha'is, if going on

pilgrimage early in life and seeing the photograph, afterwards draw away from the faith.

Their lineage-holder Shoghi Effendi did not have the temerity in the 1940's to ban the use of Baha'u'llah's photo throughout the Baha'i world. I think he saw how absurd that would be,

and what an obvious ploy. He wrote to the Baha'is that it could be used, if in reverent settings. Yet you never see it in any Baha'i setting. Not even in theri beautiful temples! Not

even "just for Feast" or spiritual services! In practice, no Baha'i sees it unless he goes on pilgrimage to Israel, usually in

older age, in a cloistered viewing room.

Unlike Hindus, somehow Baha'is have no attraction for the form of their guru and do not desire to see his form.

Because Baha'is, being natural promoters, understand that the photograph is not good for the Faith. Thus the umbrage they take on accidentally seeing it (such as on the internet) is one-

part devotee-disappointment, another part Baha'i management concerns. As in: 'Don't show our founder. It

hurts our movement.'

Because this religion threatens to destroy the White European peoples (and in fact all distinctive peoples) I am quite happy

to let Baha'is see their guru earlier in their deluded membership, haply, before they misspend any more years.

Now, the very idea of the "manifestation of God," indeed, is that God "manifests" himself -- makes himself visible -- for us to see. And in a human form, one that is human yet has divine signs and attractiveness. (Since the divine is attractive.) And

Baha'is have all kinds of patter addressing this theory; that we can't handle God directly so he attenuates and downgrades His signal, as it were, by taking a human form that we can "relate to." So Baha'is have ended up with a "manifestation of God"

who can't be manifest, i.e. seen, and does not seem to "manifest" divine qualities in his physical form at all. Thus the very idea of divine "manifestation" and "incarnation" is itself

neutralized; turned in on itself, in the Baha'i experience. Baha'u'llah is a "manifestation" with two dire problems: 1) He does not manifest divinity in his person, and 2) Baha'i

managers are hellbent for leather that he must not be manifested to us at all!

But Baha'is do their cultural control covertly, silently. Somehow Baha'is have not found situations -- whether at their

spiritual "Feast" gatherings or in their vaunted temples -- sufficiently "reverent" for the display of the photo.

Now to be sure, they can't hoist "enough" photos of their lineage holders 'Abdu'l-Baha, who was much more

charming and photogenic. Have they no proper "reverence" for him?

Baha'i mendacity then takes another leap and they cite Islamic ideas for hiding the picture. They say that the "manifestation

of God" should not be depicted bodily in art. They say that Muslims consider any physical depiction of Mohammed to be disrespectful, even sacrilegious, and that's where they get this

idea of hiding Baha'u'llah's photo. But one has to point out that Baha'is have dispensed with every other Islamic idea and

standard but that one.

Baha'u'llah himself dispensed with most rules of Islam in his "Most Holy Book." And curious to note, in his book

containing many sundry prohibitions he did not list any prohibition against photographs of himself or of prophets,

while he did pose for a stately photograph in which he clearly intended to be seen.

Meanwhile even if this prohibition did exist in the Baha'i "Most Holy Book" it would hardly matter, since Baha'is have long dispensed with even their own laws -- or staved them off

saying they are for some "future time" when mankind is "ready."

So we have the phenomenon of Baha'is dispensing with all Islamic laws en toto, plus ignoring most of their own laws -- yet hewing scrupulously to an arcane Islamic prohibition not

even present in their texts.

That's funny. And that's typical Baha'i mendacity. Because the real reason they do it is transparent. This religion is all about promotion and has already invented itself outside of its own scriptures. They knew that the photo of their founder would

not be good for the Faith's progress.

The Hindus have observed that the voice takes on a beautiful tone due to chastity, personal virtue, and God-meditation.

This can be experienced and seen in the voices of meditative sages. Further, their scriptures and srutis state that physical beauty is an inevitable product of good karma; of past-life

virtue and that physical flaws in this birth are the outcome of sin, especially moral sin.

The Baha'is have a founder who's look and physical nature contravenes the Bab's teaching that a "manifestation of God" displays beauty and perfection of form. And contravenes the teachings of other religions associating physical beauty with spiritual and moral virtue. Certainly within his own cultural

context, his unusually small stature and wild off-pointing eyes

were regarded by others and by himself as defects. That's why he wore rather outlandishly tall hats and posed sitting in a

low-backed chair to obscure his size. I note that in the "passport photo" (shown above) Baha'u'llah was obligated to face the camera. But in the "posed" formal photo we have of

him he chose to face slightly turned to the right side. Was this to de-emphasize his off-kilter right eye?

Certainly clever western Baha'is early on, the consummate promoters then and now, understood that these matters would have an impact on the mind of prospective seekers and their natural human instincts. Jesus Christ has long been shown as noble and handsome because the human intuition demands that an incarnation of God would have humanly attractive

qualities, and Baha'is knew they had to cope with these innate sensibilities of the Christian public. So this attempt to cover up Baha'u'llah's physical appearance probably goes all the

way back to the beginning.

It is astounding, indeed, that though physical traits -- even of early believers such as Quddus and Tahirih -- have been

cataloged in their texts, no word has ever come from Baha'i writers about Baha'u'llah's physical traits - even though they

were highly unusual! Only a deliberate campaign to hide these matters can explain it.

In their promotional work, Baha'is have relied heavily on one sentence by E.G. Browne, the English orientalist who once

met Baha'u'llah, to address his physical features. It is a statement that creates an impression that Baha'u'llah had, at least, an 'impressive' look. Baha'is frequently use Browne's

"ample brow" quote:

"Those piercing eyes seemed to read one's very soul; power and authority sat on that ample brow."

No doubt this meeting with an important western scholar was considered important by Baha'u'llah and he was decked out as royally as possible, be-robed to hide the position of his feet,

and probably sitting on a raised chair. Based on the photos we have of Baha'u'llah, he indeed did not seem shy to stare or

even glare. Charles Manson, too, was said to have "piercing" eyes.

It is very interesting that the only reference to

Baha'u'llah's physical features by Browne involves two items that refined western eyes would find problematic or off

putting: His bushy eyebrows, and his eyes. (Notice the photo of Baha'u'llah's little brother at top, who had even bushier

brows than Baha -- a veritable uni-brow. I guess even more power and authority rested on them. I am going to take a

guess that Baha'u'llah possessed a uni-brow also, but that he plucked out the middle.)

Was Browne, in a momentary good disposition toward Baha'is, striving on their behalf to come up with some kind of

compliment? Reaching for something to say about both his brows and his eyes? Was he trying to finesse the situation on

behalf of Baha'is by taking two unattractive traits and spinning them in the most positive way? Was he covertly trying to assist the Baha'is by omitting any other physical

references and distracting from Baha's personal oddities such as unusually small stature? It seems then that Baha'u'llah's brows, which were apparently in a permanent furrow as if

perpetually angry, set over eyes that were odd and disturbing -- were two items needing immediate spin-doctoring by this

early friend of the religion. Being friendly to them at that point, he was a good sport for the Baha'is and ministered to two of Baha'u'llah's most problematic features. But I wonder

if Browne said other things about his appearance now sunk in the vaults as with other texts. (Like his apparently first

translation of the Baha'i Kitab-i-Aqdas, somehow lost to time.)

It is very telling that Baha'is continually quote these few words of Browne, yet cover up and vilify most of his other

writings. (Because E.G. Browne, who was there, states things about the Faith's origins that are inconvenient to Baha'is,

including decrying Baha'i falsification of their own history.) As disinfo artists, it is obvious that Baha'is have pounced on this one sentence by Browne to spin and direct prospective seekers in a particular mental direction and pre-empt any

discussion of the reality of Baha'u'llah's physical persona.

Recently I found a photograph of a cabinet at the Baha'i World Center (Haifa, Israel) that features two of Baha'u'llah's robes, seen through glass. The photo contained many other objects. I saw it as a possible opportunity to gage his height by measuring the robes against the size of other objects. But

clearly, Baha'i managers had long ago considered this

possibility. The photo did not contain a single item having a reliable size or predictable length. (Any object with a definite,

known size -- even one of his turbans.)There were candles and candelabras, but they could have been very small. I also have not been able to find one photograph

of an individual standing in front of this cabinet, which is there to be seen by pilgrims. Normally, pilgrims would

delight to take photos of themselves standing in front of these things. So the Baha'is must have a strict rule against pilgrims taking any photos of these items, especially standing within

the photo. Thus I believe that Baha'i concern about Baha'u'llah's physical nature goes way back to the beginning,

and they are practiced in it.

A final note is that Baha'u'llah never chose to be photographed with any other man -- not even any of his sons, including his most important son 'Adbu'l-Baha, who was of

normal stature. (Shoghi Effendi inherited Baha'u'llah's shortness, though probably ameliorated through his mother. A photo exists of a full grown Shoghi Effendi standing next to

'Adbu'l-Baha, and S.E's shortness is remarkable.)

So it is that the Baha'i Faith was created by an impish man of very small stature with wild, ill-pointed eyes and a coldly

stern visage. Yet we don't know, because Baha'is are obfuscation and disinfo artists, like their founder. For just as

Baha'u'llah says "God is the compassionate" after directing us to mark the foreheads of thieves with scars or tattoos; or

says "He has no need of the worlds" just after specifying that his "House of Justice" would get all your possessions at death -- the Big Player and manipulator Mirza Husayn, knowing he had a reputation as an ugly man, had the brazen chutzpah to

name himself "The Blessed Beauty."

The disappointing visage of their Mansonesque founder, who could stand in as the frightening leader of a Bakersfield, California biker gang circa 1965, must hurt for Baha'is. Because after all, this is nothing if not an outer-focused,

material oriented religion. Sometimes I have pointed out these things to Baha'is. I have confronted them with their hiding of

the photograph, and raised the real reasons they have done it. I point out that most people would instinctively consider

Baha'u'llah's visage to fail in signaling divinity. I have also mocked it. They have often replied saying "The physical isn't

important. I don't care what he looks like."

But we must then note how important the physical really is to Baha'is. They erect beautiful temples (and other buildings) of

the greatest majesty they can afford, with a full focus on physical beauty. They continually point to these pretty

buildings as evidence for the validity of their religion. I know that is why they point to them; I used to be a Baha'i, and that's why they point to their buildings: To demonstrate power and divine validity. Yet the very face and body of their founder

lacked any correlative beauty or majesty.

So, just as their teachings are now disconnected from Baha'u'llah's texts which have long been ignored and hidden, their great and beautiful buildings also are disconnected from their usurper-founder who was a small, ugly and frightening

man.

||||

Incest

The wife of 'Abdu'l-'Baha is also walleyed like Baha'u'llah. This trait is a genetic flaw that is sometimes associated with

early poor diet, or with incest.

Eerily, note also the same sharp-bottomed, wedge-shaped face and pointy chin seen on two of Baha'u'llah's sons (and

probably present on the Blessed Beauty himself.) Was the wife of Baha'u'llah's son a relation of her father-in-law?

Perhaps Adbu'l-Baha's cousin or even half-sister? The Baha'is were exactly like a mafia headed by a Don, with all the

murders and deaths associated with crime families. Such power cadres like to keep things "in the family." With all the secrets Baha'is hide, I would not be at all surprised if 'Abdu'l-

Baha married a cousin or even a half-sister.

Baha'i Distortion of their own "Most Holy Book"

An example would be the "wear sable" instruction of the

Kitab-i-Aqdas. The unbiased, impartial Arabic scholars

Miller & Elder translated it this way:

"Wear sable (sammur) just as you wear silk and squirrel-

skin and other things."

The Miller/Ender translations contains cases of mere

suggestion by Baha'u'llah as contrasted to explicit commands.

They are easily distinguished from each other in their text.

Baha'u'llah makes explicit commands regarding hair-length

for men. He was a royal, and wanted his people to come off

nicely to make him proud. Elsewhere he tells them to use

perfume and rose water and renew their furnishings every 9

years. (He also enjoins upon Baha'is very fancy and pricey

coffins.) But the "official translation" (when it finally came

out) renders the line this way:

"Ye are free to wear the fur of the sable as ye would that of

the beaver, the squirrel, and other animals."

...changing what was evidently a command into a mere

option.

Who needs textual distortions brought by time and history to

mess up your religion if you can simply suppress the text?

Then, when obligated to come up with something, when you

can create your own distortions yourself?

Bahai-Faith-Bahaullah.info

☼

Love your People.Preserve your people and nation.

Reject multiculturalism, race-mixing, and the Baha'i Faith.

On Fake Baha'i Membership Statistics

I think I can give some insight into the question of Baha'i membership statistics and their inflation by the Baha'is

from a microspheric level; with some slices of Baha'i administrative life at the local and state level.

I was the secretary of a Baha'i "state committee" for Iowa in the 1980s called the "District Teaching Committee." In Soviet style, the Baha'i Administration in Wilmette was trying to turn the United States into renamed regions. Each unique American state became nothing more than a Baha'i "District."

At the time I was living in a small southern town of Lamoni, a R.L.D.S. (Mormon) stronghold, as a "homefront pioneer." I was recommended for the D.T.C., then formally asked onto it in a portentious letter. (The Baha'i Faith is a religion that specializes in generating portentious-sounding letters written by faceless powertripping world-controllers in anonymous offices with good English.) My appointment was obviously due to my close friendship with a fellow already serving on the committee who I'll call "Chad" who was truly my best friend. It was called an appointed position. I think the appointment happened because I knew him well and he knew me (connections), and because of by basic avidness as a Baha'i and maybe my verbal ability. The cranking engines of the Baha'i Faith are faceless men, and perhaps women, who can talk in a certain educated, elegant voice -- the "Baha'i administrative voice" you might say. I could pull that off, and I soon was the Secretary of the committee, a position with a lot of de facto influence because one basically composes letters while harried fellow members nod approval or not.

Once a month I would travel to a set location somewhere in Iowa with Chad in his beat up old Datsun B210 for a meeting with the other 2-3 members. Ostensibly we were supposed to concentrate on "teaching" (think evangelism) projects, but we ended up being mostly bogged down by so-called "administrative" minutia and "enrollment" issues, and the meetings were long and draining. I ended up with a a file cabinet full of files and the membership roll. I remember dragging around the floppy, side punched dot-matrix printout with me many places. By the time it got bent and frayed and flappy the "administration" in Wilmette would send another fresh printout each year. It never seemed to get

much fatter.

In a sense this committee functioned as a "Local Assembly" for all of the Baha'is statewide who were not under the auspices of a "Local Spiritual Assembly" of nine members, the Baha'is' ideal administrative unit. That is, all Baha'is in groups made of less than nine, which was probably two-thirds of the the Baha'i population. We were only 4-5 members, so we had an important role in the state, trying to nurse along little groups of Baha'is -- from singles to groups of 2-8 -- until they became the magical number nine at which time they could create a "Local Spiritual Assembly." I had already been on the Local Spiritual Assembly of the capital city, Des Moines, before moving to Lamoni. DTC membership was a heavier load than an average member of a Local Assembly, especially for the traditionally overworked Secretary, and that position soon fell to me.

I had traveled already to many Iowa towns as a Baha'i teacher and knew quite a few of the Iowa Baha'is. I noticed there were many names on the list I'd never met. I found that Baha'is had their jargon on the cursed "administrative" side: There were the "active" believers and the "inactives." Part of our duties as D.T.C. members was to stay in touch with members and keep them interested in being active or revive them from inactivity. Activity meant attending meetings, basically. Or we might go "check them out" to see if they were in "violation" of Baha'i laws and required administrative rights removal. (Oh, what little Puritans we were. It was a novel undertaking.) Or to see whether they had improved and mended their ways. In any case, I remember it was commonplace -- whether for myself or another committee member -- to check in on some long inactive member and find them very distant in attitude to the religion, and sometimes hostile. The hard hostiles might be reported as a lost case at the next DTC meeting. I vaguely recall that the secretary who served before me might write a letter to "National" recommending that the person's name be removed, perhaps with National taking over from there and pestering the poor backslider with a "recanting" form. But I myself, when Secretary, never wrote any such

reports. My tendency was to think I, or Chad, or somebody we dreamed up -- might be able to warm a problem inactive up somehow, and occasionally we tried, with phone calls, letters, or personal visits. Only a few of these did we ever draw back, through our affectionate encouragement, into attending Baha'i meetings again. But we had a lot of heart. (Certainly the Administration never knows what avid footsoldiers labor selflessly in their trenches, especially when new and bright-eyed, and they specialize in finally killing out all impulses for leadership and action among Baha'is. One reason they're perpetually dying. But that's another story.)

Based on my being in the loop of the Iowa State committee, and my much personal travel to the small Baha'i "communities" in the state (really just little clusters of families) I would say that of the 350 names on the list maybe 100-120 were active at all, with at most 30-40 true stalwarts state-wide.

In the hallowed days of Christian small town life 120 people was like one small church congregation out of perhaps several local churches. (Oh, how I long for those days of the White Europeans now.) I recall that our annual state convention would stay at around 100 attendees year after year. 120 or more was a healthy year. I had been disappointed at the number "350" in the first place when coming onto the committee. But I remember it was all the more discouraging, as an avid Baha'i full of dreams for the religion, to realize how many of those 350 were like deadwood. I saw this principle then expand rather grotesquely in the aftermath of "mass teaching" events, a couple of which I helped put on. Baha'is would get thrilled by, say, even 3 sudden enrollments. This was around 1980. Five, and it was Big Statewide News in the state DTC Newsletter. Ten or 15 -- and Baha'is would hyperventilate! It was as if angels had filled the sky. Glorious, majestic, and ringing phrases of impending victorious world conquest would fill our newsletter, just like the patter of Glenford Mitchell in a "Feast" letter. (Because I got the "Administrative Voice" down, you see. It was now I who got to be the faceless Baha'i Wizard-of-Oz, writing the

heart-pumping prose Baha'is live on, another hidden little 'Glenford Mitchell' for the state of Iowa.) Yet these enrollments were often problematic. These people "came in" through a hard-sell taking place over a weekend, and their commitment was tenuous. It turned out that Baha'is usually failed to work with these people and stay in contact with them. It turned out that these "mass teaching" enrollees, pressured into a life-change by bliss-faced and affectionate Baha'i teachers one weekend then forgotten, when finally contacted later, turned out to be a particularly bitter type of disaffected "Baha'i." (Oh, how I wish I could go back in time and NOT spend an hour with another Baha'i trying to pressure an old farm wife to leave her Christian Faith and join our absurd race-fetishizing religion -- pressuring her until she began to cry. I never did a "teaching project" again.)

I was also on the "Local Spiritual Assembly" of Des Moines, Iowa. Though the capital of the state, our membership roll was never more than thirty until somebody got the brilliant idea to hook up to a bunch of Cambodian would-be immigrants as sponsors. Then "voila!" our community "doubled in size." None of the needy and supplicant refugees -- some with tuberculosis -- were going to refuse the nice man Bill Brown who became their Father Christmas plus "taught them to the Faith" when Bill invited them all to sign some fun little cards. This was no doubt like the future India in miniature. Back in more normal times, before committing the crime of helping change the European ethnic makeup of Des Moines into Hideous Diversity -- even that number "30" was misleading. We only saw about half that number on a regular basis. Just as with the State membership, certain members were like spiders who holed up. One became afraid to ask about those names you never saw, wondering what the trouble was. I still remember some of them to this very day -- inactive names we'd print up on lists for years -- yet never met them once.

Certainly the admin enjoys membership inflation from the fact of cold, disaffected members retaining place on their lists. Some commentors on the blog (see link below) talked about the matter of Baha'i withdrawals. I

think it's much worse than these posts suppose, because I believe that MOST disaffected members never do formally withdraw or take their names off of the membership roll. I'm just one example. I'm still part of the numbers they claim.

The organization has this sort of trick in which you must do a formal "recanting" in order to have your name removed. You have to sign a statement repudiating the founder. Something to the affect of "I declare that I no longer believe Baha'u'llah is the manifestation of God for this day" -- is what I heard it was. Anyway, I think the vast majority of Baha'is who become disaffected or alienated do not want to bother with this process.

One reason: It's unpleasant or painful. They don't want to be talked out of it, get any pressure, or argue. Maybe they don't relish facing some cold-blooded Baha'i inquisitor in Wilmette even for a moment. (The women who congregated around the Wilmette Temple for very long were, I found, to be a particularly cold-blooded type. It's as if they've imbibed too much of the distant, grandiose tone of too many Feast letters. Utterly power-striving, Baha'is who cluster around the Wilmette "National Center" are Buddha's perfect picture of an "asura" or "jealous god." After a few experiences, one becomes frightened to even converse with them.) I know that with me, as I became disaffected, I simply didn't want to bring them down. I knew how bad it made Baha'is feel when they heard of anybody becoming negative or "withdrawing." That was especially true for a formerly positive and stalwart member. I cared about the Baha'is. I did not want to hurt them and I knew how much it would hurt to see me turn away.

Now, my animus toward the official religion ("The Baha'i Faith") became great. (That was after I discovered the "marketing package" sold as "The Baha'i Faith" was so different than the original religion.) I felt I'd been deceived and misled by shallow men. So you'd have thought I would have taken pleasure in doing the formal "recanting" paperwork. But to do so didn't even fit my beliefs or have any metaphysical validity to me. I simply didn't see that such a statement was necessary. All the vocabulary itself, such as "Manifestation of God" or "for

this Day" -- had become silly to me since broadening my mind with books like "Autobiography of a Yogi," "The Yoga Sutra," and the Upanishads. My understanding of religion had become different. Those terms were meaningless or altered in my new, broader view. There was no need to "renounce" Baha'u'llah. First, I had never developed a felt, personal, or genuine "relationship" with him anyway (as is so possible with a guru figure). And there had been some good in the Baha'i Faith. A lot, in fact, for me in the end. The devotional aspect of the Baha'i Faith, seen in the prayers and writings, had a huge impact on my spiritual life forever to come. And I didn't want anybody to feel bad. Even the Baha'is I disliked, I didn't want them to have to feel that blow. And to some extent I still feel bad about having to abandon them still today. Having a heart for them I left quietly with no display, statements, or checking out. I just happily and hummingly faded away, fascinated with the new knowledge and new paths I was finding as I continued to be a God-seeker.

I think that, indeed, the majority of disaffected Baha'is never do formally take their names off the rolls. Baha'i membership is a churning affair. The Baha'i Faith is for most like a way-station they pass through in their process of religious search and exploration. I can't even find a trace of most of my favorite Baha'i associates from the 1970s and 80s. (With one notable exception, the Baha'is who "matchmade" me into a horribly mismatched marriage.) The religion lives by new members and their enthusiasm, and I think the pass-through or attrition rate is far higher than anybody conceives.

That had to be true. When you hide and suppress your own central scripture for 120 years -- you make of your religion a joke. Few people can process the chutzpah and absurdity of that. The beginning of my exit was when I found a copy of the full text of the Kitab-i-Aqdas (Elder/Miller) just after being told by an "Assistant" once more that "it hasn't been translated yet." A glance at a few pages of that book and I saw immediately that the religion I had been sold was not what the religion originally was. Eighty percent of what is promoted as "the Baha'i Faith" is really the thoughts of

clever men overly influenced by White guilt and Marxist deracination and nation-killing ideals. Simply reading the Kitab-i-Aqdas straight and unadulterated makes it very clear that the Baha'i Faith is now, in many dimensions, an invented, man-made religion.

J. Curtis Lee Mickunas

A Chat Thread on this subject

Bahai-Faith-Bahaullah.com