\

Copyright 2012 J. Curtis Lee Mickunas

Here to save the day:

& Guide Humanity For the Next 861 Years -- The Baha'i Faith's Bizarre "Book of Laws" The Elder & Miller translation was the second time the Baha'i Faith's mysterious "Most Holy Book" became available in English. But like the Haddad translation produced in 1901, The Baha'i administration ignored it and quietly let it die to the memory of their membership. They certainly did not publish it to the Baha'is. It did not contain the necessary translation "treatment" to keep it from damaging the religion's reputation. The Haddad and Elder-Miller translations -- respectable and serious translations both of them -- would have adversely affected membership had the Baha'is not been able to direct the attention of the Baha'is away from them. Right up until 1991, when the Baha'i administration came out with their version, most Baha'is believed the administration when they told them "It hasn't been translated yet."

The author was an active member of the Baha'i Faith for 13 years, then a casual observer of Baha'is and avid religious seeker for 20 years after.

╬╬╬

I know, I was one of the Baha'is who was continually told this by Baha'i authorities whenever I asked, eagerly and innocently: "When will the Kitab-i-Aqdas be translated?" Then by happenstance, just after another Baha'i "Auxiliary Board Member" answered me "It's not been translated yet," I happened upon the Elder-Miller version hidden away in a very old Baha'i lending library.

Baha'is believe their "Most Holy Book" was God's guidance to mankind for the next thousand years. This "revelation" by the Baha'i founder Baha'u'llah is believed to have been completed by 1873, thus 139 years have already passed and Baha'is are still not wearing sable or marking thieves on the forehead. (In this article terms like "Wilmette version" or "Haifa-Wilmette" will be synonymous with "official" and "authorized." These refer to the dominant sect of Baha'is based in Haifa and Wilmette whose Aqdas suppression and translation is being critiqued.)

1

Elder and Miller were two English orientalists and Arabic scholars, Elder an author of an Arabic grammar who had spent 50 years in the near east. Miller was living in Persia and exposed to Baha'is, was keenly interested in the them, and interviewed early Baha'is and Babis. I am fortunate to possess an original first edition hardcover copy of the rare 1961 book (shown here). It's old enough to be printed in hot lead type. Why is it rare? Because Baha'is sought to suppress it. Book suppression is common with Baha'is. They even extirpated the writings of their own ostensible prophet-founder, The Bab, so well that no copy of his central scripture, the Bayan, is known to exist. Baha'is even have the habit of confiscating books they deem to be adverse to their growth. I recall going through the estate of a famous early Baha'i Ruth Moffett and finding many "no no" books about the Baha'i Faith that she had removed from libraries over the years. Baha'i book purging is one reason that hardcover copies of Elder & Miller's Aqdas are so rare today. As with the 1901 Haddad translation, after Elder-Miller's translation was published in 1961 western Baha'is were kept in the dark about its existence. I was an active Baha'i for nearly 15 years and never heard of it. This was deliberate. The Baha'i leadership did not want rank-and-file members to read the Kitab-i-Aqdas and especially not the general public. They considered it a problematic, for good reasons. It wasn't that there were serious faults in the translation, but because the content of the Aqdas itself was something they did not want westerners to see. They were buying time, waiting for the religion to grow enough before it had to receive that blow. When an official version was finally offered by the Baha'is in 1992, the starkness and directness of the both the earlier translations were softened and obscured. Certain highly controversial verses were effectively controverted or rendered void by verbal sleight-of-hand. A great deal of skillful psychological word tricks comparable to Neuro-Linguistic Programming are brought to bear on the "marriage" verses until two simple sentences that apparently assume polygamy as normative end up feeling as if polygamy is being prohibited. (See extended analysis below.) The Elder-Miller translation is an important resource in the continuing saga of Baha'i efforts to both obscure and alter their own original foundations and texts.

It's a New Day -- The men in Baha'u'llah's New Dawn, when they decide to wander the world, have to tell their wives when they're coming back. That is, he has to tell the one that he's leaving. Talk about enlightened. One fascinating fact about this line from Elder-Miller, regularly missed, is the fact that it says "this spouse." He was to inform that spouse -- the spouse he' leaving. In the scenario above a fellow is leaving one wife, perhaps to visit another wife in another place. What a life guys had back then! When Baha'is refer to the Elder-Miller version, which they now occasionally must do, they refuse to acknowledge "this spouse" in Elder-Miller's trans. and misquote it "his spouse." The graphic is a scan of the original hardcover publication. Some assume it is a typo in the original hot-lead publication from uber persnickety England. But I have never seen this line 'corrected ' as errata by the authors or assigns. People carrying forward the verse online by typing HTML stupidly "correct" it because they think it's a typo. It is not a typo. Polygamy was normative to Baha'u'llah and he had at least two wives himself. His "spouse" (singular) would have been confusing to himself and everybody else around him. ('His "spouse," master? Wait. We usually have more than one wife, and so do you!') Based on what he wrote in his Book of Laws, he assumed polygamy would continue in future. The laws and ordinances of the Baha'i New Age were written by polygamists, and all of them married into their own race. The subject of the Baha'i administrations desperate efforts to cover up the male-centric, patriarchal, and polygamy-approving reality of their founders is explored further below.

England's Royal Asiatic Society and Oriental Translation Fund evidently felt that a translation of a "missing Aqdas" was well in order. Elder and Miller's agenda was to make available an important religious work that was, unaccountably, still unavailable in the west. Dr. Elder remarks on this oddity in his preface:

2

"Anyone who studies Baha'ism learns very soon of the volume sacred to those who profess this religion and known as "The Most Holy Book." Of this book Baha in his Will said, "...reflect upon that which is revealed in my book the Aqdas." And his son and successor 'Abdu'l Baha said in his Will, "unto the Aqdas everyone must turn." Yet, strange to say, although the teachings of the Baha'is have been widely proclaimed in Great Britain and America, only fragments of al-Kitab al Aqdas have been translated previously into English."

Elder-Miller Kitab-i-Aqdas

Elder and Miller were surprised that the ready market of Baha'is was not interested in their book and Baha'i publishing bodies would not carry it, even though they lacked their own version of their "Most Holy Book." The book I have is very well-made and scholarly, with all the plethora of necessary transliteration punctuation marks and detailed footnotes set in 6 pt-on-9 type and I haven't found one typo in it. Baha'is try to discredit the Elder-Miller translation on the basis that William Miller, who spent years in Persia and interviewed Babis and early Baha'is, was a Christian missionary. Over at Wikipedia, in order to discredit their translation, they attribute the entire book to 'William Miller the Christian missionary," suspecting him of bias and the desire to hurt the reputation of the Baha'i religion. However, the translator of the text was Dr. Earl Elder of England, not Miller. It was Elder who did the heavy lifting. He was an Arabic scholar. He wrote an Arabic grammar, spent 50 years in the near-East, and had his Arabic translations published by Columbia University Press. William Miller essentially procured the translator Elder for the worthy project. Miller was so peripheral to the book -- mainly writing the introduction -- that he is not even on the copyright. Earl Elder is the sole copyright owner, telling us that it's really Elder's work. (Do a right click to view the umber-colored background graphic on the masthead and you'll see Elder is the sole copyright claimant.) Thus the Baha'is claim that the book somehow lacks scholastic credibility because a Christian was involved with it -- is a red herring. Truly, I'd like to see who produced their "Authorized" Aqdas. I strongly suspect that they were, in fact, more partisan wordsmiths than they were qualified Arabic translators. But then Baha'is never let you see the nameless people who produce their propaganda. The committees behind the Oz curtain in Wilmette. In any case, Baha'is don't have much point in complaining that the Elder-Miller version exists when they refused to publish one of their own for 120 years after their "Most Holy Book" came out. Baha'is suspect that William Miller was suspicious of them; that he suspected the Baha'is were hiding their Most Holy Book as they proselytized among Americans and the English. If this is what William Miller suspected, it is certain that he was correct. Once seeing the content it's all-too obvious that Baha'is suppressed their own scripture to give their religion a chance to grow before it had to come out in some magically more palatable translation. Miller also had to see that the "Baha'i Faith" being developed and presented by Baha'i teachers, which over-hyped a few "universalist" statements by "Baha" while ignoring most other facts of the religion, was deceptive.

3

So you thought the Baha'i Founders taught the equality of men and women? Baha'is attack the Elder-Miller version as "literalist." As if a translation shouldn't be accurate! What that means is the Elder-Miller version does not contain all the changes and distortions Baha'i leadership wanted to make to the text. I guess it means Elder-Miller were too "literalist" when reporting that Baha'u'llah directed Baha'is to be buried it coffins made of "beautiful hard woods," "crystal," or "rare stones." The Baha'i admin. thought they knew better, and must have gone through legions of translators before finding the right hired gun. In the religion-cum-utilitarianism so dire in Baha'is, they decided he really meant that Baha'i coffins should simply be "hard, resistant, and durable" -- and they jettisoned what Baha'u'llah actually said. He wasn't omniscient enough, apparently, to know hardwoods would become rare early in his thousand-year Dispensation. And not smart enough (like Baha'i admins and translators-turned-avatar) to simply say: "Get buried in coffins made of durable stuff." As if that's not the way people already made coffins before Baha came along. When Baha'is complain that the Elder-Miller version is too 'literal,' their real complaint is that it lets you see what Baha'u'llah's text actually said. But even when reading HaifaWilmette's preprocessed-with-additives-and-emollients version, one sees that the original Baha'i religion was something quite different from the program that later came to be sold as "The Baha'i Faith."

Values of the ancient Islamic world fill the Baha'i Book of Laws. So the Kitab-i-Aqdas was long considered a problematic book by the Baha'i promoters in the west. Its primitive outlook was noticed in 40 seconds of opening it. Its contents by now bore no resemblance to the religion that American promoters had invented and were selling to socialist-leaning intellectuals. They continued to buy time, hoping to create their own translations that would soften or obscure the content, while letting the Baha'i Faith develop and grow free of the damaging effect they knew the text would have. So they avoided publishing even an "authorized" text of their own for a full 120 years after their founder promulgated it. All other Baha'i works of significance were long available and this was ostensibly their central scripture. It's importance is obvious in its very title: "Book of Laws -- Most Holy Book." Yet both the Haddad and Elder-Miller translations were obviously unwelcome to the Baha'i Administration, who refrained from even making their congregation aware of it. Thus the first approach the Baha'is took to suppressing the Kitab-i-Aqdas was, indeed, to ignore all translations available. Even after this Elder-Miller translation was out in 1961, they continued to tell their membership "It has not been translated yet." The versions published by others, lacking the proper filters or spin-doctoring, were both ignored. More than this, the Baha'i leadership warned the Baha'is off them, classifying them as negative; to be avoided. This touches on the whole "forbidden books" and "forbidden people" thing

4

that is a reality in the Baha'i Faith. It's a feature of the Baha'i culture, if you can call it that, that believers are very susceptible to fear in connection with banned and forbidden books. There is a very strong group-think among Baha'is. Baha'i founders such as 'Adbu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi actually promulgated shunning doctrines early on, explicitly directing Baha'is to have no interaction with various blackballed individuals or read their writings. They created the term "Covenant Breaker" for these. 'Adbu'l-Baha even practiced shunning on his own family, most of whom he excommunicated from the movement as Covenant Breakers. This strong word, now an administrative designation along with "Enemy of the Faith" (an outside critic never enrolled) reinforces the shunning idea to Baha'is. It is a word that sends chills down Baha'i backs. Baha'is pick up immediately, and with great sensitivity, any scent that a person or book is taboo. A designated "Covenant Breaker" in particular, usually associated with a banned book, is actively shunned by Baha'is. Even an individual who gave years of service to the Baha'i Faith, was sincere and mightily devoted to it, obtains a pariah status that is almost non-human when declared a Covenant Breaker. I recall Baha'is saying to me that Covenant Breakers and their books carry a "spiritual disease." Baha'is take that idea seriously. Working on the Ruth Moffett estate (an old, prominent Baha'i) I and a few other highly sincere Baha'is found a pile of a dozen naughty books mouldering in the darkest basement corner. Although they were curious looking, rare, and spanned decades -- not one of us so much as cracked a page. An older leader only looked at some inside covers, enough to see they'd been taken from public libraries! The small group of Baha'is working on this Baha'i personage's estate behaved as if they literally feared the little pile. They kept a distance from it, making their disinterestedness a demonstration of Baha'i piety. We dutifully shipped off Ruth Moffett's confiscated books (from places all over America as she was a traveling Baha'i teacher) to the Baha'i World Headquarters in Haifa, Israel. I remember we gravely marked the box "Covenant Breaker Books," as in "hazardous materials." This also reflects the particular psychological profile of Baha'is: They want to believe in the religion as formulated by their administration, with full faith. This is will-to-faith is a valid element of religion and brings good spiritual results. I am not criticizing it as such. This kind of will-to-faith brings inner fruit from religion. But it is perhaps stronger in the Baha'i movement than even the traditional Christian churches today, in part because agreement on particular dogmas are considered more critical to Baha'is in their nascent state whereas Christians are accustomed to 20 centuries of dogma controversies and are well afloat. I am not using the term "dogma" negatively here, either. (Firmly held beliefs are useful.) But simply explaining how it is that the general Baha'i culture, and especially newer Baha'is, can end up completely unaware of even important translations of their own central scripture. Because of the strong consensus culture of the Baha'i Faith and the equally strong demonization of any free-thinkers or question-askers, the religion has been able to let unwelcome books slip down the memory hole among the believers. There is a third reason as well, and that is the fact that Baha'i membership is a churning affair. Baha'i Membership Churning -- the Inflation of Baha'i Membership Numbers Only a few Baha'is remain active and loyal for life. Largely the Baha'i Faith is a way station for men and women going through a process of religious search and experimentation. Membership numbers reported by the Baha'i administration are, in fact, grossly distorted since most names are people long disaffected from the religion but still carried on their rolls. For Baha'is always seek to point to two things in order to sell their faith: 1) Look at our majestic buildings! and 2) Look at how big our membership is! However, the Baha'i administration steadily acquires an absurdly inflated membership figure by requiring a formal, rather painful and unnecessary recanting exercise involving a signed repudiation of Baha'u'llah for those who wish to have their names removed. Most are not interested or don't want to be bothered. The constant loss of old members, the arrival of wide-eyed new ones seeking to Be Good, the incessant voice of the Baha'i administration, and overall Baha'i culture-of-conformity -- makes it possible for particular materials to be wholly absent from the bubble of Baha'i life. Already well-shunned in the past by the few old stalwarts in the know, a "bad book" permanently falls off the radar for the newer Baha'is, eager to embrace the piety that avoids all forbidden materials. As a Baha'i one does not seek to find or read banned books. If he or she rarely stumbles onto one, they pick it up carefully like a loathsome object and dispose of it to the proper authorities. I was an active member of the Baha'i Faith for 13 years. I was astounded to find later, after years where I actually inquired and was told "It's not been translated" -- that there were two English translations of the Aqdas going back as far as 1900! Though deeply involved in Baha'i life I never heard a whisper about either the Haddad or the Elder-Miller publication and all my Baha'i friends believed there were no English translations. The truth is, I wanted to read it. And the truth is: I would not have joined the Baha'i Faith, or worked for it for 13 years, if I had been able to simply read the Kitab-i-Aqdas.

5

This touches on an item Baha'is list on their "Ten Principles" sales card: "Independent investigation of truth." I can confidently assert that their claim to value this is pure mendacity. Oh, there are so many things Baha'is are avid to cover up and never let you see or know! The Baha'is dominate the Wikipedia page with Soviet level information control, working 24-hours to allow only the Official Baha'i line and deleting facts that don't fit their pretty sales package. This includes history and the contents of their "Holy Book" itself -- even their own translation! How was I able, in my 20's, to do any "independent investigation of truth" when the Baha'is were suppressing their central text and deliberately keeping me (and others) in the dark about it? They are particularly annoyed to see the Elder-Miller translation of their Aqdas cited by anybody. But how can we "independently investigate truth" if we are not allowed to read alternate translations and hear alternate views on Baha'i history and texts? Amazingly, the internet has seriously downgraded the ability of organizations to suppress information they wish to suppress. It was only through the internet that I was able to learn about the Anton Haddad translation though it was in existence since 1900. Likewise it was by the internet that I was able to finally see a photograph of the Baha'i founder. (Baha'is have have fought a losing battle trying to keep the Mansonesque photo of their guru off of Wikipedia.) Haifa-Wilmette's second approach to Aqdas-suppression, when obligated to translate the text, was to distort and obfuscate its content with the translation. Examples given here. Thus the priceless value of the Elder-Miller version. It is my opinion, based on available evidence, that the Elder-Miller translation is a more accurate and direct translation than the one offered by the Baha'i administration 120 years late in 1992. This is natural to expect since the main purpose of western Baha'is, since first encountering the book, has been to hide it because of its problematic contents. When finally obligated to come out with their own translation, their main purpose was, understandably, to translate it in such a way as to soften, obscure, or alter its contents. By looking at the Elder-Miller and Haddad versions, it becomes evident that their offering, "The Kitab-i-Aqdas: The Most Holy Book," contains obfuscations, dressings, and distortions designed to protect the fortunes of the Baha'i Faith. The Early Growing Gap Between the Baha'i Promotional Package And the Baha'i Scriptures Early in the religion's development certain ideas, only minimally present in the original teachings of Baha'u'llah, began to be enlarged a great deal. These could be called socialist, Marxist, or progressive ideas found in the statements of most mystics. From a text that contained great mysticism, emphasis on obedience to God and devotion to Baha'u'llah arose a religion that instead promoted feminism, world government, and deracination. The feminism is particularly remarkable since the Kitab-i-Aqdas appears to be directed to men, makes certain prohibitions for women, and quite clearly assumes polygamy as normative. Baha'u'llah himself had, according to accounts, four wives. But a few minor reforms or relaxing of Islamic regulations on women were spinned by the Baha'is into a program in which the Baha'i Faith became "feminist" in a Marxist sense. The longer the Baha'is suppressed and ignored the Kitab-i-Aqdas, the larger grew the gap between the Kitab-i-Aqdas text and what Baha'is were teaching. Continually attempting to appeal to progressives, they ended up with a "Ten Basic Principles" list that was quite different than their actual founding texts. Nothing made the gap between teaching and text more obvious than the briefest perusal of the Kitab-i-Aqdas!

6

Elder-Miller Kitab-i-Aqdas

The earlier Haddad translation (1901) of the above thief verse goes this way: "To the first or second offence of theft imprisonment or banishment is decreed. But on the third conviction a mar, or sign is to be placed on the forehead of the thief whereby he may be known, and man become aware of him, lest he may be received by other cities and countries of God." Baha'ullah is obviously referencing a heritage of these disciplinary practices that we consider to be barbaric today, that of marking or otherwise physically damaging the body of the offender. The modern Baha'i handlers are doing some fancy dancing around this one, saying 'It's up to the UHJ to decide what the mark will be, for how long it's worn, etc." But it's clear from Haddad's use of "mar," and Baha'u'llah's follow-up to the effect of "Don't be softies about this" -- that this referred to something permanent like a scar, tattoo, or brand. The Haddad "don't be softies" follow up goes this way: "Beware not to allow clemency to take hold of you in the religion of God, but do that whereunto you are commanded by one pitiful and clement. Verily we have reared you up with the scourges of wisdom and ordinances for the purpose of your preservation and the exaltation of your station; as children are reared by their parents." Don't be shy about branding thieves on the forehead. (The admin is now posturing towards some sort of "compassionate mark" but this is clearly not what Baha'u'llah intended.) Baha'is point to their religion as superior by virtue of having their original, unaltered writings. But which religious text has been "owned" the worst? The one that has some changes in meaning creep in over time? Or the text that is withheld, wholesale, from the people? Or the text deliberately corrupted and obfuscated? Or the text that's doled out only gradually over decades and centuries, becoming irrelevant by the time it's released? Or a text gradually made void, with each piecemeal rollout, with nullifying explanations and "this-can't-be-so" abrogations?

7

Another statement Baha'is would make to their newcomers to explain the Aqdas-delay was: "Mankind is not ready for it." But as the modern age developed, each passing year made mankind more "unready" for the content of the Kitab-i-Aqdas, until now those contents are positively antique.

Baha'is say God gives guidance to man in a "progressive revelation" when mankind is ready. Baha'u'llah promulgated his "new dispensation" in 1873. He must have misfired. 139 years have passed and Baha'is still have to say "Mankind isn't ready yet" for this more advanced Baha'i Revelation.

Their "Most Holy Book" was to be mankind's prime guidance and law for a thousand years. That is rather sad considering they didn't allow us (in the west) to even read the text for the first 120 years. Now Baha'is can see mankind is "still not ready" for their Most Holy Book. Interestingly, now after releasing it some Baha'is are spinning it as a book of laws that will apply "in some future age." That is to say, at some time far in the next 861 the Baha'is will finally take seriously their book of laws and apply it. Happily then the world will enjoy a primitive Islamic state!

This is how the modern Baha'i propagandists are coping with their Kitab-i-Aqdas at the present time: Saying it's held in abeyance and for some "future time." The Baha'i propaganda crew hovering around "Aqdas" page at Wikipedia is saying this about it: "Some laws and teachings of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas are, according to Bahá'í teaching, not meant to be applied at the present time; their application depends on decisions by the Universal House of Justice." That's their entire content under the "Laws" section for the Kitabi-Aqdas! No laws are listed, just a statement saying the Aqdas is not relevant yet. It keeps getting funnier! This sort of flies in the face of another Baha'i teaching: That God withholds teachings from mankind and only doles them out "progressively" when mankind is ready for them. Apparently Baha'u'llah misfired. Mankind's still not "ready" for his Book of Laws a century after he's dead! This is the absurd corner Baha'is now occupy. Baha'is have obviously refused their own Book of Laws, turned it away at the door. First they kept it at bay and hidden. (The real "hidden words.") Now they are abrogating it's laws before they arrive. They will no doubt consider it null and void during the next 861 years as during the first 120 -- when it was far more palatable to the average man. Or will continue their pattern of abrogating each law (thinking of reasons it's not valid) bit by bit until by, say, 200 years into his thousand-year dispensation the whole thing's a dead letter and we have Marxist deracination instead of the real Baha'i Faith. Upon reading the "Book of Laws" the reader will notice a few things. One notices a definite Islamic tone and attitude -- of the harsher variety. One law in the case of arson is put bluntly: "Whoever burns a house intentionally, burn him." This is the straightforward Elder-Miller phrasing. The Baha'i officials couldn't find a way to pretty that up as with other jarring verses. They translated it this way: "Should anyone intentionally destroy a house by fire, him also shall ye burn." The Strange Laws of the Kitab-i-Aqdas / The Textual Manipulations by Baha'i Officials Perceivable Thanks to the Elder-Miller Translation Baha'u'llah was a prince. He wanted his followers to be an attractive group.

He wants them to wear silk. The Kitab-i-Aqdas tells them to completely replace their furniture every 9 years. (I myself like to keep some of my old furniture, including antiques.) The Baha'i Avatar outlaws the shaving of the head or men having hair longer than their earlobes.

8

Elder-Miller Kitab-i-Aqdas, 1961

No John, Paul, Ringo and George! The scripture instructs them to use perfume, to wear silk and furs. This is succinctly and cleanly stated in the form of one of many commands in the Elder-Miller: "Wear sable (sammur) just as you wear silk and squirrel-skin and other things." Elder-Miller, 1961

In the Elder-Miller version one can usually distinguish easily the difference between a mere "allowing" of an activity (not forbidden) and a command to do it. Note the clear phrase "Do not shave your heads" above. Now note the likewise-clear command to "Wear sable, just as you wear silk..." The Elder-Miller translation has this as a command, like the command to wear perfume. Seeing how absurd this perfume command looks to our present culture the Baha'i administration altered the lines in significant ways: "Ye are free to wear the fur of the sable as ye would that of the beaver, the squirrel, and other animals." Official Baha'i, 1992

Elder-Miller, 1961

The Baha'i version turns it into a mere option; as something not prohibited. The early Haddad version has Baha'u'llah both instructing them to wear furs while explaining that past Muslim priests only banned it because of misunderstanding: "Attire yourselves with the fur of sable in the same manner as ye use silkware and the fur of minever and aught else. Verily it was not forbidden in the Koran, but was misunderstood by the divines. He is the potent, the omniscient." Anton Haddad, 1901

According to Dictionary.com miniver is "an unspotted white fur derived from the stoat, and with particular use in the robes of peers." You see, this Most Holy Content is so irrelevant today I didn't know what miniver or sable even were! With all of the vexing problems facing mankind, how would we have gotten through the next thousand years

9

without this instruction? It is interesting that neither of the earlier non-official translations contains the word "beaver" but the Wilmette version does. Later the Wilmette-Haifa people also elaborate on Baha'u'llah's falcon-hunting instructions. Now the Baha'i perfume command. The Baha'is are trying to moot and sideline this one in very clever ways. The following analysis will demonstrate how the official Baha'i organization works systematically to create loopholes in their own laws and gradually "evolve" their text into something mooted or meaningless. First the earliest English translation by Haddad: Anton Haddad: "Use rose water, then the pure attar of roses: This is that which God hath desired from the beginning which has no beginning, that from you may be diffused what was wished by your Lord, the mighty, the wise." Elder-Miller: "Use rose water, then pure perfume. This is what God, who has no beginning, loved from the beginning. This is in order that there might be diffused from you the odour that your Lord, the Mighty and the Wise, desired." It is plain that the rose water and perfume are intended to be worn on the skin in the sense that is obvious here. The "diffusion" is clearly meant to come from the person of the Baha'is bodily. But the 120-year-late official version translates it -- and I am sure this is deliberate -- in a way that makes it possible for other interpretations to arise: Official Baha'i: "Make use of rose-water, and of pure perfume; this, indeed, is that which God hath loved from the beginning that hath no beginning, in order that there may be diffused from you what your Lord, the Incomparable, the All-Wise, desireth." What was wrong with "Use rose water..."? Both Haddad in 1901 and Elder-Miller in 1961 came up with the same. The official rendering opens up loopholes for re-interpretation and blurs the verse's intention. It opens the possibility that the rose-water does not need to be something worn on the skin, just "made use of." You know, western women are fussy about things like that. Some of them don't like being told they have to wear perfume. Baha'u'llah commanded Baha'is to wear perfume for a thousand years but he made no rules about rape or sexual assault.

Likely, modern Baha'is won't want even want to use rose water for their guru. Why burden them. This doesn't sell the faith. So the Baha'is translated it in such a manner that both the central thought of substances applied to the person, and the idea of a sequence for their application, are dumped. They clearly wanted to produce a translation that would allow Baha'is to avoid even needing to use either rosewater or perfume at all. Perhaps the rose-water and perfume could be "made use of" as a disinfectant? In scientific experiments? As a diffuser to make the house smell good? For medicinal purposes? And maybe perfume or perfume-like substances could be used as insecticide, bug repellent, or to burn to keep the mosquitoes away from your bar-b-que night. The Baha'i mind can surely find a way around these Aqdas messies, and the hired-gun translator has at least made a start. Loopholes. I'm sure the translator was sorely tempted to broaden it further by inserting "such things as..." but didn't have the nerve, at least that year. (The just-mentioned mental scenario would be typical of the Baha'i administrative mind which likes to focus on science and technology rather than it's own religious content notwithstanding their founders' anti-science attitudes.) Haddad had this as "attar of roses." Could it be this was what Baha'u'llah actually wanted, and not just "perfume"?

10

Elder-Miller Kitab-i-Aqdas

It's fascinating that in the straightforward Elder rendering Baha'u'llah is seen giving personal hygiene advice. He is instructing: 'First you use the rose water, people, then you apply the perfume,' specifying a sequence. He was a royal, and he probably enjoyed being a teacher of these little niceties, bringing his "People of Baha" into his royal world. It is an interesting moment in the Aqdas, and one of the few where we catch him speaking in an attitude that could be called paternalistic and human. But the materialistic, utilitarian Haifa/Wilmette sect covered up this almost charming moment. Perhaps it is too 'personal' for modern western Baha'i prospects to cope with: the whole idea of this guru giving them personal hygiene advice. Especially once they see his scowling photograph in which he looks like just crawled out of a dark hole. Notice too how the Baha'is removed "odour"! They badly wanted to cut the rosewater and perfume out of the rosewater and perfume verse! Instead of a good odour being diffused, 'something' would be diffused but it is not specified what. But Baha'u'llah clearly wanted the smell of rose water and perfume to be diffused from the Baha'is. Is this little nicety too much for a Manifestation of God to ask the People of Baha? Apparently so. This is loophole-building. This spin-doctoring and effective alteration of inconvenient passages is frequent throughout the official translation and only the Elder-Miller version (and others) make this clear. Their belated 1992 version also contains a great deal of explanations, apologies, and padding to help to shift the meaning or outright annul Baha'u'llah's statement and help current Baha'is live with the strange text. This occurred early on with Baha'u'llah's apparent assumption of polygamy as a norm. The Baha'i administration wrote a treatment that says, essentially, 'This can't be so.' Indeed, the primary Baha'i work, when it comes to their Most Holy Book, is figuring out ways ignore it, annul it, or render it void. Holy Book Suppression!

Indeed, one pleasure of the Elder-Miller version is reading it straight without the verbal emollients, filler, padding, and apologetics of faceless official Baha'i bureaucrats. One finds out that the original Kitab-i-Aqdas was a terse, thin volume. The original book is only 74 pages with 10-pt. type. The Baha'i administration and spin doctors added so much to their version that their Aqdas ballooned to 315 pages! Most of it written by the administration, not Baha'u'llah. The scholarly Elder-Miller version, intending to present the Arabic as it really was written, makes these manipulations by modern Baha'is clear to see. That is its value. Baha'is promote their religion as one that is superior due to access to the original founding texts. Further, they state that the problem with religions is that change creeps in, with the original texts and their meanings lost. The Baha'i Faith, is, they say, different. One of the interesting things about the Baha'i Book of Laws, given it is presented by them as full guidance for mankind for a thousand years, is the content it lacks. It requires that marriage be effected with a dowry.

11

Adulterers have to give the Baha'i "House of Justice" "nine mithquals of gold." (Elder/Miller explain that this amounts to 1-7th of an ounce of gold.) But the Most Holy Book contains no advice or laws about the following urgent problems of mankind: -- Nothing about technological manipulation, genetic and bio-engineering, or food monopoly -- Nothing on pornography, incest, and nothing apparent regarding pedophilia (he only mentions boys), homosexuality, etc. -- No guidance on bio-medical ethics or euthanasia -- No punishments for rape or even acknowledgment of it as a human crime -- Nothing about Industrialization, pollution, the environment -- No guidance about forms of government -- Nothing about mass media -- Nothing on business or monopolies -- Nothing on economics, banking, usury, or money

And a host of dire problems. God's Thousand-Year-Guidance for man has nothing at all about sex crimes. But it does contain rules for falcon-hunting and a great deal of regulations for funerals and how to get buried. Their royal founder Baha'u'llah enjoined Baha'is be buried in some fancy coffins! Two samples worthy of analysis: The coffins verse

"God has commanded that the dead be buried in (coffins of) crystal or rare stones or beautiful hard woods, and that engraved rings be placed on their fingers." Elder-Miller, 1961

"The Lord hath decreed that the dead should be interred in coffins made of crystal, of hard, resistant stone, or of wood that is both fine and durable, and that graven rings should be placed upon their fingers." Official Baha'i, 1992

The falcon-hunting verse

"When in hunting you use birds of prey, make mention of God. Then whatever they catch for you is lawful, even though you find it dead." Elder-Miller

"If ye should hunt with beasts or birds of prey, invoke ye the Name of God when ye send them to pursue their quarry; for then whatever they catch shall be lawful unto you, even should ye find

12

Eighty-eight years after Baha'u'llah wrote it,

it to have died." Official Baha'i

and with the Baha'i Faith getting established in the west, and all other major works translated -the Baha'i administration still avoided publishing "Most Holy Book." They didn't want it to be seen. So somebody else had to translate it for them. Then long after Miller & Elder published the first English translation in 1961, the Baha'i administration continued to say to believers: "It hasn't been translated yet."

Notice both official versions are much larger. Comparative Elder/Official word-count is 20/42 words for the falcon-hunting verse -- 25/38 for the coffins. Words have been added to change their outcome. In the case of the hunting verse they rounded out things by adding "beasts" to Baha'u'llah's "falcons." Were they trying to help Baha'u'llah be systematic and complete? Nothing could make the Kitab-i-Aqdas either systematic or complete! The hunting verse by officialdom became so elaborate it exceeds Baha'u'llah's entire century's worth of instructions about marriage! Oddly, it adds a detail Elder-Miller never saw about when you say the invocation, while falcon-hunting. Officialdom's coffins verse rendering is especially revealing to analyze. It has likely had Baha'i leadership sweating bullets for a good while. Even if it were not an age of deforestation and dwindling hardwoods, the command to be buried in such rarefied coffins is absurd to modern eyes. It is interesting indeed to see what they have done to the verse, and clearly their gears have been grinding on this one. It also will provide an example of a common human error in religion: To think like religious managers, analyzing "What if?" That is, many people take an approach to religious scriptures and doctrines that analyzes "If people do Thing A, then that will lead to Thing B, which would lead to Thing C." Based on this, they decide if a religious teaching is good or not, or they try to alter it to fit with their logical ideas about outcomes. This is thinking like a franchise manager instead of a devotee, and it's one way that religions wander from their original impulses. Notice that hardwoods are no longer needed, just "fine and durable" wood. Now, hard woods (hardwoods) are a definite genus of wood and everybody knows what they are -Mahogany, Oak, Ebony, etc. But the Baha'i managers were thinking, "We'll get criticized for this, this will lead to more deforestation of declining hardwoods," etc. So they changed Baha'u'llah's intention to mean any sort of wood -- even a composite or false wood probably -- that is "fine" and durable. This makes the assumption that Baha'u'llah wanted the hardwoods because of their durability. How is this known? It isn't. The Baha'i officials are deciding "The reason Baha'u'llah specified hardwoods must have been for logical reasons because they are durable." This is invention, and making religion into crass utilitarianism. Maybe he wanted hardwoods because he liked them? Maybe there was some esoteric, occult reason? Maybe it was just God's Command etc.? It also begs the question: If Baha'u'llah was an omniscient "Manifestation of God," why did he not know that hardwoods would become rare and threatened, requiring Baha'is to get coffins made from them?

13

Elder-Miller Kitab-i-Aqdas

I find it very interesting that "beautiful" is missing from the official version and has been replaced with "fine." This is a downgrade from "beautiful." It is hard to think that neither Elder nor Miller, nor the consultants they consulted, knew what the Arabic word for "beautiful" was or that they mistook it. Milder and Elder had no difficulty translating "Blessed Beauty." But the Baha'i administration apparently did not want the word beautiful here. Knowing how they think, "beautiful" further indicated something expensive. The translators were trying to think Communistically and come up with burial rules that the common masses could follow. But is this what Baha'u'llah intended? It seems to me that he wanted the Baha'is, indeed, to be opulent people and a cut above. Indeed, the Persian Baha'is that I knew during my years in the Baha'i Faith tended to be a glamorous type of Iranian -- nice clothes, nice cars, jewelry. And they were closest to the Baha'i cultural source. Or is "beautiful" too subjective? Not objective enough? But didn't he really say "beautiful"? And isn't the Kitab-i-Aqdas loaded with subjective statements by Baha'u'llah? Finally the administration altered the command for "rare stones." They don't have to be rare, but merely "hard, resistant." Again, this is Baha'is assuming it was all for practical purposes. But maybe rare was what Baha'u'llah wanted? According to Baha'i verse engineers a Baha'i coffin can now be made of any commonplace material so long as it's "hard" and "resistant" -- including fake stone, composites, or epoxy. Although Baha'u'llah said nothing about "hardness" or "resistance" the Baha'is introduced that idea with two separate words not found in Elder-Miller while jettisoning "rare." He also said nothing about "durability" (relative to the wood) which the Baha'is added while dispensing with a truly intended "beautiful." Baha'i translators decided that Baha'u'llah -in his request that Baha'is have coffins of beautiful hardwoods, rare stones, and crystal -- was speaking in error. He didn't know his own true intent. All that he was meaning to say was: "God has commanded that the dead be buried in durable coffins." Note that people already used durable coffins before Baha'u'llah showed up. These verse changes demonstrate, indeed, the the human tendency to approach religious scriptures like franchise managers applying logic and asking "What might happen?" instead of taking a religion at its word. It's also a demonstration of a particular Baha'i mindset for raising up science and objective rationales as equal or superior to their own religion -- despite the real orientation of their founders. The translation choice by the administration betrays a belief that everything in religious law is given for practical, logical reasons having an objective and scientific basis. But where is the objective content in things Baha'u'llah refers to continually -- things like the 'splitting the moon,' the 'odour of God,' and a 'red spot' beside an extremely-placed divine lote tree? Everything about the translation approach that Haifa Baha'is take is intended to avoid damage to their fortunes. It is not an honest approach that respects this decidedly mystical religion. The Elder-Miller translation lets you see all the invention and alteration-of-texts that Baha'i officialdom is engaged with. And it becomes clear why they hid the text from

14

the west for 120 years. How to Get Rid of the Polygamy in the Baha'i Faith? Translation Tricks! Here is how the Baha'i Administration rendered the line allowing more than one wife to make it come out differently. It is an exercise in subtlety and mind-spin well worth studying: Elder-Miller Version: "God has ordained marriage for you. Beware lest you go beyond two (wives), and whoever is satisfied with one of the handmaidens, his soul is at rest and so is hers." That's straightforward, clear and has a natural feel. Quite clearly this verse assumes polygamy as normative; yet there is a warning connected to "going beyond two" wives. Then the fellow content with one wife is praised. Haddad, a Baha'i promoter, came up with a version that constructs the sentence differently using "not to" instead of "lest you" thus his version appears to prohibit 3+ wives: Haddad Version: "Marriage is enjoined on all, but beware not to marry more than two wives, and he who is contented with one only, he and she will be in ease and happiness." This is a drastic difference from Earl Elder's "Beware lest you..." A sense of prohibition is evoked by Haddad( if not clearly stated due to the problem word "beware.") It should be noted that Anton Haddad, who had a western first name, was a Baha'i, the first Baha'i to set foot into North America according to Baha'i sources. Thus we would have had both western sensibilities averse to the Aqdas' polygamy content, plus a strong motivation to alter the meaning in his translation to make it palatable to the west. He was not reported to be a grammarian or a scholar of Arabic. By contrast Earl Elder, the lead translator for the translation from Great Britain, was a scholar of Arabic. Further, Elder's preface states that he had his translation reviewed by two other Arabic scholars, Will Orick and Rev. Cady Allan, who was able enough in Arabic to make punctuation recommendations to Elder. Obviously the "marriage verse" would have been a point of particular focus in the minds of the translation team; they would have certainly known that this was the biggest "scandal" element in the text from the point-of-view of the western Baha'i promoters and the verse of greatest interest. Thus they would have taken care with it so as not to be accused of distortion. Remember Earl elder was a scholar of Arabic whose translations of Arabic were published by academia. He had a translator's reputation to protect. Thus Elder-Miller have more credibility than the Baha'i evangelist-to-America Anton Haddad. Haddad's "Beware that" seems to set up a rule; a requirement compared to Elder's "beware lest" which merely warns about a development that could occur. Yet Haddad's "beware not to marry" is still not a firm prohibition in any case. Not a clear prohibition such as could be easily seen in any simple phrase like: "Do not marry...", "Thou art forbidden to marry," or "Thou shalt not marry" or simply "marry not more than..." The warning "Beware not to go through the Ghastly Gulch" is not the same as the directive "Do not go through the Ghastly Gulch." And clear "do not" statements were no difficulty for Baha'u'llah elsewhere in the Kitab-i-Aqdas. Meanwhile, Haddad leaves it obvious, in the "more than two" sentence, that two wives are at least no problem in Baha'u'llah's New World Order. Thus this translation did not confound Baha'u'llah's words adequately for the neo-Baha'i translation committees of Wilmette and Haifa. Based on the Elder-Miller translation, Baha'is had two problems with Baha'u'llah's marriage sentence. Namely, the first half of it, and the second half. The first half makes two wives seem fine. The second half fails to really forbid anything. Watch

15

how differently Baha'u'llah's two sentences later 'developed' in official Baha'i hands: Official Baha'i Version: "God hath prescribed matrimony unto you. Beware that ye take not unto yourselves more wives than two. Whoso contenteth himself with a single partner from among the maidservants of God, both he and she shall live in tranquility." A little word-switching and word additions go a long way Feels somehow really different, doesn't it? Elder-Miller came up with 30 words for Baha'u'llah's statement, Haddad 31. But the official Baha'is cranked out 38 words. They also expanded it from two sentences to three. Your mind should immediately alert you: They have added words. More significantly, the feeling of the verse is now different from start to finish. It is a very carefully constructed translation. (It must be, it took them 120 years.) It's in the way officialdom's version gives you "impressions" that the real tricks are. First, in soft-focus, it's far more formal. It has an atmosphere of warning not present in Elder-Miller which sounds casual by comparison. And it somehow ends up with the appearance and feeling that both forms of polygamy -- two-wives and also 3-or-more -- are being prohibited by Baha'u'llah, with monogamy required. How does it conjure this impression not found in the other two versions? Notice that the Baha'i officials appear to have started by keeping the "beware not" of Baha'i partisan and amateur translator Haddad, then expanded it with very similar language. To generate a stronger impression that a prohibition is being uttered, Baha'i officials took Haddad's "beware that" and added the phrase "take not" nearby. But the critical change is the transformation of his "beware not to marry" into a more complex "Beware-that-ye-take-not..." This is different structuring creates a definite impression that something is being forbidden. The nebulous problem word "beware" has been effectively sidelined by sentence expansion, made into a prefix instead of a central player in the sentence. Then a powerful phrase "take not..." rises up at center stage.

Elder-Miller Kitab-i-Aqdas

Review the Elder version above. It clearly assumes two wives as normative and quite acceptable in these two simple lines: "God has ordained marriage for you. Beware lest you go beyond two."Baha'u'llah reportedly had at least four wives. What kindly uncle wouldn't say "beware!" and "careful!" to a young man considering three or more wives? Let's start with an understanding of the word "lest." The direct meaning of "beware lest..." in the Elder-Miller version is simply: Be cautious or you'll end up going beyond two wives. "Lest" is soft. It is refers to possible events that might occur. 'Let us not do this thing, in case [lest] this other thing might happen.' In this case, the Elder-Miller phrasing

16

means: 'Marry, but be cautious or you might end up with more wives than is best.' The official version of "beware that" implies that a hard line is being drawn and a requirement is being made. Note: I invite all those with qualifications to translate Arabic into English to give their opinions about the most honest translation of this particular verse, where Elder-Miller got "beware lest" and officialdom got "beware that." Please send your opinions to me at julian "at" west.net. I will post them. Many of the Arabic-script pages are available online for viewing.

From cautionary advice to "thou shalt not" Significantly, the phrase "take not" does not exist in Elder-Miller nor anything like it. There is no "do not," "don't," "refrain" or even "avoid" in their version. How did officialdom manage to find "take not"? This is probably the cleverest thing in the translation. It subliminally tweaks western conditioning from the "shall nots" of the Bible. Even though it's a sentence technically allowing two wives, the mind hears "Take not" and it sounds just like the prohibitive phrases of The Ten Commandments. I am sure this associative trick was intentional. From gentle guy-talk to fiery admonishment Elder's "Go beyond" implies a soft border to wife acquisition. How far can men go in these matters? It sounds as if collecting wives was easy and typical. "Take" (the official rendering) has negative connotations to the mind -- taking resources, stealing something. "Take" sounds aggressive and implies weddings. Both the Elder and Haddad versions are relaxed and informal in tone. Elder-Miller seemed well capable of translating Baha'u'llah's many fire-and-brimstone moments; the many hyper-adamant demands he makes, and those loud moments are well-represented throughout their translation. But in their version Baha'u'llah was not saying anything so challenging to the polygamous order as to warrant an adamant phrasing or even precise words. Fitting with this view, Baha'u'llah's use of "handmaidens" and soft-edged "go beyond" imply he intends a collegiate, 'one-ofthe-boys' tone as he addresses his men about the matter of marriage. This makes sense considering this is the realm of the personal and there had to be many believers with more than 2 wives. By contrast the official rendering -- with terms like "take not," "shall," and "contenteth himself" -- is unctious and sharp, loaded with stern rebuke. I simply don't buy that this is an accurate translation. I believe that the Elder-Miller rendering is the honest translation, and not the 120-year-late offering by the Wilmette/Haifa Baha'i establishment. Scripture-Crafting: Analysis of the Delayed Haifa-Wilmette Marriage Verse Compared to Earlier Elder Translation Elder

Official

"God has ordained marriage for you."

"Beware lest you..."

"...go beyond two (wives),..."

"Ordained" = The will of God, chosen by God, meant to be, made holy, inevitable by divine will for Baha'is.

A mere warning about the risk of ending up with more than two. Contains the soft "lest" which means "or else" or "in case."

"Go beyond" is vague, collegiate, implies a soft border to wife-acquisition.

"God hath prescribed matrimony unto you."

"Beware that ye..."

"...take not unto yourselves more wives than two."

Marriage is no longer "ordained" (Elder) or "enjoined" (Haddad) -- but merely prescribed. Of course, we all know that one can choose to take a

"Beware that" has a very different meaning than "beware lest" and has a harder edge. It's still ambiguous. But 3+ wives has begun

By sentence expansion the vexingly vague "beware," a key word in the Elder version, is shunted off to the side and made a non-essential prefix.

17

"Wives" is not even specified, revealing that he was speaking to men.

doctor's prescription -- or not. Under officialdom the verse now only means marriage is "strongly suggested." Note: With this one translation distortion, a strange and puzzling new phenomenon has arisen in the Baha'i Faith. Baha'is are now the only religion in which young, marriage-phobic men and women go around saying "Marriage is not obligatory for us!" as a teaching point to promote their religion!

to sound as if it's prohibited, especially with the rest of the sentence to come... Note: The British Arabic scholar and dweller-in-Arabia Earl Elder translated it "Beware lest." Sixty years earlier the amateur translator and partisan Baha'i evangelist-to-America Anton Haddad employed a different, harder "Beware not." Phrasing almost exactly like the amateur Haddad's ended up being used by the Wilmette-Haifa "authorized" Aqdas.

"Take" is an aggressive, unpleasant word. More effectively, Wilmette-Haifa produced the Biblical meme "take not" which doesn't exist in the other translations. "Take not unto yourselves" becomes the centerpiece of the sentence. The troublesome, vague "beware" is now out of the way, no longer significant in the sentence. Notice the sentence is much longer. With their restructuring three critical words in the terser versions have been made superfluous. You can actually cut out the entire middle pane of both versions ("Beware lest you") -- and be left with a functioning sentence, after "ye." That sentence creation, if taken alone, finally has the prohibitive language Officialdom sought vis-a-vis 3+ wives, at least. (See above) Oh, how much you can achieve if you mix-and-match words like a scrabble game, and especially add a few helpful words! Sort of like how plastic surgeons fashion an ear from other pieces of your body. Note that two hard-edged word-pairs -- "Beware that" plus "take not" -- are combined and placed side-by-side, increasing the feeling of prohibition. This doubling-up of negative phrases doesn't exist in the other translations.

From a passive description to a prescribed action Another neuro linguistic trick in officialdom's version is the use of "whoso contenteth himself" as against Elder's "whoever is satisfied." Elder's phrase passively describes a situation: "Here are some polygamous men. A few of them are contented with one wife." In the official version the passive description of a few contented men has morphed into a phrase that sounds like a prescribed action. "Is satisfied" refers to what some men "are." "Contented himself" refers to what men should do. The phrase "contenteth himself" admonishes "Content yourself!" Mind games: From 'consider the wisdom' to -- "This is how it's going to be" In the second half of a brief sentence giving fundamental Baha'i marriage advice for 1,000 years, the Elder version has Baha'u'llah simply pointing to a wisdom in having just one wife. He commends it to the men as having results that are worthy of consideration: "whoever is satisfied with one...his soul is at rest." (He apparently had some disharmony among his wives.) It's as if he's pointing out to them: 'Look at men like Hassan and Hamid, with just one wife. Such fellows tend to have less drama.' For this section the Baha'i translators pull out every trick in the book to change it's feeling and direct the mind differently. The "whoever" of Elder implies a random volunteerism; that perhaps a few men might consider the wisdom of one wife. But officialdom's "Whoso contenteth himself..." makes monogamy appear to be specified; as if requested. The use of 'shall live' (in describing the monogamous couple) employs the classic prophetic, ordaining voice -- a voice common to Baha'i literature that points toward a future world. From a sentence that merely made an observation about the advantages one-wife husbands may have ("his soul is at rest') the Baha'i officials transformed it into a sentence that appears to prescribe it as the one mode-of-life for the future. It became prescriptive and predictive instead of merely observational, as if Baha'u'llah is describing an army of future monogamous Baha'i couples and ordaining their monogamy together with their happiness: "He and she shall live..." Then this state is associated with good things, better things than Baha'u'llah had mentioned in the Elder-Miller version. The modest "his soul is at rest" of Elder-Miller comes out differently in the official version: "He and she shall live in tranquility." (Baha'is added the woman into the picture whereas only the husband's experience is referenced by Baha'u'llah in Elder-Miller.) Somehow Elder-Miller missed "live," "shall," and "she" but the Baha'is found it. And where did "his soul" go? With "shall live" -- unseen in either Haddad or the Elder version -- the monogamous state has been subtlety associated and correlated with life. Life is always naturally counterpoised against death. "Life" and "living" are powerful concepts. Everybody wants life. "Shall live"suggests both the continuance of life itself, but also prosperity,

18

nice things, everything humans want. (And yet it's the polygamous Muslims who are presently taking over Europe and out-birthing the Europeans.) "Tranquility" is also a richer term than "at rest." Thus the Baha'i translation, once it points to the one-wife idea, associates even stronger positive ideas with it than Baha'u'llah himself did. Scripture Corruption 103, Continued Elder

"...and whoever is satisfied with..."

"Whoever" implies volunteerism and evokes some members of a group. (Not all.)

Official

"...with one of the handmaidens,..." "The handmaidens" evokes an indistinct and humble pool of Baha'i women.

"...his soul is at rest and so is hers."

A passive observation. Points to the one-wife situation and commends it as worthy of consideration.

"Is satisfied" passively describes and observes.

"Handmaidens" also implies a woman's natural service to husband and children.

"His soul is at rest" is a modest description of the advantage of monogamy.

Whoso contenteth himself with...

"...with a single partner from among the maidservants of God..."

"...both he and she shall live in tranquility."

Everyman Appears Two important message-differences -- in great contrast to Elder -- have appeared in this 4-word creation by Officialdom: "Whoso" evokes a particular individual, not random or plural "whoevers." The mind is forced to interpret whoso as Everyman -- i.e. Everybahai. This is very nuanced, clever, and subliminally effective for guiding the verse import in their intended direction. Next, Elder's passive, observational "is satisfied" becomes an active "contenteth himself." "Is satisfied" has a different meaning than "satisfies himself." "Is contented" is different than "contents himself." The first only describes a state; the 2nd refers to an action taken. So the official "contenteth" solicits an action from the Baha'is. The action requested by the word is: "Content yourself." This is only the first way they tried to make the 2nd half of the problematic sentence sound as if it prohibits two wives.

Now the Baha'i Scripture Managers Really Go for Broke The persnickety, explicit "a single partner" is inserted instead of "one of the handmaidens." The humble, human "handmaidens" -- evoking Man-Woman human relationship plus female service to family -- becomes a grandiose mystical term related only to God. "Partner," a modern sexless anti-family word promoted by homosexuals, has been bizarrely inserted to pay obeisances to the gay agenda. Two nouns for "wives" are present instead of Elder's one (handmaidens). This was so Wilmette-Haifa could insert the degenerate, politically-correct "partner" plus have a word to use for crafting the more monogamy- explicit "single partner."

"Shall live" is not found in either Elder or Haddad. The introduction of "shall live" injects an ordaining, prophetic voice that points to the future. (The Baha'i future.) No longer a mere observation of "good results" for the monogamous, it creates the impression monogamy is specified and ordained by Baha'u'llah as the only acceptable state for the future. Next, stronger positive associations are created for monogamy. The modest "his soul is at rest" is enlarged to a richer tranquility. Through the use of "shall live" monogamy is associated with general prosperity and life itself. By giving much stronger positive associations to monogamy the impression is created that monogamy is being specified. ("Why would Baha'u'llah attach such lofty, ringing themes to monogamy if he were not specifying it?") No reference is made to their souls. This is the most devious piece of the "Authorized" version from Haifa-Wilmette. Read and compare again to the Elder version above after reading this! The psychological tricks become obvious. It ends with the verse giving the impression that both 2-wives plus 3+ wives are forbidden, though this conflicts with the first sentence. These are very clever efforts at neuro-linguistic programming to alter the impression that Baha'u'llah's verse makes on Baha'is and observers. General tone: Elder-Miller is casual, vague, and collegiate in discussing a delicate matter. The "Authorized" tone is unctious, fiery, explicit, exacting, and forbidding -- and gives a very different impression of what's been said.

All this subtle neuro-linguistic programming by Baha'i officialdom is effective for unthinking, impressionable people -- the sort of people who populate the Baha'i Faith. They have built in a "flow" to their two sentences. With the first sentence the possibility of two wives is acknowledged, but with a feeling of admonishment and criticism of that state not present in Elder-Miller. The next sentence creates a feeling that the "two wives" is suddenly, in a trice, outlawed with monogamy raised up as the ordained state, and the one

19

acceptable state, of the future. So in the official Baha'i translation a mere warning about the difficulties of having 3+ wives, and an approbational comment about the men who keep one, has become an apparent prohibition of any form of polygamy. Yet the thing still faileth. Because the thrust they created for the final sentence contradicts the first sentence: "Beware that ye take not unto yourselves more wives than two." Only the artful, meme-resonant construction of their last sentence held any hope, for Baha'i obfuscation artists, of burying Baha'u'llah's first sentence in oblivion: Whoso contenteth himself with a single partner from among the maidservants of God, both he and she shall live in tranquility." It still remains: The text of the Baha'i "Most Holy Book" clearly allows Baha'i men to have two wives. To combat this perception, all the confused minions of officialdom can say to a Baha'i harem-seeker is, perhaps: "Yeah, but then you won't live in future." At least not with "tranquility." The fact stands, too, that many monogamous marriages are stormy and contain conflict, while many polygamous marriages are relatively happy. Studies of the Mormons easily reveal this. Thus the suggestion of Baha'u'llah, even in Elder-Miller, that monogamy guarantees harmony or prevents divorce is not particularly valid in the first place. America has long had laws against polygamy and all marriages in our two centuries have been monogamous; yet our divorce rates are sky high! (Perhaps if the Baha'is had accepted the fundamentally Islamic worldview present in their actual scriptures they would have grown much more powerfully than they did.) It took Baha'i officialdom 120 years to come up with an Aqdas rendering containing enough monkey business to try to slide the Aqdas past their constituency without a mass exodus. Certainly their long suppression of the book starting early is the only reason a "Baha'i Faith" even exists today, rather than being some forgotten Islamic sect long dead. Yet they had to come out with it eventually. I imagine they sent the verse back to translator after translator saying, 'No, it needs to come off differently.' But notice how they have still failed, after all that holding off, to transform an ancient Islamic viewpoint into an honest feminist religion. I have not acquired a copy of the belated 1992 Aqdas Apology of 315-pages. I don't enjoy reading the words of anonymous would-be world-controllers as they create sophisticated lies. But I have no doubt it contains paragraphs and paragraphs of spin-doctoring, associated with this verse, to convince Baha'is that this verse doesn't say what it apparently says. They were abrogating and annulling this verse already by the time of their preliminary controlled leak called the "Synopsis and Codification of the Kitab-i-Aqdas." That was where the first noises arose in Bahailand that there was 'something wrong with the Kitab-i-Aqdas.' In that belated sop thrown to the believers in 1973 we saw the first obvious "administrative" efforts in damage control. I believe that the translation offered by the Baha'i institutions -- of this marriage verse and other verse -- is mendacious. I believe it falsifies Baha'u'llah's Arabic statements in pursuit of their agenda to keep their constructed religion popular and growing no matter what the reality of the original religion. And yet there is more nasty business in the official translation...there is more!

20

Elder-Miller Kitab-i-Aqdas

Hiding history, context, and reality In the Elder-Miller version Baha'u'llah does not specify "wives" in his "go beyond" phrase, but tersely says "go beyond two." It was the translator, seeking to make the sentence comprehensible, who inserted "wives" in parentheses for the reader. However, the official version does not retain this detail. It uses "beyond two wives" as though that's what Baha'u'llah wrote. Thus they end up with two instances of words for wives instead of Elder's one "handmaidens." Why do you think they did this? The reason is that Baha'u'llah saying a terse "go beyond two" reveals undesired contextual information to the reader. Baha'u'llah had no need to specify "wives" and did not say "spouses" because he was not speaking to a mixed audience: He was addressing himself to men. Evidence that the Kitab-i-Aqdas is directed to male ears crops up in other places of the Aqdas, such as his travel rules: "You and the women are to sit..." (See image below.) The truth is that the Kitab-i-Aqdas was directed to males and the Baha'i administration did not want you to know this. It's one more instance of the chronic Baha'i problem of effacing their own true history. Killing out "handmaidens" (or women who serve their men) Baha'u'llah refers to the Baha'i women as "the handmaidens" in the Elder-Miller book. This very term has been commonly found in official Baha'i translations for many a year. But here in his intimate guy-talk "handmaiden" distinctly conveys the reality-of-view that both Baha'u'llah and the Islamic men comprising the movement had toward women. It also evokes the idea of wifely service to a husband, and I think this is the real-life and human sense in which Baha'u'llah used the term. That is, I think he used the term "handmaidens" in a very human, patriarchal, and comfortable sense and only secondarily in a euphemistic, put-a-shine-on-them, religious sense. "Handmaidens" was the way the Baha'i men viewed the women through natural manly desire and the masculine authority they enjoyed. "Handmaidens of God" was an edifying, but secondary, thought. This sense of "handmaidens" here can be further assumed from the casualness of the conversational Elder-Miller rendering. Now, a wife is, indeed, supposed to give service to her husband in natural life, just as husbands give service to their wives and families. That is the natural order of life. They serve each other. But Marxist feminism, promoted long now by the Baha'i golem, teaches women they should serve nobody but themselves. Or maybe "the man" at work (boss) who doesn't care about her. Or perhaps serve the NWO by becoming selfish and breaking up the family. Anybody but your husband! The Muslims have this charming, cosmic concept that when a woman serves a Good Man and serves her children -- she's serving God. And that a husband, always so willing to serve

21

his wife and family, is also serving God by doing so. It's the kind of God-service most accessible to women and the sort of world-service that gives them the most personal fulfillment. But the hardcore feminist Baha'i translation teams over the years -- which probably included not a few western women -- had to get rid of any roiling thought that wives should serve their husbands. Thus the Official version changes "handmaidens" (serving men and husbands) into "maidservants of God." It converts the Baha'i women into women who don't serve their men, but only serve God. My view is that the average woman will be dissatisfied with this kind of life and it goes against the natural womanly nature, which wants to be devoted to husband and family, and have their devotion in turn. This change is all in the service of Marxist family-killing feminism that took up residence in the Baha'i Faith. Strangely, it's one of the rare instances in which Baha'i Officialdom ceases rejecting the mystical, ascetic content of their religion. The Marxist types who translated the text are telling them: 'Don't love and serve your men or families: only love God.' By shooting "handmaiden" from the sky (and their newly bereft, maiden-stripped men), a rare instance occurs where Baha'i women are finally encouraged to be mystics, ascetics, and world-renouncers. But of course, women "serving God" in the Baha'i context would tend to translate itself one way: Baha'i woman should become worldly devoted to "the world" instead of serving their husbands and children. This means, as usual, serving Marxist/Jewish deracination, nation-killing, and family-killing agendas. Indeed, destruction of the family is a top goal of the Communists/Marxists/New World Order bankers. By telling Baha'i women to "serve the world" instead of their families, the Baha'is continue to play their part in weakening the family, at least in, their own little subculture, while it continues to poison us. Yet there is more!

The Real Baha'i Faith

I grieved when I first opened the Aqdas and saw what Baha'is were originally meant to be. The unadulterated Book of Laws draws the picture of an austere, God-focused people living Islam-like devotional ideals. In the picture of Baha'i life that

22

The Baha'i-suppressed "Kitab-i-Aqdas shows that Baha'is were meant to be a world-renouncing, pious, God-centered people set apart, and much like Islam. As in Hinduism and Christianity, Baha'i life was to feature profound devotional ritual, especially repetition-of-verses -- a highly effective spiritual technique for coming to know God within. This is called "japa" and "bhajan" in Hinduism and "mantra" repetition in other religions. Baha'i officialdom has

emerges, religion informs every aspect of the day. In the text above a husband is traveling with his family which probably includes several wives. Addressing himself to men, Baha'u'llah says "you and the women" are to speak a particular devotional invocation whenever they come to rest. They are to "sit in the temple of Unity." This refers to what Hindus call a yogic asana. When I was a Baha'i I never heard of any of this. These things were never taken seriously by Baha'i promoters even after 140 years. Yet this religious devotionalism and repetition of religious words was the real core of the Baha'i Faith.

downplayed and ignored these central mystical aspects of both genuine religion and their own texts.

Making marriage optional for neo-Baha'is I didn't notice the next official distortion until some time after starting this text. Along the way I discovered the Wikipedia page on the Kitab-i-Aqdas. I always avoid that place because it tends to be a leftist agenda infection. There I found Baha'i activists swarming all around the "Kitab-i-Aqdas" page for damage control, misrepresenting the book to the public. That was to be expected. They seemed to to have taken up permanent residence there, carefully watching over the page. One of the strangest items was how the anonymous Baha'i Wikipedia activists would say, in describing the contents of the Aqdas, "Marriage is strongly recommended in the Kitabi-Aqdas but not obligatory." By my life, I knew of no statement in the Aqdas saying "marriage is not obligatory" or anything to the effect. I corrected the site, and while doing so, used the words of all three translators in the case of the marriage verse: That marriage was "ordained" (Elder), "enjoined" (Haddad), and "prescribed" in the "Authorized" version. This to make it clear that the language of the Aqdas contrasted to their statements about marriage being "not obligatory." I was astounded to find the Baha'i activists repeatedly deleting my innocent and honest correction! My mind thought, "Sheesh, are the modern Baha'is now marriage-negative?" When I was in the Baha'i Faith there was high esteem given to marriage and family, and indeed that atmosphere led me to marry. It clued me in to look at the official verse more carefully, and sure enough, "prescribed" is another a corruption. Clearly, it is intended to open up a loophole in the verse for the Baha'is, as with the perfume verse. Something "prescribed" is not something one is obligated to do. (The doctor may prescribe something, but you don't have to take it.) The word is like "strongly recommended." Compare that to Elder's very strong "ordained" and Haddad's stronger "enjoined," one definition of which is "to direct or order to do something." So it seems modern Baha'i officialdom is even throwing marriage under the bus. But it gets worse, and perhaps the next corruption is related: Baha'i Officialdom introduces the gay lexicon into The Most Holy Book There is more strangeness in the official (Haifa-Wilmette) version: The appearance of the word "partner" in the modern version is inventive, not to mention ominous. A few decades back this would have been "wife." The recently trendy and amorphous term "partner" had never occurred in any translations of Baha'u'llah relative to marriage, but only "wife," "husband," or "spouse." The Baha'i Faith has long been morally conservative even in the west and, because of the morally conservative Islamic impulse of the Baha'i founders and the Christian heritage of most Baha'i membership, resistant to the moral "reconstruction" of the Marxists and the gay agenda. The bare and generic term "partner," used in place of spouse, is a modern culture-bomb employed by those who wish to redefine marriage as any sort of amalgam and explode the natural, holistic institution of the family. Traditional people, respecting marriage, use "spouse" as the generic and this was the term used in Baha'i translations heretofore. "Partner" is especially favored by homosexuals and family-reconstruction advocates in place of "wife" and "husband" to destroy the assumption that such sexual specificity is relevant to marriage, and even discredit the concepts of "husband" and wife." It is truly disconnected from time and the word traditions of both the west and the east. I find it bizarre that this word has ended up in the Baha'i "Most Holy Book." Note also that no generic word (such as spouse) is contained in the Elder-Miller verse, only "handmaidens," which is sexually specific. Thus it seemed that the ones involved with this Aqdas production really wanted to insert this demoralizing culture-bomb into the text. It is safe to say that even ten years prior to 1992, in cobbling together their translation, the Bahia's

23

would not have even considered the use of this degenerate word in the Kitab-i-Aqdas. The word always serves to anticipate and accept continued degradation of natural sexual roles and traditional marriage. Its presence here likely reflects decadence creeping into the modern Baha'i Faith and a failure of resistance to moral corruption that is spearheaded by gay activists, giving a hint as to which way the Baha'i Faith is now headed. Based on this sign I predict that this Wilmette-Haifa generated Aqdas-loathing Baha'i Faith will end up as morally liberal and degenerate as the surrounding culture. This is very understandable when you consider the fact that the Baha'i Faith, from the very beginning, attracted Marxists. But are Baha'is pro-gay and anti-marriage already? Baha'i concubines Notice that Baha'u'llah mixes the question of a maid or female domestic "servant" with his instruction about wives. This implies that, in his mind, the "virgins in service" were on a platform that is similar to a wife. It probably refers to the Islamic reality of men having concubines in addition to technical wives. The only requirement is that they start out as virgins. It is instructive to look at how official Baha'idom rendered another verse just following the marriage verse: the "virgin in service" verse. Here are the three versions by Haddad, Elder, and Wilmette-Haifa. Note that this is the close of Baha'u'llah's brief thousand-year guidance about marriage. Even a cursory look at these comparisons reveals more about the thoroughly modern values, perspectives, and agendas that infect the official neo-Baha'i organization: Dump this talk of "virgins" -- Monkey Business in the Official Baha'i "Virgin in Service" verse Earl Elder

Anton Haddad

1961

Circa 1900

"...and one does no harm in taking a virgin into his service."

"There is no objection to the one who employs a maid in his domestic service"

The simple rendering by the Arabic scholar Elder uses "virgin" and this value was the cultural reality.

Haddad promoted Baha'i in America during the Victorian age. His "maid" was almost certainly a euphemism for the ears of his Victorian-age audience. "Virgin" was both too sexually frank, plus evoked primitivism in western minds even then. Yet Baha'u'llah's culture was primitive and did speak of "virgins."

His verse takes it as a given that this refers to domestic female servants -cooks, maids, and the like. (See Haddad translation to the right which explicitly states that.) It could not have referred to female employees in business. Women did work outside the home in Baha'u'llah's time and it was not considered moral or

See the word "domestic." This clearly referred to women hired in the home -not to any other type of

"Authorized" version, 1992 (Wilm ette-Haifa Sect) 120 Years Late -- 1992

"And he who would take into his service a maid may do so with propriety." Notice again that the "Authorized" version is longer that Elder's. Adding things again. Oddly, the Wilmette-Haifa crew used the same Victorian euphemism as Haddad 100 years ago! But it was certainly for very different reasons than Victorian sensibilities! Now, one would think that in this era of sexual frankness it would be no problem to use "virgin" if that is the more correct word. Did Baha'u'llah use a euphemism for virgin? Doubtful! And not according to the Arabic scholar Earl Elder! Was virginity unimportant in Baha'u'llah's culture? No, it was very important. So there appears to be more monkey-business and obfuscation in this Authorized translation. My, how times change. Nowadays people are not offended with "virgin" because it's too sexual and the people too pure. Instead, they are offended with the thought that there's anything worthwhile about virginity! Baha'u'llah seemed to think so, but we can't have that! Obviously "virgin" would challenge and offend well-experienced women and especially feminists involved with the neo-Baha'i Aqdas translation. (Likely all the female committee members and faceless female bureaucrats on the Wilmette staff were very put out by this Aqdas verse!) And yet, "virgin" is probably exactly what Baha'u'llah said. (Independent Arabic-to-English translations are being arranged to verify this.) Why do I think women's sensibilities have been a force in the development of this translation? I just know. 120 years have gone by, women have dominated the Baha'i offices and the Baha'i Faith in general, flocking to a "feminist religion." And it's obvious from how the text came out. Most interesting: Wilmette-Haifa seems to have added a line about "propriety" not even sketchily present in the others. There is no allusion, in the Haddad/Elder versions, that the male of the house might engage in hanky-panky with his female domestic. On the other hand, there is, you know, some sense of the possibility given the context. Men! You never know about men! Thus the modern feminist Wilmette translators took care to nip that possibility

24

proper for them to do so.

employment.

in the bud, performing a bit of Aqdas activism to keep men from flirting with hired females in the New Dawn though it wasn't a concern of Baha'u'llah's. Thus these ladies have revealed new Aqdas verses to us from the Dayspring of Propriety. The "Mother-May-I?" phrase of "may do so" -- not present in the other translations -- is all the more cringe-worthy when you realize it's just the voice of unhappy control-the-world feminists in Wilmette and Israel.

There is another very subtle alteration the neo-Baha'is have introduced into this verse. I wonder if you can see it? Its very subtle. It's in the phrase "he who would..." The people who created this translation don't want men thinking they should hire women, whether as domestics or otherwise. They don't want them to think of anybody as "women" at all (even if they are). Especially in hiring. You know, "affirmative action" and all that. Plus the whole idea that women can be assumed to be the more appropriate maids and domestics is "sexist" in their eyes. (Even though it's true.) So these translators wanted to jettison the very assumptions implicit in the verse reflecting Islamic life around Baha'u'llah and traditional understanding. They simply don't want Baha'is to think this way; in the Old World way, or put it out there that this viewpoint should be normative. So the one taking in a female domestic is "called out" as exceptional by their phrase "He who would take into his service...". ('Only a few dumb men would hire a woman with the idea she's a woman, or because she's a woman!') It's a more complex phrasing not used by the others, and an interesting spin trick because they had to add words to the verse to do it, which they were probably trying to avoid. Verily, there is a big difference between "virgin" and "maid." A "maid" can be a thrice-divorced, well-worn 50-something. And verily, the neo-Baha'is in their "Book of Laws" -- our only guidance for the next "Thousand Years" -- have purged the idea that virginity as something to be valued. Was Baha'u'llah a brazen hypocrite? Continuing on in my deconstruction of the Official Baha'i marriage translation: Historians estimate that the Kitab-i-Aqdas was finished between 1873 and 1875. According to Miller & Elder Baha'u'llah had married a 3rd wife, Gohar, already in 1867. (She bore him a daughter, Furuqiyya. See scanned pages above.) This means at the time Baha'is want us to believe Baha'u'llah was prohibiting 2+ wives he himself had three. (Then later a fourth, Jamaliyya, who he added to his harem in old age.) There was never any report in the literature about controversy or scandal, among the Baha'is or the Muslims, over Baha'u'llah making a change to Muslim custom and prohibiting 2+ wives. It does not exist in the literature. That must be because the native readers of Arabic knew that the language of the Aqdas does not make any such prohibition. Remember that simply dispensing with the veil rule for women was considered radical, even kill-worthy, in his time. Is it reasonable to think Baha'u'llah -- constantly dealing with challengers and critics -- would have banned the 3+ wife situation when he himself had three? Or when his movement, already heavily challenged and relying on the support of wife-ample sons of Islam, was new and fragile? It is more reasonable to believe that the Elder-Miller version -- which presents Baha'u'llah as simply giving a wisdom-warning to men with harem ambitions -- is the honest presentation of the Baha'i founder's words. Here is a handy chart showing how Baha'i officialdom appears to have twisted Baha'u'llah's statements in the Kitab-i-Aqdas:

25

Dumbing Down Their Text: Mystical Language in the Kitab-i-Aqdas One fascinating aspect of Baha'i writings is the Sufic mystical content, and the Kitabi-Aqdas is loaded with that. After reading official Baha'i translations for a while it becomes very interesting to see how Elder & Miller translate certain mystic phrases compared to official versions. The Elder-Miller translation appears to be more direct with less attempt to fit Baha'u'llah's words into decorous English literary forms. I also perceive the official attempt to "dumb down" the language in the "authorized" version, as if trying to remove 'strangeness' and turn it into pabulum for a modern American demographic. Elder's evocative "Lote Tree of the Extremity" became just "Lote Tree." Under official hands it loses both its rigor and its metaphysical dimensions.

Does anybody have any idea what he's talking about? Do Baha'is? There is a great deal of phantasmagorical content in the Baha'i writings, and the Kitab-i-Aqdas is no exception. Baha'is tend to appreciate it primarily for atmospherics. They don't even try to explain this Sufic lexicon, and in the anti-mystical religion that the Baha'i Faith became, there is a taboo against trying..

Here is one from by Elder-Miller from the Aqdas: Elder-Miller version: "O People, direct your steps with white faces and hearts full of light towards the Blessed Red Spot where the Lote Tree of the Extremity (sidratu l-muntaha) calls, "There is no god besides Me, the Self-Subsistent Overseer." Here is the official Baha'i version: "Turn, o people, with bright faces and illuminated hearts towards the blessed red spot in which the Sadrat-El-Muntaha (divine tree) crieth out, "Verily there is no God but Me, the protector, the self-Existent." Is this a case where unimaginative and religiously uneducated Baha'is are complaining about Elder-Miller being "too literal"? Let's analyze it: "White" has become "bright." What is wrong with "white"? An anti-White European phobia here? The stars are white. The sun is white, so is the moon, the light we encounter at death, and the light the Buddhists speak of. Things in a state of purity are often white. The official Baha'is wanted it as "bright" instead. But doesn't "white" say it better plus evoke the thought of purity? Is "white" not what the text said? Here is how Haddad translated the verse around 1900: "Advance, O people, with snow-white faces and radiant hearts..." Anton Haddad, 1901

Haddad not only used the color "white," but emphasized whiteness with "snow white." "Hearts full of light" has been turned into Hallmark greeting card copy: "illuminated hearts." Whereas the Elder-Miller had two distinct concepts -- white (a color) and light -- the Wilmette version has created redundancy by referring to "light" twice. ("Bright" plus "illuminated.") The Elder-Miller rendering is richer and hits you in more places of the mind. I approach these words of Baha'u'llah with a prospect that they contain religious (and metaphysical) validity; that they have religious integrity. But modern Baha'is prefer to

26

construe much of what Baha'u'llah says as mere poetic window dressing, something for atmospherics. They reduce his mystical language down to pretty metaphors devoid of metaphysical meaning. The "white" probably conveys to us historical Islamic usage of the word "white" in spiritual and religious contexts. But the Baha'is, as usual, would like to cover up history and even ancient knowledge. The official "illuminated" is more timid and less active than Haddad's "radiant." Elder's "hearts full of light" is robust, dynamic. It implies power related to spiritual attainment. It implies a shining, like the sun. It is, for me, one of the lines that makes me think there was something to Baha'u'llah and his tradition. Let's dig deeper: As a yogi and one conversant with the Upanishads, I find "hearts full of light" is deeply evocative. The religions of both India and Buddhism teach that an actual light is seen, indeed, in the heart in meditation. (At two main points in the body. And I can vouch for it.) The light is blissful and is God. The Hindu and Buddhist scriptures speak of an inner sun -- aditya, jyoti, bindu -- that is perceivable to the devotee within the "heart" and which is the basis of the outer sun. In other words, there actually is light within, perceivable to the God-seeker and chanter, and it is seen in places referred to as the "heart" in mystical traditions. The Upanishads are laden with references to it. It is quite possible that the mystic traditions of Sufism, from which Baha'u'llah's seems to have evolved are also aware of the inner light. Thus Baha'u'llah's reference to "hearts full of light" probably had occult significance that resonated across other profound religious scriptures and practices. Yet the Baha'is jettisoned it for the vaguer "illuminated hearts" which reduces it to mere metaphorical value and evokes only inner attitude and not anything with esoteric meaning. Why would the Baha'is not wish to relate the "hearts full of light" to the loftiest spiritual lore and traditions of the religions they claim to supersede? A sad thing about Baha'is is that they are terribly incurious about the contents of the other religions that they so avidly hope to supplant. Thus it's likely that both the Baha'i translators and the committees that breathed over their shoulder had no clue about the possible religious implications (for "hearts full of light") that I have just broached, or registered the simple, pithy beauty of the Elder-Miller rendering from a mystical point-of-view. As I read the Kitab-i-Aqdas years later informed by Hinduism and yoga, I see that the Elder-Miller version likely broaches many secrets and esoteric references. The thought that Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i Faith might actually have some parallels to some of the most pristine knowledge of Hinduism/Buddhism adds more creditability to the Baha'i Faith and the Aqdas. But the officials, thinking it meant nothing and only thinking about "image" and "what will sell" to a particular demographic and time, are eager to dumb-down the real Aqdas content into stale and conventional cliches. The more evocative and instructive "Lote Tree of the Extremity" has been shortened to simply "Lote Tree." This is another truncation reflecting the anti-mystical attitudes of the Baha'i administration. I have to assume that "Lote Tree of the Extremity" or similar versions carries some kind of metaphysical information about reality, at least reality from the mystical point of view of the Baha'i founders. Why could the Baha'i officials not let the Baha'is nourish their minds on that thought and perhaps learn more about it? Must they be left now talking about a plain "Lote tree" in future without the esoteric context? So Baha'is will have goofy smiles in future as they apologetically refer to a "lote tree" concept they don't understand. Just as they stupidly grin now about their "Number Nine" business -- just a meaningless leftover from the Bab who was immersed in numerology. Both crying lote trees and numerology will be subjects Baha'is eschew and shrug their shoulders over, something too mystical that might embarrass them if they don't manage to drop it along the side of the road somehow. Elder-Miller contains the word overseer. In Vedic/Hindu terms I immediately register this as a Sufic concept of Nirguna-Brahman, an all-seeing Pure Consciousness that is not necessarily concerned as contrasted to the caring, active, protecting aspect of God (Saguna Brahman). It's also evocative of "foreman" and "boss. A "self-subsistent overseer" is clearly a Nirguna-Brahman conceptualization of God resonant with a very important philosophical system in India, Non-Dualistic Vedanta. Yet the Wilmette/Haifa translation team, probably without the slightest bit of education about either Sufic or Hindu God-concepts, turned the overseer into a protector. This would be, in Hindu terms, the other form of God, the knowable, perceivable, Saguna-Brahman with functions and activities. How this reversal? "Subsistent," a term with a philosophical and mystical heritage, got dumbed-down to "existent." Maybe because modern westerners no longer know the word "subsistent"? Why not teach it to them? "Subsisting," as Elder-Miller used, used to occur frequently in Baha'i writings. It's not the same thing as "existent," and probably refers to the "sat" (beingness) of God as the must subtle, unmanifested essence or reality, whereas existent implies the more patent God.

27

It is a noteworthy characteristic of the Baha'i Faith -- and I was an active member for 13 years -- that none of these curious mystical terms and statements, so abundant in their writings, are ever explained or discussed. In fact, Baha'is get uncomfortable if anybody -- including their own people -- tries to discuss or understand the highly mystical language of Baha'u'llah. But if Baha'is would study other religions better I think they would translate their own Aqdas more intelligently. But Baha'is do not study religion. They study their race-mixing and race-destruction agenda and ways to fund impressive buildings. So how could they be expected to understand the profound things Baha'u'llah says in the Kitabi-Aqdas? This tendency of Baha'is to throw out their own gold, to do violence to their own texts, only thinking about "what's attractive" and 'what will sell to the masses' -- is disgusting. Another example of the mystical language in the Aqdas along with Official Baha'i verse degradation, is the following. This is a sad one: "Set aside that which ye have, then with the foremost wings of separation (from the world) fly away above all creation;" Anton Haddad, 1901

"Leave what you have! Then fly with the minions of Separation beyond Innovation." Elder-Miller, 1961

"Cast away that which ye possess, and, on the wings of detachment, soar beyond all created things." Official Baha'i, 1992

No more minions. This verse, one of my favorites, capsulizes Baha'u'llah's vision for the Baha'is: That they be a unique and world-renouncing people separate from the other peoples. They were certainly to be a mystically-oriented people. The whole Aqdas displays a strong ascetical, world-renouncing attitude and the Sufic language breathes with mysteries. Baha'u'llah wanted his community to stand apart from others. Incidentally, based on the actual Baha'i writings the common bromide that the Baha'i Faith "doesn't teach asceticism" is an absurdity. The founder held out a highly spiritual ideal for the Baha'is in which they would be "detached from all save God" and detached from the world, which Baha'ullah referred to contemptuously as "the world of dust." His book called the "Seven Valleys" speaks of an ideal for the devotee in which he is "cool in the fire, dry in the sea." This is a state only gained through asceticism and a profound detachment from the world, matter, the body itself. It is attained by getting in touch with the divinity with in and locking onto it, making one impervious to outer conditions and established in the blissful state with God. This impervious and detached state was apparently attained by Babi martyrs who died astounding, heroic, joyful deaths under horrific tortures. "Separation," seen in Haddad and Elder-Miller but dumped by in the official version, most definitely referred to Baha'u'llah's ideal of a profound, emotionally ascetic people separated from world. Review the pink-and-orange verse above about the traveling family saying special prayers upon merely resting at a place along the road. It is the image of an austere, detached, God-oriented people. Only Elder-Miller got "minions" out of the verse. (I do invite verification from Arabic translators.) One definition of minion is "a favored or highly regarded person." Another is "a servile follower or subordinate of a person in power." That is obviously what Baha'u'llah, a kingly sort with a king's attitude through the Aqdas, was visualizing for the Baha'is. Or a combination of the two (both an esteemed people and a loyal, devoted citizenry). In any case, the Baha'i administration decided they didn't want the Baha'is to be God's minions. In the official version, instead of flying with his fellows in Baha'i skies, "wings" disappears into a metaphor for personal detachment. From a distinct group of rarefied people taking to the skies of Baha, the line now addresses a solitary person. Nobody to fly with anymore. Both "minions" and "separation" -- some of the richest and most spiritually-resonant words in the Miller-Elder verse -- have been excised from the Wilmette translation. And maybe it's not cool to be too humble or subordinate to God in this New Day.

28

Finally he urges Baha'is to soar "beyond all created things." Now think about how utterly focused on the world Baha'is are! They shun the inner search characteristic of Hinduism, yoga, and Buddhism that would even give them a concept of what such language means. (There's nothing out there. It's all "in there.") This is a profound mystical statement students of the Upanishads would appreciate. It again refers to God as Nirguna Brahman, Pure Consciousness, where all is in an uncreated state. We each merge in this Brahman nightly in deep, dreamless sleep according to the Vedas and Upanishads. The purpose of chanting the Baha'i mantra is to contact That; to get in touch with that uncreated God-bliss, which is yet God's pure creativity itself, increasingly during waking. In truth, the chanting of the Baha'i mantra ("Allah'u'abha") was and is the true heart of the Baha'i Faith, the center of everything. All the secrets of religion are in that. And there is one line in the Kitab-i-Aqdas that clearly betrays this fact. But 139 years went by and, lacking their own central scripture and Most Holy Book because of the agendas of world plotters -- Baha'i leaders whose concept of religion encompasses merely outward, material goals -- Baha'is could never know this. The Baha'i Faith was originally highly mystical, inward oriented, and world-disdaining along with a bit of advice about the Baha'is mixing with other religionists in a friendly attitude. That 'friendly consorting with the followers of all religions' -- typical of most religious visionaries, had special urgency for Baha'u'llah because of a history in which Babis, Baha'is, and Muslims were at each others throats, killing each other and getting killed. He articulated a "get along with other religions" view to keep Baha'is from being killed and persecuted any further. The general sense of Baha'u'llah's vision for the Baha'is, both in the Kitab-i-Aqdas and his "Hidden Words," is that of a rectified and rectifying, God-focused people completely oriented to God who stood apart from the rest -- the People of Baha. The essence of their founders intent for them is found in these two verses of Baha'u'llah's "Hidden Words": "Turn thy sight unto thyself, that thou mayest find Me standing within thee, Powerful, Mighty, and Supreme." "O Son of Perception! Look thou to My Face and turn from all save Me" There is no question that the Baha'i Faith is a mystical religion. An honest man cannot read those two lines and deny it. The technique of mantra repetition, enjoined on Baha'is in their Kitab-i-Aqdas, is the prime technique for uncovering the meaning of the above verses. But it is regarded by Baha'is as a triviality, even an embarrassment. By insulating themselves from the content of other religions and having near-phobias about that content, Baha'is suffer two tragedies: 1) They fail to see the opportunities in their very own scriptures to relate themselves to the best things in the religions they hope to replace, and 2) They fail to get the hints and clues that would cause them to value -- and actually discover -- the profound gold in their own traditions. Meanwhile, their shallow, world-oriented leadership deletes that content from their texts and gives them a dumbed-down religion. The guru-devotion element so painfully present through out Baha'i writings, in which "Baha" refers to himself in a continuous stream of superlative terms like"Blessed Beauty," has been supplanted in Baha'is by love of buildings. It's their inert buildings (The Shrine of the Bab) that get the royal appellations like "queen" rather than their tucked-away guru. The buildings, like their oversized $25 million-dollar "Universal Houses of Justice" burdening a hill in Israel, symbolize for them the worldly affirmation, power and prestige they crave. These, and an unpleasant race-fetishism for "diversely" formed human bodies combined with disloyalty to their own natural heritage -- are what they have come to love under their Haifa-Wilmette leadership more than their guru or the inner God. The Baha'is instead, under the tutelage of the Haifa/Wilmette corporations, became world-focused and worldcentered. People for whom the mystical statements of the Aqdas and Hidden Words are an embarrassment. A Religion of the World, Indeed The religion became converted into one that obsessed on the world and the "problems of the world." Because Baha'is daily carry a painful burden of "fixing the world," which they believe to be real, they became more world-focused, world-obsessed, and world-burdened -- than even average, irreligious people. I think it's one reason why Baha'is are basically unhappy people rife with neurosis. Though they have "prayers for contentment,' they never did grasp religion's purpose of "removing all difficulties" and showing them the inner solace and fulfillment of God within that requires no external conditions.

29

It is perhaps completely understandable that official Baha'i translators wanted to keep the word "innovation" out of their Aqdas. The official Baha'i translators were loading their Kitab-i-Aqdas with too much innovation and invention. And maybe they'd rather just not think about it. What really made me leave the Baha'i Faith was pondering this verse from Baha'u'llah's Hidden Words: "Forget all save Me and commune with My spirit. This is of the essence of My command." That seemed so simple and clear. I thought I should take it seriously. Yet I knew I didn't really know what it meant. "Forgetting all" -- all worldly thoughts, all worldly memories, all outwardness -- even for a moment is very difficult. Directing the mind to God with everything else excluded, is very difficult.The sages and rishis of India say it is the hardest thing of all. When I discovered the Yoga-Sutras, the Bhagavad-Gita, and Yogananda I saw that the entire purpose of those scriptures was to teach a man how to do that one thing -- that very thing Baha'u'llah says to do above. And I could see the Baha'is were not interested at all in the meaning of this verse, much finding out how to do it, and even less were they interested in embarking on the work of "forgetting all save God" even for one moment. It was only by leaving the Baha'i Faith that I was able to learn what this Hidden Word meant and follow that command. Julian Curtis Lee Mickunas March 2012, The Saint Francis

BahaiFace.com

J. Curtis Lee Mickunas is of Lithuanian and Norwegian heritage and raised Catholic. His profession is astrologer, writes and sings songs, and a racial activist for White European survival. Author of "The Yoga Sutra -- A New Commentary," his chief interest is religion. He was a very enthusiastic member of the Baha'i Faith from the age of 21 until the age of 33. He lives in Portland, Oregon.

Kitab-i-Aqdas.info

30

BahaiAwareness.com