Critique of Bahai Administration

Untold Facts on the Controversial Death of a Baha’i in Prison


http://www.baztab.com/news/32546.php

24th December 2005
News Code: 32546

In a report from Yazd, our reporter disclosed untold facts about the process of imprisonment and death of Zabih’u’llah Mahrami, a Baha’i prisoner.

According to this report Zabih’u’llah Mahrami was first detained in 1995 on the charge of spying and having links with foreign interests. His term of imprisonment was 15 years.

At the time of death he was serving his tenth year of imprisonment. During this time he enjoyed legal rights afforded to all prisoners including leave from prison for several days at a time and having regular meetings with his family.

Zabih’u’llah Mahrami died as a result of a heart attack on 13th December on the eve of his 60th birthday.

Following his death in prison, the Coroner determined the cause of death as heart attack. His family were notified of the event and invited to take delivery of the body of this Baha’i prisoner for independent examination and verification of the cause of death by a Doctor of their choice.

However acting upon orders by the House of Justice – the highest Baha’i administrative institution – Mahrami’s family declined the offer.

Following the refusal of Mahrami’s family to independently verify the cause of death, the body was returned to his family and a funeral was subsequently held in Yazd. Several devotional meetings (Baha’i mourning) were also held in his memory.

Nevertheless, Adam O’Reilly the Deputy Spokesman for the US Foreign Secretary last Friday described the cause of Mahrami’s death as indeterminate and claimed:

“Imprisonment of the 59 y.o Mahrami was not an unusual event and the Islamic regime systematically persecutes its citizens for religious, political and other reasons.”

This Spokesman for the US government claimed the followers of the Baha’i cult, which was first established in the 19th century, are systematically denied their right to hold gatherings, have institutions and worship.

Several foreign news agencies quoting this report by the US Foreign Affairs claimed that the number of Baha’is in Iran total 300,000. Despite the fact that based on recent census, the number of Baha’is resident in Iran is estimated to be in between 90,000 – 110,000. But the US government still refers to the statistics before the revolution.

An informed official told Baztab reporters that at present there is no one held in Iranian jails for adhering to the Bahaism. There is only one follower of this cult currently in detention.

Establishment of the Baha’i cult goes back to the reign of Mohammad Shah Qajar when Sayyid Ali Bab and then a person by the name of Mirza Husayn Ali Nuri first claimed to have a link with the hidden Imam, and subsequently regarded themselves as the hidden Imam and prophet. A number of people followed them and facilitated the formation of the Baha’i cult.

During the Pahlavi regime the number of Baha’is grew thanks to considerable subsidies and appointment to high offices by the regime. But after the Islamic Revolution some adherents openly recanted and some others migrated overseas.

Susan Maneck 30/01/06

>I've worked in Iran for years and know first hand that there is no secretly sponsored missionary campaign funded by the Universal House of Justice. What some Baha'is are doing on their own volition is I assume what you're confusing.


Those wouldn't be Western Baha'is in any case. The House of Justice does not allow them to go to Iran and if they go anyhow you can be sure they don't advertise their religion!

Ron House on 30/01/06:

sman...@jam.rr.com wrote:
>>No, but it might help if you explained its relevance. Has someone been claiming that the deductions and conclusions of individual learned men have authority?

> Dear John,
> Didn't you read the post I was answering?

And what right do you have to be surprised if someone misses which post you are answering? You, no one else I have ever noticed on all of that part of usenet that I read, on any topic, you and only you, make a point of cutting out the "so-and-so wrote:" line that is automatically inserted by all reasonable newsreading software when answers are composed.

Just why do you do this, Susan? You can't be so foolish as to not know that is messes up people's attempts to track in the archives answers to particular posters' articles, and interferes with reader software correctly organising threads for presentation, not to mention confusing any but the most careful reader as to who wrote what.

Wahid Azal on 30/01/05:

Please note that the Canadian resident baha'i cultist Brendan Cook, is posing with my address: as wahidazal...@gmail.com
That is not my address, which is wahidaza...@gmail.com.

Please note that this is the Baha'i method and technique which is a directive given by the baha'i administration to these paid hack apparatchicks to impliment on TRB.

Note also that these Brendan Cooks are incapable of answering any arguments, so they resort to such games.

Susan Maneck on 26/1/06:

Nonsense. That's a complete distortion of the Nov. 14 letter. The Universal House of Justice has never objected to the study of theology.

What they have objected to is people like Sen setting themselves up as theologians in a position to critique the Universal House of Justice which he regarded as ignorant laymen.

John MacLeod 26/1/06

What people actually saw was a letter which repeated some points which most people were vaguely aware of and included a new example of naughtiness - someone setting themselves up to be a Baha'i theologian.

It is understandable and was entirely predictable that many people now think the UHJ disapproves of theologians.

Really, if you are running an enterprise and you say something you have to take responsibility not just for the logical meaning but also for its likely effect.

Susan Maneck on 26/1/06

No, you had to have seen Sen's posts to know this was what the House had in mind.

warmest, Susan

John MacLeod 26/1/06

What kind of legal system will sends messages to the subsidiary courts all over the world (with anticipated wider distribution) of a letter which no-one can understand unless they've been following obscure discussions on the Internet (and most of those who were seem confused anyway).

K Paul Johnson on 24/01/06:

Adding to the grounds for pessimism is the fact that all the divergent Baha'i sects are even more narrow, conservative, and fundamentalist than the Haifans. (A phenomenon familiar to Theosophists btw.)

If a progressive shift were possible, why wouldn't Chanler/Sohrab have created an offshoot that survived and grew, rather than one that went extinct within a generation?

Haifans like to crow about the failure of CB groups to attract more followers as a sign of God's displeasure with them. But it's probably more a sign of the basic bankruptcy of the whole Baha'i system of belief.

Susan Maneck 23/01/06:

> Disagreement is not active opposition unless that disagreement expresses itself as active opposition. So if you get on the internet and try and tell everyone how some House decision is wrong, that is active opposition. If you are just grumpling to yourself and maybe a few friends, it isn't.

Ron House 24/01/06:

It's not worth wasting words to point out why a world run by people
thinking like this would be hell - every sane reader can already see it.

K Paul Johnson 23/01/06:

>So the question becomes not so much
of whether they were lied to, but how could the
liberal hippies who joined it back then be so damned
stupid in the first place.

I can perhaps offer some context that will help you understand how we were sold a bill of goods.

First of all, the Aqdas was not published and its contents were quite mysterious until 1973 when the House put out a Synopsis and Codification. At 15 in 1969 I could be fooled by vague platitudes, but by 19 I could not be convinced to see the Aqdas as
anything other than what it is.

That might have been the beginning of the end for making conversions under false pretenses. Once the Most Holy Book was out of the bag, fundamental deception about the nature of the Faith was a lot harder to pull off.

They were targeted by a deliberately sugar-coated version of Baha'i, and lacked the historical knowledge to know better. If that's "stupid" then almost all followers of almost any spiritual movement are stupid.

Organizations whitewashing their history, and members lacking the means to find out the extent of the whitewash, is the rule rather than the exception. What is exceptional about Baha'i is the extent of the whitewashing, the success of the operation, and the difficult consequences in the age of cyberspace when all the
whitewashed inconvenient data are no longer easy to ignore and/or
conceal.

Ron House responding to Susan Maneck on 23/01/06:

>"As to the thoughts of the Baha'is themselves -- that is those who have chosen to follow the religion of Baha'u'llah -- the institutions do not busy themselves with what individual believers think unless those thoughts become expressed in actions which are inimical to the basic principles and vital interests of the Faith."

So you can hold a disagreeing opinion, but if asked about it, you have to either forgo Baha'u'llah's approval of free speech or tell lies?

The city council should hire you to dig their holes - you're digging yourself one here with greater gusto than an open cut ore miner.

Susan Maneck on 21/01/06:

>So disagreeing is the same as opposing? Bring on the mind control police.

No, if it is simply a matter of personal disagreement which one is not attempting to spread to others, it isn't a problem. As the House wrote:

"As to the thoughts of the Baha'is themselves -- that is those who have chosen to follow the religion of Baha'u'llah -- the institutions do not busy themselves with what individual believers think unless those thoughts become expressed in actions which are inimical to the basic principles and vital interests of the Faith."

Susan Maneck 19/01/06:

> And that disagrees with John's statement how? Don't tell me, in the paranoid-delusional mindset, disagreeing is the same as disobeying. I know. Just letting you know that there's billions of sane people out there who recognise that you can obey a law whilst disagreeing with it.


Sure you can. But Abdu'l-Baha prohibited both opposing and disobeying.

Susan Maneck on 19/01/06:

>I don't remember any cases of people who simply said they wanted out of the faith because they disliked the AO being declared Covenant Breakers. I think a few may have lost administrative rights. Covenant breaking, as it was taught to me, was reserved for those who tried to set up an alternative administration

Dear John,
No, no one was every declared a Covenant breaker for attempting to leave the Faith because they didn't like the AO. But there were lots of people who were declared Covenant breakers who did not try and set up an alternative administration. Ruth White broke the Covenant beceause she did not want any administration period. And she wasn't content to merely leave the Faith, she was determined to persuade everyone else of the rightness of her views in opposition to the Guardian. That kind of opposition to the House is in violation as well.

If you read carefully the House letters in regards to both Alison and Michael you see that they say that these people's activities could call into question their
loyalty to the Covenant, but the House determined they did not understand or wish to understand the Covenant so they merely took them off the rolls. I think if you are honest you will admit that Shoghi Effendi would not likely have been so lenient.
warmest, Susan

Pat Kohli pontificating on the esoteric on 19/01/06:

> Well, there is a "batin" meaning and a "zahir" meaning. What is the Zahir (literal) meaning of Resurrection?

Zahir is not so much a literal meaning as an outer meaning. Picture a
distinction between fact and Truth. Truth is Batin while fact is Zahir.

Pat Kohli on 19/01/06

>>>I do not read Shoghi Effendi. <<
> Interesting.

He passed away to the Abha Kingdom in 1957. He was the Head of the Faith, at the time, and the living interpreter of the teachings of 'Abdu'l Baha, Baha'u'llah, and, for my purposes (not yours) the Primal Point.

Nearly sixty years later, I would think that he would want me to draw my inspiration from the Central Figures of my faith, and he did not claim to be one of these Three.

Pat Kohli on 18/01/06:

> Shoghi Effendi however assumes high
> stations for Husayn-Ali's daughter 'Sultan Khanum' and compares her
> with Sarah, Asiya, the virgin Mary, Fatima and Tahira (Qurrat-al-Ayn)
> and believes that Sultan Khanum's station is even higher than that of
> Tahira. So, I suppose Bahais should focus on Sultan Khanum because they
> should not have anything to do with a Letter in a 'Previous
> dispensation'.

I do not read Shoghi Effendi.

Susan Maneck 19/01/06:

> This is worth noting because she also wrote this to me, expliciting
> comparing "Baha'i beliefs" with a political ideology:

Dear Brendan,
I hope that wasn't a private post you just quoted from.

In any case, my point there had to do with the meaning we assign to words, not that the Baha'i Faith is comparable to a political ideology.

Polychrysos wrote on 19/01/06:

Just for your benefit, I'd like to point something out. Susan just
said this to you:

"What you can't seem to get is that the Baha'i Faith is not a political entity and we are not governed by the kind of partisanship you are seeking to promote."

This is worth noting because she also wrote this to me, expliciting comparing "Baha'i beliefs" with a political ideology:

"If a conservative were to say they want to have socialized medicine, raise the estate tax and ake sure the rich pay more, and allow gay marriages, we would all raise our eyebrows and ask exactly what they mean when they say they are a conservative? Likewise if you say you are a liberal and you want to ban abortions, eliminate gun controls, and get rid of the welfare system questions would be asked as to how you can be a liberal. So if you say you are a Baha'i but disagree with this Teaching and that and the other thing, in what sense are you a Baha'i?
Sure you are free to believe whatever you want, but not all beliefs are Baha'i."


It seems to me Susan feels quite free to use the political analogy when she wants to and deny it when it isn't convenient. What she doesn't understand is that faith really is more like citizenship than partisan opinion. Americans are defined not by what they believe but by patriotism, which is love of country, a sense of belonging.

Susan Maneck 19/01/06:

> An answer is that just as the United States of America is not defined by
> the platform of the Republican Party, similarily the ocean of
> Baha'u'llah's revelation does not shrink to the size of the fundamentalist
> agenda by the clique that have taken control of the administration of the
> largest Baha'i sect.

Michael,

What you can't seem to get is that the Baha'i Faith is not a political entity and we are not governed by the kind of partisanship you are seeking to promote.

Susan

Susan Maneck 19/01/06:

> least up to the level of NSAs. I knew several cases of resignations being
> rejected because the NSA believed that the person concerned still believed in
> Baha'u'llah.

Yes, it was the case that prior to recent times, one usually had to deny Baha'u'llah to be taken off the rolls. But people who rejected the Administrative Order were typically considered Covenant breakers.

It seems to me the present practice of simply removing people from the rolls is much more humane.

Baha'i Warrior on 16/01/06:

Also common sense tells us that if you kill someone then eat his flesh, this is worse than having intercourse with a prostitute. however, both are forbidden and both will have a negative impact on your spirit.

let us learn to take control of our base natures thru prayer and meditation. our spiritual nature wants to marry the girl then have legal sex with her, whereas our animal nature wants to fornicate with her before marriage, and possibly also break away from her and go for another, etc.

Ron House on 18/1/06:

sman...@jam.rr.com wrote:
> "...It is incumbent upon all men, each
> according to his ability, to refute the arguments of those that have
> attacked the Faith of God."

And not stocking the books that they are supposed to refute helps people obey this instruction of Baha'u'llah's how, exactly?

Susan Maneck on 18/1/06:

> I very much look forward to all Baha'is living the Baha'i life and not
> joining such an effort to deprive Baha'is of their livlihood.

I wouldn't worry about it, Michael. Kalimat never made much money anyhow and Tony's wife's a doctor

123Infinity wrote on 17/01/06:

> Most Europeans are not atheists, they are simply not church-goers.
> warmest, Susan


That's to bad, they got some great sounding cathedrals and most took several live times to build.

Moradbarqi wrote on 10/01/05:

Can someone explain why uhj have reinvented the spelling of this guy's name?
He is called Zabih'u'llah in Iran and used to spell his name as such.

All of a sudden he dies and becomes "Dhabih'u'llah".

The message is insure yourself against uhj dictation before you die.
Chris how would you like to die and be remembered as kriz?

Baha'i Warrior on 05/01/06:

Yeah if some guy lost his administrative rights, chances are he's bitter about the Faith and if he writes something most likely it will be critical, as is the case with some Kalimat books. I'm not saying they are bad people, what I am saying is that I don't think what they are going to write is going to be very constructive, as is usually the case.

PS--If the UHJ says we shouldn't be discussing this, we'd better not. Anyone got a source?

Another guest on 04/01/06:

Don't forget "The believers are reminded that letters from the Institutions of the Faith to the Bahá’ís should generally not be disseminated in public venues, electronic or otherwise.”

Baha'i Warrior on 04/01/06:


conclusion: before you read a "Baha'i" book make sure it isn't written by an ex-Baha'i!

Susan Maneck on 17/01/06:

>The NSA has unofficially shunned Kalimat.

I think it would be more precise to say they severed their business
relationship with them.

Larry Rowe 12/01/06:

And as for Alison's offer of friendship after her declaration that I'm not within her definition of Haifa tradition, put the shoe on the other foot and see how silly such a declaration would be coming from the U.H.J. to Alison, especially from Peter Khan:

"Dear Alison do not think that we have cut off our friendship from you simply because we have cut you off spiritually from our personal definition of what qualifies a person as being within the Baha'i tradition." The shallowness of such words resounds eternally.

That Baha'i-Haifan traditions have become superannuated in record time is a
testimony to the Day that we are living in, it's either shit or get off the
pot. It is either honor the teaching of the oneness of humanity, regardless
of petty familial infighting and bickering or dump the whole farcical load.


You can't have your cake and eat it even if your a manifestation of God,
you either shun no man for whatever reason or you fail for personal reasons to live up to this teaching.

Baha'u'llah failed, Abdu'l-Baha' failed, Shoghi Effendi failed , the U.H.J. is failing, Baha'is are failing; for one simple reason: the whole Baha'i edifice is tainted with contradictory teachings which are incompatible with the truth, contradictory with reality;

You can't say "shun no man for whatever reason", then say shun these men; it is as
Khalil Gibran said "the lowest form of intelligence".

To sentence his entire family to the most coarse and most vile spiritual sentence simply because one refused to quit a job, another went on a trip to America and the rest simple saw the absurdity of Shoghi's power tripping, and refused to be bullied is not a sign of Shoghi's spiritual superiority, it is a sign of his emotional and psychological dysfunctioning. This dysfunctioning has been carried over till this present day by the U.H.J. and it has been used in turn by Alison Marshall and Karen Banquet in order to keep their personal interpretations of what qualifies as talismaniac Haifan Baha'i dogma and doctrine pure. Same old, same old.

K Paul Johnson addressing "Paul Hammond" on 05/01/06:

Paul,

What has Larry to do with this thread?
You are accusing him here of trying to convince people that he has a "direct link to the man upstairs." Pretty harsh stuff, considering that he's not claiming anything more than that we all have such a direct link-- and not to any man up any stairs.

You are echoing the exclusivistic Baha'i understanding of what such a "direct link" would be, just to antagonize and humiliate Larry. Why?

What possible reason would a non-Baha'i have to pursue and attack an ex-Baha'i on behalf of his Baha'i enemies?


What possible reason would a non-theist have for attacking a pantheist on behalf of theists? This is bizarre.


Ask Larry what his positions are rather than making snide accusations, that's my advice.


Not that you'll consider it,

Pat Kohli on 09/01/06:

Sure, but I was just going to shun Covenant Breakers because 'Abdu'l Baha told me to. This is an exercise in faith. Were I to simply sort out everything on my own, never relying on the Central Figures, I'd be drinking, and maybe gambling when ever I felt like it.

I'd pass on the fasting, always being open to fast tomorrow, and rationalizing why I
don't need to fast today. To me, the point in having a faith, is to help me be bigger than I would be by myself, to be patient with World Federalism, even though I would be suspicious of it.

I think it is just part of my nature to want to help people.

NATIONAL SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY of the BAHÁ'ÍS OF THE UNITED STATES 536 SHERIDAN ROAD, WILMETTE, ILLINOIS 60091-2849 • (847) 733-3537• EMAIL:
secretariat@usbnc.org

December 29, 2005

To all Local Spiritual Assemblies

Dear Bahá'í Friends,

Enclosed for your information is a copy of our letter of today’s date addressed to Kalimát Press. We ask you to comply with the decision we have made that all national and local Bahá'í agencies cease to distribute books and other items marketed by this publisher. However, you may continue to sell whatever you may have in stock until your inventories are depleted.

Individuals are free, of course, to decide to purchase books from any publisher.

Our decision was regretfully reached as a result of increasing concern in recent years that a number of titles handled by Kalimát Press, aside from those which have enriched Bahá'í literature over the years, contain matter inimical to the best interests of our Faith.

It is highly inappropriate for Bahá'í institutions, which are obligated to safeguard such interests, to provide channels of distribution for publishers promoting such titles.

With loving Bahá'í greetings,

NATIONAL SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY OF
THE BAHÁ'ÍS OF THE UNITED STATES
Robert C. Henderson
Secretary-General

Enclosure


NATIONAL SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY of the BAHÁ'ÍS OF THE UNITED STATES 536 SHERIDAN ROAD, WILMETTE, ILLINOIS 60091-2849 • (847) 733-3537• EMAIL:
secretariat@usbnc.org

December 29, 2005

Mr. Anthony Lee
Kalimát Press
1600 Sawtelle Blvd., Suite 310
Los Angeles, CA 90025

Dear Bahá'í Friend,

We write to inform you of our decision to instruct the Bahá'í Distribution Service and all other national and local Bahá'í agencies serving our community to cease to acquire and sell any titles marketed by Kalimát Press. We have been impelled to so decide out of a serious concern that your company is increasingly offering titles that are inimical to the best interests of the Bahá'í Faith.

Yours in His service,
Robert C. Henderson
Secretary-General

http://www.usbnc.org/tab/news/articlefiles/1243-To_Kalimat_Press.pdf