Dear Friend:
 
I need to replace my article # 27 on the web site of former Bahais. I have included a dummy e-mail for people to respond and to conceal my identity at the same time. Please do not mention my name while posting the new article. My new article is:
 
I just visited the home-page of former Bahais and read some of their views. Since I myself am a former Bahai I would like to express my views on the Bahai Faith. People can respond via e-mail at [email protected]

The reasons I resigned from the Bahai Faith are:

(1) The Bahais on the one hand preach removal of prejudice of all kind, but on the other hand believe in certain types of prejudice against certain people. For example the Bahais believe that people who do not believe in God are untrustworthy and untruthful individuals. This view is mentioned in the Gleanings (passage CXIV, paragraph 3). In my opinion this is a prejudice against the atheists and agnostics. Since I myself am an agnostic I find such a view very offensive. What would happen to an atheist whose case is being decided by a Bahai judge? Can we have a society where Bahais are allowed to serve as judges? In my opinion the answer is no. We must have zero tolerance for people with prejudiced mind occupying positions of authority. Secondly the Bahais believe that women are inferior to men in certain intellectual endeavors viz. legislation on matters not expressly recorded in the holy text. This is precisely the reason women are banned from serving in the UHJ. In my opinion this is a prejudice against women. Thirdly in the Aqdas it is mentioned that in the event a Bahai dies without leaving a Will, then his non-Bahai relatives cannot inherit his wealth because in the sight of God non-Bahais do not exists. In my opinion this is a prejudice against non-Bahais. Also it is illogical that the Faith allows a Bahai to marry a non-Bahai but does not respect the rights that come along with relationships. Besides being illogical, not respecting the rights that come along with relationships is immoral, unjust and unethical behavior.

(2) The current UHJ functioning without a Guardian in my opinion violates the Will of Abdul-Baha who has clearly mentioned the composition of the UHJ in his Will. The current UHJ composition is different from the one Abdul-Baha has mentioned in his Will viz. the Guardian is absent in the current UHJ whereas Abdul-Baha's Will clearly mentions the Guardian as a member of the UHJ. Therefore the current UHJ is not the same UHJ mentioned in the Bahai Writings.

According to the Bahai Writings the power of the UHJ is to legislate on matters not given in the Writings. Its job is not to change what is clearly given in the Writings in the name of legislation. The composition of UHJ is clearly given in Abdul Baha's Will and it includes a Guardian. No Bahai institution can change that composition. The fact that the current UHJ changed what is clearly given in the Writings (viz. the composition of the UHJ given by Abdul Baha in his Will) clearly shows that it is not the same UHJ mentioned in the Bahai Writings.

The current UHJ justifying its legitimacy is like a UHJ elected by the members of LSA, and not NSA as mentioned in Abdul Baha’s Will, justifying its legitimacy. If the latter case does not make sense so does the former since in both cases there is a clear deviation from the composition of the UHJ given by Abdul Baha in his Will.

Also the current UHJ in its effort to prove its legitimacy has interpreted a passage from the Aqdas as meaning the line of Guardians coming to an end and the UHJ functioning without a Guardian. The passage I am referring to is about endowments being passed down (passage number 42 in Aqdas). The point is that the UHJ mentioned in the Bahai Writings does not have the authority to interpret the Writings of Bahaullah. The current UHJ has done just that since it interpreted passage 42 of the Aqdas in order to prove its legitimacy. In a letter dated 7 December 1969 the current UHJ writes the following:

"Future Guardians are clearly envisaged and referred to in the Writings, but there is no where any promise or guarantee that the line of Guardians would endure forever; on the contrary there are clear indications that the line could be broken... One of the most striking passages which envisage the possibility of such a break in the line of Guardians is in the Kitab-i-Aqdas itself: (passage 42 of the Aqdas is given here)."

This paragraph is a proof that the current UHJ interpreted passage 42 of the Aqdas as meaning a break in the line of Guardians. Giving meaning to the Writings of Bahaullah is interpreting his Writings. In the above paragraph the current UHJ gave meaning to passage 42 of the Aqdas and therefore they interpreted the Writings of Bahaullah. The fact that the current UHJ has interpreted the Writings of Bahaullah clearly shows that it is not the same UHJ mentioned in the Bahai Writings.

The truth is that one can reach different conclusions based on different interpretations of passage 42 of the Aqdas. For example, if one interprets the word “Aghsan” in passage 42 of Aqdas as referring to Abdul Baha (and not Abdul Baha plus Guardians as has been interpreted by the current UHJ) and the “people of Baha” in passage 42 of the Aqdas as referring to the Guardian of the Bahai Faith (and not the Hands of the Cause as has been interpreted by the current UHJ) then one reaches the conclusion that passage 42 of the Aqdas does not envisage a break in the line of Guardians. It is interesting to note that Shoghi Effendi in God Passes By (chapter 14) interprets the word “Aghsan” as referring to Bahaullah’s sons and not his male descendents as has been interpreted by the current UHJ.

In the Bahai Faith the power to make authoritative interpretations of the Writings of Bahaullah are assigned to certain individuals only i.e. Abdul Baha and the Guardian. Shoghi Effendi has made it very clear that although individual Bahais can interpret the Writings of Bahaullah their interpretations are personal and as such lacks authority. Shoghi Effendi has also made it very clear that the UHJ does not have the authority to interpret the Writings of Bahaullah. Therefore only Abdul Baha or Shoghi Effendi can tell us whether passage 42 of the Aqdas means a break in the line of Guardians or not, since making such a statement involves interpreting the Writings of Bahaullah. Only Abdul Baha or Shoghi Effendi can tell us who "people of Baha" in passage 42 of the Aqdas refers to, since making such a statement involves interpreting the Writings of Bahaullah. Therefore the right question to ask is: has either Abdul Baha or Shoghi Effendi interpreted passage 42 of Aqdas? If neither has interpreted passage 42 of Aqdas then we will never know the true meaning of passage 42 of the Aqdas. Any interpretation by individual Bahais, including the Hands of the Cause and Mr. Adib Taherzadeh, carries no weight as it lacks authority.