One of the ideals of the Baha’i Faith which I adore is that each and every human being is equal in the sight of God and that we are really made from the “same dust”. As Baha’u'llah beautifully writes in the Arabic Hidden Words:

O children of men! Know ye not why We created you all from the same dust? That no one should exalt himself over the other. Ponder at all times in your heart how ye were created.

In the Baha’i Faith we do not have levels or any other sort of category for spirituality; no clergy: no bishops; no cardinals, etc. We are regard each other as, as fingers of one hand, leaves of one tree and drops of one ocean. That’s why I have a very tough time with the following cable from Shoghi Effendi, in which he tells the Baha’is that his brother has recently married a Christian woman:

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

The choice of the words “lowborn” certainly got my attention! As you probably know, Shoghi Effendi was a serious student (some would argue, master) of the English language. He used words as tools and was considered an inspired composer and translator. So, I wonder, why did he choose such loaded words?

I guess I wasn’t the only Baha’i who wondered that. Apparently after receiving the cable, the Baha’is of England wrote to the Guardian and inquired what he meant by it. On the surface, the expression “lowborn” seems in contrast with Baha’i values and teachings. It is, however, congruent with the then classist mentality that permeated upper-class English society. Could it be that Shoghi Effendi picked up a little of that from his years at Baliol?

Anyway, in response, the Guardian’s secretary writes back:

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

I’m even more baffled by this hodge-podge answer, in which the Guardian’s secretary seems to dig a deeper hole.

The secretary writes that Shoghi Effendi is “surprised” that the terms he used gave rise to any concerns. This was before political correctness, but why would any Baha’i not question something which appears so contradictory to the teachings and spirit of the Faith? what does ‘lowborn’ mean anyway? and is it used, as opposed to ‘highborn’? was May Maxwell (Shoghi Effendi’s wife) ‘highborn’?

In any case, the secretary goes on to cite the station of the descendants of Baha’ullah and the Bab. Which, again, totally misses the point. Abdul’Baha, in fact, as the exemplar of the Faith, used the title ‘servant of Baha’ and considered Himself as an equal to any other person. He helped the poor, fed the hungry, healed the sick. He never considered himself above another person, for any reason. Certainly not because He was the son of Baha’u'llah and Center of the Covenant.

How can we then deduce that His descendants (even farther away from the Blessed Beauty) should in any way believe themselves to be superior to others because of their DNA?

The use of the words “unknown girl”, “goodness knows what rite” and “who is not a believer at all” is even more bizarre. Unknown to whom? I’m sure she is known to her acquaintances, family, friends and her new husband. To whom else should she be known to? She certainly seems unknown to Shoghi Effendi as he doesn’t even use her name (some would consider that in itself derogatory). Did the Guardian not even inquire who she was? And the melodramatic expression of “goodness knows…” is also silly. The couple would’ve probably married through Christian or Baha’i rites (or both). That Shoghi Effendi doesn’t know by which rite(s) his brother will be getting married alludes to just how little he knew or cared about his own brother’s wedding. And the last one (“who is not a believer…”) is probably the most shocking. If it is not to hold this against her, why even mention that she isn’t a Baha’i? Since Abdu’l-Baha actually encouraged Baha’is to marry both across racial and religious lines, why would his grandchild’s marriage to a Christian girl be “disgraceful”?

The secretary then goes on to say that the words “lowborn” and “Christian” are merely “definitions” of a situation. That’s debatable in and of itself because they are used as adjectives. But even if they are simply definitions, they are certainly not objective ones – rather they are used to evoke an emotion and seem to be seeping with bias. And finally the secretary goes out of his way to say that this is not snobbery, nor religious prejudice. A pschychiatrist would have a field day with such a blatant projection but I’ll leave that one alone.

All I can understand from this whole incident is that Shoghi Effendi did not personally approve of his brother’s choice. Which is fine. Really. But why not just come out and say so without all the convoluted and strained justifications?

Wouldn’t that have saved everyone a heap of trouble?

I decided to write my first entry about the covenant because it is such a central issue in the Baha’i Faith (and we just had our celebration of it in November).In the Baha’i Faith there are two distinct covenants. They are called the greater covenant and the lesser covenant. The former is a general sort of agreement that God will continously send Messengers who will provide us with guidance. (Although it would appear that humanity doesn’t really keep its end of the bargain, what with the killing of practically all of the Manifestations of God throughout known history.) And the latter is a specific agreement entered into on one part by Baha’u'llah, whom the Baha’is believe is the latest such Messenger and His followers to be obedient to His laws and instructions and on the other where humanity receives in return unity and harmony.Ofcourse, as any lawyer will tell you, when you make a contract or agreement it is just a matter of time until some schmuck comes along and breaks it. And in the lingo of the Baha’is Faith, those who have not kept their part of the agreement (in other words, they haven’t been loyal) are branded “covenant breakers”.

Needless to say, the covenant that has been broken in these instances has been the lesser one. That is, a person has acted in a way which was contrary to Baha’u'llah’s teachings or instructions. I suppose those responsible for the martyrdom of previous Manifestations would be considered covenant breakers (of the greater variety). Surprisingly the stigma of breaking the lesser covenant is much greater.

It has always fascinated me to see the reaction of other Baha’is to even the words “covenant breaker”. Mention of it within a group of Baha’is will tend to lower the temperature a few degrees and sent eyes shifting about the room uncomfortably. Most Baha’is incorrectly assume that we are forbidden from reading covenant breaker material or books and some Baha’is have so totally misunderstood this whole concept that they have even developed superstitions around it; believing for example, that one will become physically ill if exposed to such text.

This isn’t all that surprising when you realize that in this Dispensation there have been bitter power struggles at each transitional period. First, the Bab’s appointment of Subhi-Azal as the leader of the Babis in His abscence; creating a long lasting friction between him and his half-brother Baha’u'llah, when the latter declared Himself as Him Whom God Shall Manifest. Then there was the appointment of Abdul’Baha in Baha’u'llah’s will as the center of His covenant and the interpreter of His words. This never sat quite well with Abdul’Baha’s younger half-brother, Muhammad Ali, who was second in order of succession. And after Abdul’Baha’s passing, there was another fallout as quite a few people, with varying motivations questioned the appointment of Shoghi Effendi as the Guardian and even in some cases, openly contested the Will and Testament of Abdu’l-Baha, which gives him that station. Finally, after the passing of the Guardian, there was another tumultous period where some minor factions where created as a result of the claim put forward by the Hand of the Cause of God, Charles Mason Remey, that he was the second Guardian. In each instance, a small group of Baha’is defected and were, as a result, named covenant breakers.

I remember one non-Baha’i friend of mine joking about this abbreviated history, saying that had the Holy Family been around at the time of today’s TV talk shows they would be getting advice from Dr. Phil.

Its important to note that in the Baha’i Faith we don’t believe in the devil or even hell. Instead of a duality, we believe there is only good in the world because it was created by God who is the embodiment of Perfection and Beauty. To us, anything which lacks such qualities, can be thought of as ‘evil’ but even then, evil as a metaphysical reality does not exist. Having said that, in the Baha’i folklore, the covenant breaker has somehow supplanted the role of the devil or evil itself. To witness a Baha’is reaction to covenant breakers is akin to witnessing the visceral reaction of a Southern Baptist to the Anti-Christ.

This lore may have its roots in the Writings, where covenant breakers are referred to in the most vitriolic manner. They are even described using the analogies of an illness — such as leprosy or a contagion. I’m personally astounded by Shoghi Effendi’s reaction to the death of Majdi’d-Dín where he figuratively seems to be dancing on a 100 year-old man’s grave. I have a very difficult time reconciling this with the repeated instructions in the Writings to love one’s enemies. And it is based on these Writings, that Baha’is who otherwise are loving, caring and gentle folk, will actually shun covenant breakers, in effect ostracising them from the Baha’i community.

Ofcourse the paradox that this conceptual framework presents is lost on most Baha’is: if this be God’s Cause, how can its light be extinguished? or put another way, if you believe Baha’u'llah is indeed who He says He is, how can any mortal scheme or design damage, deflect or in any way perturp His Cause from its course?

Baha’u'llah says:

The Hand of Omnipotence hath established His Revelation upon an unassailable, an enduring foundation. Storms of human strife are powerless to undermine its basis, nor will men’s fanciful theories succeed in damaging its structure.

Interestingly enough, Baha’u'llah complains in Tarazat about Mirza Hadi Dawlat-Abadi’s instruction to Babis to refrain from communicating with Him. They were, in effect, shunning Baha’u'llah by not entering into His Presence, nor reading or responding to His letters. Mirza Hadi was a supporter of Mirza Yahya, and had been appointed by him to represent and succeed him. So in effect he was the de facto head of the Azalis or the first group of covenant breakers.

But what really bothers me about all this is the extent to which shunning is applied. Its practice doesn’t just extend to the immediate persons cast out, but to their spouses, children, and even grandchildren — unless they explicitly denounce and separate themselves, both physically and spiritually from the offender. This drastic measure rends the loving bonds between families and friends and causes devastation in ordinary lives. It a tragic irony that a Faith which holds as one of its central tenents, unity and harmony would engage such a vicious tool.

A lost point in all this is that the break away groups are so small that they are for all practical purposes insignificant compared to the Baha’i Faith. They number in the hundreds and are in geographically localized communities, while the Baha’i Faith numbers in the millions and is one of the most wide spread world religions today. I don’t understand how the Faith can make such a boogie man out of a handful of people who the vast majority of its people will never meet.

The funny thing about it is that the matter is quite clear cut. I really believe that any Baha’i would easily be able to see that Mason Remey, for example, didn’t have a leg to stand on when he attempted to designate himself as the second Guardian. That goes for the other attempts of schisms during the history of the Faith as well. What I don’t understand is why Baha’is don’t simply inform themselves of the facts and arm themselves with knowledge, instead of reacting with fear and apprehension.

The loaded label of covenant breaker is bandied about quite carelessly and more than not, totally misapplied, by the average Baha’i. It has become a knee jerk reaction to call those who express different opinions on religious matters as covenant breakers or “borderline” covenant breakers (I suppose this is a much easier than actually thinking for themselves or coming up with answers for challenging questions). Yet, this authority does not reside in the hands of just anyone in the Baha’i Faith. In fact, there is a very formal and specific way that a person can be designated as a covenant breaker. Scripturally, the authority resides exclusively with the Hands of the Cause of God (sadly, currently there is only one living Hands of the Cause of God: Dr. Varqa) [Edit: passed away September 22nd, 2007]; who were appointed by the Guardian. During the life of Shoghi Effendi, he chose to remove this authority from the Hands and added it to his own responsabilities. I’m not sure exactly how he justified this or explained it. As far as I know, there is no scriptural evidence to back it up. After his death, this authority was claimed by the Universal House of Justice. Again, I’m not sure how or under what specific scriptural authority this was done.

Having said that, I can actually understand the need of shunning or ostracism when the Faith was young with only a few followers. The idea that at such a tender age it might schism into a multitude of factions and lose its unity and coherence was a valid one. If the provisions had not been made for such a strong reponse at that time, who knows what would have happened. But today, with the success of the Faith, do we still need the same measures of protection? Or are these same measures now innappropriate ?

Perhaps it would help to think about the covenant as it is referred to here by Abdul’Baha:

O army of God! Through the protection and help vouchsafed by the Blessed Beauty–may my life be a sacrifice to His loved ones–ye must conduct yourselves in such a manner that ye may stand out distinguished and brilliant as the sun among other souls.

Should any one of you enter a city, he should become a centre of attraction by reason of his sincerity, his faithfulness and love, his honesty and fidelity, his truthfulness and loving-kindness towards all the peoples of the world, so that the people of that city may cry out and say: `This man is unquestionably a Bahá’í, for his manners, his behaviour, his conduct, his morals, his nature, and disposition reflect the attributes of the Bahá’ís.’

Not until ye attain this station can ye be said to have been faithful to the Covenant and Testament of God. For He hath, through irrefutable Texts, entered into a binding Covenant with us all, requiring us to act in accordance with His sacred instructions and counsels.

I truly wonder how our reaction, as Baha’is, to the words ‘covenant breaker’ (or even to our very lives) would be altered, if we kept the above words fresh in our minds.