The Full Wiki

Bahá'í divisions: Wikis


Note: Many of our articles have direct quotes from sources you can cite, within the Wikipedia article! This article doesn't yet, but we're working on it! See more info or our list of citable articles.


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bahá'í Faith
Bahai star.svg

Central figures

The Báb · `Abdu'l-Bahá

Key scripture
Kitáb-i-Aqdas · Kitáb-i-Íqán

The Hidden Words
The Seven Valleys


Administrative Order
The Guardianship
Universal House of Justice
Spiritual Assemblies


Bahá'í history · Timeline
Bábís · Shaykh Ahmad

Notable individuals

Shoghi Effendi
Martha Root · Táhirih
Badí‘ · Apostles
Hands of the Cause

See also

Symbols · Laws
Teachings · Texts
Calendar · Divisions
Pilgrimage · Prayer

Index of Bahá'í Articles

The Bahá'í Faith has had challenges to leadership at the death of every head of the religion. The vast majority of Bahá'ís have followed a line of authority from Bahá'u'lláh to `Abdu'l-Bahá to Shoghi Effendi to the Custodians to the Universal House of Justice.[1] Sects diverging from this line of leadership have had relatively little success and have failed to attract a sizeable following.[2][3] In this sense, there is only one major branch of the Bahá'í Faith,[4] represented by at least 5 million adherents, whereas the groups that have broken away have either become extinct with time, or have remained in very small numbers. Globally the Bahá'í community has maintained its unity.[5]

Bahá'í scriptures define a Covenant regarding succession which is intended to keep the Bahá'ís unified.[6] Claimants challenging the widely accepted successions of leadership are shunned by the majority group as Covenant-Breakers, though such claimants likewise regard the others in the same way.

A separate entry discusses the Bahá'í/Bábí split.


General pattern of response

`Abdu'l-Bahá's response to determined oppostion during his tenure was patterned on Bahá'u'lláh's[7] and evolved across three stages. Initially, he made no public statements but communicated with the Muhammad `Alí and his associates directly, or through intermediaries, to attempt reconciliation. When it became clear that reconciliation was not possible, and fearing damage to the community, he wrote to the Bahá'ís explaining the situation, identifying the individuals concerned, and instructing the believers to sever all ties with those involved. Finally, he sent representatives to those areas most affected by the problem.[8]

The function of these representatives was to explain matters to the Bahá'ís and to encourage them to persevere in cutting all contacts. Often these individuals would have `Abdu'l-Bahá's authority to open up communications with those involved to try to persuade them to return. In Iran, such envoys were principally the four Hands of the Cause appointed by Bahá'u'lláh.[8]

This general pattern is illustrated below and was followed in subsequent episodes by Shoghi Effendi and the Universal House of Justice.[8]

`Abdu'l-Bahá's ministry

`Abdu'l-Bahá Abbas

Bahá'u'lláh remained in the Akka-Haifa area under house arrest until his death in 1892. According to the terms of his will, his eldest son `Abdu'l-Bahá was named the centre of authority; Mírzá Muhammad `Alí, the eldest son from Bahá'u'lláh's second wife was assigned an inferior position.[9]

Pursuant to his role as Centre of the Covenant, `Abdu'l-Bahá asserted absolute leadership. Soon Muhammad `Ali complained that `Abdu'l-Bahá was not sharing authority and started working against his elder brother. Most members of the families of Bahá'u'lláh's second and third wives supported Muhammad `Alí but there were very few outside of Haifa who followed him. Muhammad `Alí's supporters called themselves "Unitarian Bahá'ís".[10]

Muhammad `Alí's machinations with the Ottoman authorities resulted in `Abdu'l-Bahá' re-arrest and confinement in `Akká(Acre). Sometime later it was said that Muhammad `Alí was plotting to have `Abdu'l-Bahá hanged for treason against the Ottoman authorities in 1918. `Abdu'l-Bahá was due to be hanged on Mount Carmel near Haifa [11], but upon hearing of his death warrant, Lord Curzon pressured the British Cabinet to quickly capture the Haifa region from the Ottomans, and thereby rescued `Abdu'l-Bahá.[12]



When `Abdu'l-Bahá died, his will went into great detail about how Muhammad `Alí had been unfaithful to the Covenant, labelling him a Covenant-breaker, and appointing Shoghi Effendi as leader of the Faith instead, with the title of Guardian. Whole books within Bahá'í literature have been printed to refute the claims of Muhammad `Alí. (Balyuzi, Taherzadeh, etc.) This represented what is often described as the most testing time for the Bahá'í Faith.[8]

The schism caused by Muhammad `Alí effectively no longer exists. In the `Akká area, the followers of Muhammad `Alí have been reduced to at most six families who have no common organized religious activities.[13]

Shoghi Effendi as Guardian


The last photograph of Shoghi Effendi, taken a few months before he died.

At 24, Shoghi Effendi was particularly young when he assumed leadership of the religion in 1921, as provided for by `Abdu'l-Bahá in his Will and Testament. He had received a Western education at the Syrian Protestant College and later at Balliol College, Oxford.

Muhammad-`Alí took the opportunity to revive his claim to leadership of the Bahá'í community.[14] He forcibly seized the keys of the Tomb of Bahá'u'lláh at the mansion of Bahjí, expelled its keeper, and demanded that he be recognized by the authorities as the legal custodian of that property. But the Palestine authorities, after investigations, instructed the British officer in `Akká to deliver the keys into the hands of the keeper loyal to Shoghi Effendi.[15]

Family members expelled

In 1932 Shoghi Effendi's great aunt, Bahiyyih Khanum, died. She was greatly respected and had instructed all to follow Shoghi Effendi, referring to `Abdu'l-Bahá's Will. Bahíyyih Khánum had devoted much of her life towards protecting the accepted leadership of the Bahá'í Faith and after Shoghi Effendi's appointment there was little internal opposition until after her death when nephews began to openly oppose Shoghi Effendi over Bahá'u'lláh's house in Baghdad.[14] Some family members disapproved of his marriage to a Westerner, Mary Maxwell — daughter of one of the foremost disciples of `Abdu'l-Bahá — in 1937. They claimed that Shoghi Effendi introduced innovations beyond the Iranian roots of the Faith. This gradually resulted in his siblings and cousins disobeying his instructions and marrying into the families of Covenant-breakers, many of whom were expelled as Covenant-breakers themselves. However, these disagreements within Shoghi Effendi's family resulted in no attempts to create a schism around an alternative leader. At the time of his death in 1957, he was the only remaining male member of the family of Bahá'u'lláh who had not been expelled. Even his own parents had openly fought against him.[14]

American disputes

After the death of `Abdu'l-Bahá, Ruth White questioned the Will's authenticity as early as 1926,[16] and openly opposed Shoghi Effendi's Guardianship, publishing several books on the subject. She wrote a letter to the United States Postmaster General and asked him, among other things, to prohibit the National Spiritual Assembly from "using the United States Mails to spread the falsehood that Shoghi Effendi is the successor of `Abdu'l-Bahá and the Guardian of the Cause." She also wrote a letter to the High Commissioner for Palestine; both of these letters were ignored. No permanent schism or alternative leader came of her ideas.[17]

Another division occurred primarily within the American Bahá'í community, which increasingly consisted of non-Persians with an interest in alternative spiritual pursuits. Many had been strongly attracted to the personality of `Abdu'l-Bahá and the spiritual teachings of the Bahá'í Faith. Some regarded it as an ecumenical society to which all persons of goodwill — regardless of religion — might join. When Shoghi Effendi made clear his position that the Bahá'í Faith was an independent religion with its own distinct administration through local and national spiritual assemblies, a few felt that he had overstepped the bounds of his authority. Most prominent among them was a New York group including Mirza Ahmad Sohrab and Lewis and Julia Chanler, which founded the "New History Society," and its youth section, the Caravan of East and West.[18][19] Sohrab and the Chanlers refused to be overseen by the New York Spiritual Assembly, and were expelled by Shoghi Effendi as Covenant-breakers.[20] They argued that the expulsion was meaningless because they believed the faith could not be institutionalized. The New History Society published several works by Sohrab and Chanler and others. The New History Society attracted fewer than a dozen Bahá'ís, however its membership swelled to several thousand for a time. It is now defunct.[21] The Caravan House, aka Caravan Institute, later disassociated itself from the Bahá'í Faith, and remained as an unrelated non-profit educational organization.[22]

The founding of the Universal House of Justice

When Shoghi Effendi died in 1957, he died without explicitly appointing a successor Guardian.[23][24] He had no children, and during his lifetime all remaining male descendants of Bahá'u'lláh had been excommunicated as Covenant-breakers.[23] He left no will.[23] Shoghi Effendi's appointed Hands of the Cause unanimously voted it was impossible to legitimately recognize and assent to a successor.[24][25][26] The Bahá'í community was in a situation not dealt with explicitly in the provisions of the Will and Testament of `Abdu'l-Bahá.[23] Furthermore, the Universal House of Justice had not yet been elected, which represented the only Bahá'í institution authorized to adjudicate on matters not covered by the religion's three central figures.[27] To understand the transition following the death of Shoghi Effendi in 1957, an explanation of the roles of the Guardian, the Hands of the Cause, and the Universal House of Justice is useful.



Other than allusions in the writings of Bahá'u'lláh to the importance of the Aghsán, the role of the Guardian was not mentioned until the reading of the Will and Testament of `Abdu'l-Bahá. Shoghi Effendi later expressed to his wife and others that he had no foreknowledge of the existence of the Institution of Guardianship, least of all that he was appointed as Guardian.[28][29]

`Abdu'l-Bahá warned the Bahá'ís to avoid the problems caused by his half-brother Muhammad `Alí.[29] He stipulated the criteria and form for selecting future Guardians, which was to be clear and unambiguous.[23] His will required that the Guardian appoint his successor "in his own life-time ... that differences may not arise after his [the Guardian's] passing."[23][30] The appointee was required to be either the first-born son of the Guardian, or one of the Aghsán (literally: Branches; male descendants of Bahá'u'lláh).[23] Finally, `Abdu'l-Bahá left a responsibility to nine Hands of the Cause, elected from all of the Hands, who "whether unanimously or by a majority vote, must give their assent to the choice of the one whom the Guardian of the Cause of God hath chosen as his successor."[27][30]

The will also vested authority in the Guardian's appointed assistants, known as the Hands of the Cause, giving them the right to "cast out from the congregation of the people of Bahá" anyone they deem in opposition to the Guardian.[5][30][31]

Relationship between the Guardianship and the Universal House of Justice

The roles of the Guardianship and the Universal House of Justice are complementary, the former providing authoritative interpretation, and the latter providing flexibility and the authority to adjudicate on "questions that are obscure and matters that are not expressly recorded in the Book."[23][32][33][34] The authority of the two institutions was elucidated by `Abdu'l-Bahá in his will, saying that rebellion and disobedience towards either the Guardian or the Universal House of Justice, is rebellion and disobedience towards God.[23][32][35] Shoghi Effendi went into further detail explaining this relationship in The World Order of Bahá'u'lláh, indicating that the institutions are interdependent.[32][36]

Role of the Hands of the Cause

Shortly after Shoghi Effendi's death, the 27 then-living Hands of the Cause (Hands) deliberated over whether or not they could legitimately consent to any successor.[37][38] Following these events Time Magazine reported that there were debates about two possible candidates for Guardian.[39]

On November 25, 1957, the Hands signed a unanimous proclamation stating that he had died "without having appointed his successor"; that "it is now fallen upon us... to preserve the unity, the security and the development of the Bahá'í World Community and all its institutions"; and that they would elect from among themselves nine Hands who would "exercise ... all such functions, rights and powers in succession to the Guardian of the Bahá'í Faith... as are necessary to serve the interests of the Bahá'í World Faith, and this until such time as the Universal House of Justice... may otherwise determine." This body of nine Hands became known as the Hands of the Cause in the Holy Land, sometimes referred to as the Custodians.[24][40][41]

That same day the Hands passed a unanimous resolution that clarified who would have authority over various executive areas.[5][42][43] Among these were:

  • "That the entire body of the Hands of the Cause, ... shall determine when and how the International Bahá'í Council shall pass through the successive stages outlined by Shoghi Effendi culminating in the election of the Universal House of Justice"
  • "That the authority to expel violators from the Faith shall be vested in the body of nine Hands [The Custodians.], acting on reports and recommendations submitted by Hands from their respective continents."

In their deliberations following Shoghi Effendi's passing they determined that they were not in a position to appoint a successor, only to ratify one, so they advised the Bahá'í community that the Universal House of Justice would consider the matter after it was established.[27][44][45]

In deciding when and how the International Bahá'í Council would develop into the Universal House of Justice, the Hands agreed to carry out Shoghi Effendi's plans for moving it from the appointed council, to an officially recognized Bahá'í Court, to a duly elected body, and then to the elected Universal House of Justice.[46] In November 1959, referring to the goal of becoming recognized as a non-Jewish religious court in Israel, they said: "this goal, due to the strong trend towards the secularization of Religious Courts in this part of the world, might not be achieved."[47][48] The recognition as a religious court was never achieved, and the International Bahá'í Council was reformed in 1961 as an elected body in preparation for forming the Universal House of Justice.[49] The Hands of the Cause made themselves ineligible for election to both the council and the Universal House of Justice.[49][50][51]

Upon the election of the Universal House of Justice at the culmination of the Ten Year Crusade in 1963, the nine Hands acting as interim head of the religion closed their office.[27][52][53][54]

Charles Mason Remey

Charles Mason Remey was among the Hands who signed the unanimous proclamations in 1957, acknowledging that Shoghi Effendi had died without having appointed his successor.[26][55] He was also among the nine Custodians initially elected to serve in the Holy Land as interim head of the religion.[24][40][56]

On 8 April 1960, Remey made a written announcement that he was the second Guardian of the Bahá'í Faith and explained his "status for life as commander in chief of Bahá’í affairs of the world" in this proclamation which he requested to be read in front of the annual US convention in Wilmette.[57]

He based his claim on his having been appointed President of the first International Bahá'í Council by Shoghi Effendi in 1951.[55][58] The appointed council represented the first international Bahá'í body. Remey believed that his appointment as the council's president meant that he was the Guardian of the Bahá'í Faith.[55][59]

Regarding the authority of the Hands of the Cause, Remey wrote in his letter that the Hands "have no authority vested in themselves... save under the direction of the living Guardian of the Faith."[60] He further commanded the Bahá'ís to abandon plans for establishing the Universal House of Justice.[61]

Remey never addressed the requirement that Guardians should be male-descendants of Bahá'u'lláh, of whom Remey was not. His followers later referred to letters and public statements of `Abdu'l-Bahá calling him "my son" as evidence that he had been implicitly adopted[62] but these claims were almost universally rejected by the body of the Bahá'ís.[27][41]

In response, and after having made many prior efforts to convince Remey to withdraw his claim[63][64], the Custodians took action and sent a cablegram to the National Spiritual Assemblies on 26 July 1960.[65] Two days later the Custodians sent Mason Remey a letter informing him of their unanimous decision to declare him a Covenant-breaker.[55][66] They cited the Will and Testament of `Abdul-Bahá, the unanimous joint resolutions of November 25, 1957, and their authority in carrying out the work of the Guardian[67] as their justification. Anyone who accepted Remey's claim to the Guardianship was also expelled.[25][55][68]

Remey maintained his claim to Guardianship, and with a small group of followers went on to establish what came to be known as the Orthodox Bahá'ís Under the Hereditary Guardianship, which later broke into several other divisions based on succession disputes within the groups that followed Remey.[26][63][64][69]

Decision of the Universal House of Justice

Original members of the first Universal House of Justice, 1963.

The Bahá'í institutions and believers around the world pledged their loyalty to the Hands of the Cause, who dedicated the next few years to completing Shoghi Effendi's Ten Year Crusade, culminating with the election of the Universal House of Justice in 1963. It was at this time the Custodians officially passed their authority as the head of the Faith to the Universal House of Justice,[52][53][54] which soon announced that it could not appoint or legislate to make possible the appointment of a second Guardian to succeed Shoghi Effendi.[32][70]

A short time later it elaborated on the situation in which the Guardian would die without being able to appoint a successor, saying that it was an obscure question not covered by Bahá'í scriptures, that no institution or individual at the time could have known the answer, and that it therefore had to be referred to the Universal House of Justice, whose election was confirmed by references in Shoghi Effendi's letters that after 1963 the Bahá'í world would be led by international plans under the direction of the Universal House of Justice.[71]

A break in the line of Guardians

Mason Remey and his successors asserted that a living Guardian is essential for the Bahá'í community, and that the Bahá'í writings required it. The basis of these claims were almost universally rejected by the body of the Bahá'ís,[27][41] for whom the restoration of scripturally sanctioned leadership of the Universal House of Justice proved more attractive than the dubious claims of Mason Remey.[72]

The House commented that its own authority was not dependent on the presence of a Guardian,[32] and that its legislative functioning was unaffected by the absence of a Guardian.[23] It stated that in its legislation it would be able to turn to the mass of interpretation left by Shoghi Effendi.[23] The Universal House of Justice addressed this issue further early after its election clarifying that "there is nowhere any promise or guarantee that the line of Guardians would endure forever; on the contrary there are clear indications that the line could be broken."[73][74][75]

Further development of Remey's followers

All those that professed belief in Mason Remey as the second Guardian did not accept the Universal House of Justice established in 1963.

Among the Bahá'ís who accepted Mason Remey as the second Guardian, several further divisions have occurred based on conflicting opinions of legitimacy and succession of authority.[26][63][64] They began to split into smaller groups even before his death in 1974.[76] Small Remeyite groups are now largely confined to the United States.[26] Some of these divisions are described below.

The Encyclopædia Iranica reports the following:

Remey died in 1974, having appointed a third Guardian, but the number of adherents to the Orthodox faction remains extremely small. Although successful in Pakistan, the Remeyites seem to have attracted no followers in Iran. Other small groups have broken away from the main body from time to time, but none of these has attracted a sizeable following.[2]

Remey died at the age of 100 living many of his last years in Florence, Italy.[77]

Under the Hereditary Guardianship

In 1962 Mason Remey asked his supporters in the United States to organize themselves and elect a "National Spiritual Assembly Under the Hereditary Guardianship" (NSAUHG). The Assembly was incorporated in New Mexico in 1964.

In 1964 the NSAUHG filed a lawsuit against the National Spiritual Assembly (NSA) of the Bahá'ís of the United States to receive the legal title to the Bahá'í House of Worship in Illinois, and all other property owned by the NSA. The NSA counter-sued and won.[78] Later that year, Remey asked the NSAUHG to dissolve, as well as the second International Bahá'í Council that he had appointed with Joel Marangella as president, residing in France. Marangella, Donald Harvey, and Jacques Soghomonian previously served on the National Spiritual Assembly of France in 1961, and had been declared Covenant-breakers when they accepted Mason Remey as the next Guardian.[26]

Over the years following 1966 the followers of Mason Remey were not organized; several of the individuals involved began forming their own groups based on different understandings of succession.[26]

Orthodox Bahá'í Faith

Joel Marangella was president of Remey's "Second International Bahá'í Council", and claimed in 1969 to have been secretly appointed by Remey as Guardian several years earlier. His supporters came to be known as Orthodox Bahá'ís.[55] Membership data is scarce. One source estimated them at no more than 100 members in 1988,[79] and the group claimed a membership of about 40 in a 2007 court case.[80] Websites claiming to represent the Orthodox community indicate followers in the United States and India.[81] Messages from Joel Marangella indicate that he resides in Perth, Australia.[82]

Bahá'ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant

Leland Jensen was one of the believers who accepted Remey's claim to the Guardianship. In 1969 he was convicted of "a lewd and lascivious act" for sexually molesting a 15-year-old female patient,[83] and served four years of a twenty year sentence in the Montana State Prison. It was in prison that Jensen converted several inmates to his ideas of being what he called the "Establisher" of the Bahá'í Faith, stemming from his belief that the Bahá'í administrative order became corrupted following the death of Shoghi Effendi, and that he was chosen by God to re-establish the administration. After being paroled in 1973, and before Remey's death, Jensen formed a group called the Bahá'ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant.[84]

Since the 1970s, Jensen believed Remey's adopted son Joseph Pepe was the Guardian, an idea that Pepe rejected several times. In 1991 Jensen appointed followers to a second International Bahá'í Council (sIBC), intending that it would grow into an elected Universal House of Justice after a nuclear holocaust.[84] Jensen died in 1996.

A researcher has noted that since 1980 BUPC membership has never exceeded 200 nationwide,[84][85] and declined in size significantly by 1990 and beyond.[86] Adherents were mostly concentrated in Montana.[84]

Baha'is Loyal to Jacques Soghomonian

Donald Harvey (d.1991), was appointed by Remey as "Third Guardian" in 1967.[55] After Harvey's death in 1991, leadership of this group went to Jacques Soghomonian, a resident of Marseilles, Frances.[26]

Rex King

Rex King rejected all claimants to the Guardianship after Shoghi Effendi including Remey, but rather claimed that he, Rex King, was a "regent" pending the emergence of the second Guardian who was in "occultation". His group calls themselves the Orthodox Bahá'í Faith under the Regency. King died in 1977, and appointed four of his family as a council of regents. This group today calls itself the "Tarbiyat Baha'i Community".[26]

The Remey Society

Francis Spataro of New York City, who supported Donald Harvey's claim as Remey's successor, independently organized "The Remey Society" after losing favor with Harvey. Spataro published books about Charles Mason Remey,[87] and at one time had a newsletter with about 400 recipients. When Spataro began to preach that Charles Mason Remey was a "Prophet" Harvey cut all ties to Spataro. He then continued to promote the life and works of Charles Mason Remey. In 1995 Francis Spataro became an Old Catholic priest and left the Bahá'í religion altogether. The Remey Society is now extinct.

The Man

"The House of Mankind and the Universal Palace of Order" followed Jamshid Ma'ani and John Carré, but appears now to be defunct. In the early 1970s a Persian man named Jamshid Ma'ani claimed he was "The Man"; or a new Manifestation of God. He gained a few dozen Iranian Bahá'í followers. John Carré heard of Jamshid, and wrote a book about him; trying to get other Bahá'ís to accept him as a new Manifestation. Carré even invited "The Man" to live in his home in California, but soon concluded, after living with "The Man" for four months, that "The Man" was not at all godly or spiritual and certainly not a Manifestation of God. "The Man" went back to Iran, and Carré ended all association with him.[26]


One key Bahá'í doctrine is that the Faith cannot break into sects, Bahá'u'lláh and `Abdu'l-Bahá having gone to some trouble to guard against the possibility.[3][6][88][89] An obvious question then arises concerning the divisions described on this page. Outright opponents of the Bahá'í Faith have latched on to these divisions as evidence of the falsehood of Bahá'í claims and beliefs.[90]

However, the Bahá'í Writings do in fact envision that challenges to the authority of its successorship will occur but indicate that any divisions would not be permanent nor affect the "vast body of adherents".[91] The fact that there is even a process for expelling Covenant-breakers is seen as further evidence for the eventuality of some challenges to its leadership occurring.[6][88][89][92]

While critic, Denis MacEoin, opines that "it would be surprising if the movement succeeded in resisting tendencies towards fission, heterodoxy and popularization if it moves much beyond its present sectarian dimensions"[93], Bahá'ís point out that, while groups or individuals have left the religion, or been told to leave, these have not been as successful attracting followers, nor had as widespread an effect, as the mainstream Bahá'í community. Indeed, the vast majority of such schismatic groups are already extinct and those remaining have very few followers, especially when contrasted with the Bahá'í Faith's population, now numbering about five million.[3][88][89][94][95]

Very few statistics of the smaller groups are available, and the Encyclopædia Iranica reports that the smaller groups that have broken away from the main body have not attracted a sizeable following.[2][95] reports that the Bahá'í Faith is "almost entirely contained within one very organized, hierarchical denomination", led by the Universal House of Justice in Haifa.[4]


  1. ^ Momen & Smith 1989, p. 64
  2. ^ a b c Denis MacEoin, Encyclopædia Iranica , p. 448
  3. ^ a b c Barrett 2001, pp. 247-248
  4. ^ a b Major Branches of Religions Ranked by Number of Adherents,
  5. ^ a b c Smith 2000, pp. 115-116
  6. ^ a b c Momen 2003, §D [1]
  7. ^ Momen 2003, §G.2.b [2]
  8. ^ a b c d Momen 2003, §G.2.c [3]
  9. ^ Bahá'u'lláh, Tablets of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 221
  10. ^ Browne, p. 82
  11. ^ Taherzadeh 1992, pp. 227-229
  12. ^ Balyuzi 2001, p. 427
  13. ^ Bahá'í: Studies in Contemporary Religion, (Schisms Since the Bab, p64) by Margit Warburg ISBN 1-56085-169-4
  14. ^ a b c Momen 2003, §G.2.d.iv [4]
  15. ^ See Effendi 1944, p. 355 [5]
  16. ^ Momen 2003, §G.2.d.i [6]
  17. ^ Taherzadeh 1992, pp. 347-349 & Taherzadeh 2000, pp. 299-300227-229
  18. ^ Momen 2003, §G.2.d.ii [7]
  19. ^ Mirza Ahmad Sohrab, The Bahá'í Cause pp. 309-14
  20. ^ Taherzadeh 1992, pp. 343-347
  21. ^ The Basis of the Bahá'í Community: A Statement Concerning the New History Society [8]
  22. ^ Moojan Momen 2003, § G.2.d.ii [9] See also New York Tax Exempt and NonProfit Organizations [10]
  23. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Smith 2000, pp. 169-170
  24. ^ a b c d See Rabbani 1992, pp. 28-30 [11]
  25. ^ a b Taherzadeh 1992, pp. 430-432
  26. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Momen 2003, §G.2.e [12]
  27. ^ a b c d e f Smith 2000, pp. 175-177
  28. ^ See Rabbani 1969, p. 43
  29. ^ a b Smith 2000, pp. 356-357
  30. ^ a b c See `Abdu'l-Bahá 1901-08, p. 12 [13]
  31. ^ See `Abdu'l-Bahá 1901-08, p. 21 [14]
  32. ^ a b c d e Smith 2000, pp. 346-350
  33. ^ See `Abdu'l-Bahá 1901-1908, p. 20[15] and Effendi 1938, pp. 346-350 [16].
  34. ^ Taherzadeh 1992, p. 386
  35. ^ See `Abdu'l-Bahá 1901-1908, p. 11 [17]
  36. ^ See Effendi 1938, pp. 147-148 [18]
  37. ^ Momen & Smith 1989, p. 89
  38. ^ See Effendi 1871, p. 127 [19]
  39. ^ Time Magazine Dec. 9, 1957 "In the Hands of the Hands"
  40. ^ a b Smith 2000, p. 117
  41. ^ a b c Taherzadeh 2000, p. 368
  42. ^ See Rabbani 1992, p. 34 [20]
  43. ^ For their authority, the Custodians referred to the Will and Testament of `Abdul-Bahá which states that "the Hands of the Cause of God must elect from their own number nine persons that shall at all times be occupied in the important services in the work of the Guardian of the Cause of God.”(Hatcher & Martin 1998, p. 190)(`Abdu'l-Bahá 1901-08, p. 12) See: Rabbani, Ministry of the Custodians, 1992, Letter of 28 May 1960, to all National Spiritual Assemblies (pp. 204-206), Letter of 5 July 1960, to all National Spiritual Assemblies (pp. 208-209), Letter of 7 July 1960, to all Hands of the Cause, Cable of 26 July 1960, to all National Spiritual Assemblies (p.223), and Letter of 15 October 1960, to all National Spiritual Assemblies (pp. 231-236)[21] In addition, the Guardian had written that the Hands had executive authority in carrying out his directives. (Effendi 1982, pp. 82-83)[22]
  44. ^ Taherzadeh 1992, p. 379
  45. ^ Taherzadeh 2000, p. 356
  46. ^ See Rabbani 1992, p. 37 [23] and Effendi & 1971 pp-7-8 [24]
  47. ^ See Rabbani 1992, p. 169 [25]
  48. ^ Taherzadeh 1992, p. 324
  49. ^ a b Smith 2000, p. 200
  50. ^ Taherzadeh 1992, p. 391
  51. ^ Taherzadeh 2000, p. 372
  52. ^ a b See Rabbani 1992, p. 443 [26]
  53. ^ a b Taherzadeh 1992, pp. 393-394
  54. ^ a b Taherzadeh 2000, p. 369
  55. ^ a b c d e f g Smith 2000, p. 292
  56. ^ Taherzadeh 1992, p. 431
  57. ^ See Charles Mason Remey, Proclamation to the Bahá'ís of the World, p. 1 [27]
  58. ^ See Effendi 1971, pp. 8-9 [28]
  59. ^ The Hands of the Cause wrote regarding his reasoning on this point, "If the President of the International Bahá'í Council is ipso facto the Guardian of the Bahá'í Faith, then the beloved Guardian, himself, Shoghi Effendi would have had to be the President of this first International Bahá'í Council." (Rabbani 1992, p. 234) [29]
  60. ^ See Charles Mason Remey, Proclamation to the Bahá'ís of the World, p. 5 and also "Role of the Hands of the Cause".
  61. ^ See Charles Mason Remey, Proclamation to the Bahá'ís of the World, pp. 6-7 [30]
  62. ^ Brent Mathieu, Biography of Charles Mason Remey
  63. ^ a b c Taherzadeh 1992, p. 387
  64. ^ a b c Taherzadeh 2000, p. 370
  65. ^ See (Rabbani 1992, p. 223)
  66. ^ See Rabbani 1992, p. 197 [31]
  67. ^ See Effendi 1982, pp. 82-83 [32]
  68. ^ See Rabbani 1992, pp. 231-236 [33]
  69. ^ Smith 2000, pp. 292-293
  70. ^ The Universal House of Justice, Letter of 6 October 1963, Messages from the Universal House of Justice, 1963-1986, p. 14
  71. ^ The Universal House of Justice, Letter of 9 March 1965, Messages from the Universal House of Justice, 1963-1986, p. 50
  72. ^ Momen & Smith 1989, p. 76
  73. ^ Taherzadeh 1992, p. 390
  74. ^ The Universal House of Justice, Letter of 7 December 1969, Messages from the Universal House of Justice, 1963-1986, p. 158
  75. ^ The Universal House of Justice specifically refers to paragraph 42 of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas as evidence that Bahá'u'lláh anticipated that the line of Guardians was not guaranteed forever by providing for the disposition of the religion's endowments in the absence of the Aghsán.(Taherzadeh 1992, p. 390) See also Notes 66 and 67 of the The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, pp. 196-197.
  76. ^ Warburg 2004 [34]
  77. ^ Grattan, Joan (1995). "Special Collections: Milton S. Eisenhower Library". The Johns Hopkins University. Retrieved 2007-09-26. 
  78. ^ Bahá'ís vs New Mexico Group District Court, N.D. Illinois, E. Div. No. 64 C 1878. Decided June 28, 1966
  79. ^ THE COVENANT, Moojan Momen. Quoting Chicago Tribune, 10 June 1988, section 1, p. 9
  80. ^ [35], US District Court for Northern District Court of Illinois Eastern Division, Civil Action No. 64 C 1878: Orthodox Bahá'í Respondents' Surreply Memorandum to NSA's Reply Memorandum, p2 para 2 line 15
  81. ^, and
  82. ^ See this message posted 30 July 2006
  83. ^ State v. Jensen, 153 Mont. 233, 455 P.2d 631 (Montana, 1969)
  84. ^ a b c d Stone 2000, p. 271
  85. ^ Harvard researchers have noted a community of 30 members in the headquarters of Missoula, Montana in 2003, as well as the existence of BUPC adherents in Denver and Alaska. ("Bahá'í Faith Center". Harvard University, Committee on the Study of Religion. Retrieved 2007-08-19. )("Mapping Religious Diversity in Montana (2003)". Harvard University, Committee on the Study of Religion. Retrieved 2007-08-19. )
  86. ^ stone 2000, p. 280
  87. ^ *Spataro, Francis C. (2003). Charles Mason Remey and the Bahá'í Faith, Tover Publications, Queens, NY 11427-2116. 2003 ISBN 0-9671656-3-6.
  88. ^ a b c Taherzadeh 1992
  89. ^ a b c Taherzadeh 2000
  90. ^ Schaefer, et al. 2000
  91. ^ "A schism, a permanent cleavage in the vast body of its adherents, they could never create." [36]
  92. ^ See `Abdu'l-Bahá 1901-08 p 5 & p 20
  93. ^ See Denis MacEoin, "Bahá'ism", in A Handbook of Living Religions, p. 494.
  94. ^ See Bahá'í statistics
  95. ^ a b Momen 2003, §H [37]


  • Balyuzi, Hasan (2001). `Abdu'l-Bahá: The Centre of the Covenant of Bahá'u'lláh (Paperback ed.). Oxford, UK: George Ronald. ISBN 0853980438. 
  • Barrett, David (2001). The New Believers. London, UK: Cassell & Co. ISBN 0304355925. 
  • Cohen, Erik (1972). "The Bahá'í Community of Acre". Folklore Research Center Studies 3: pp. 119–141. 
  • "Bahá'í Faith: Bahá'í and Babi schisms". Encyclopædia Iranica. 1989. 
  • Hatcher, William; Martin, J.D. (1998). The Bahá'í Faith: The Emerging Global Religion. New York: Harper and Row. ISBN 0877432643. 
  • Hinnells, John R., ed (1984). A Handbook of Living Religions (Paperback ed.). London, UK: Penguin. ISBN 0140135995. 
  • Momen, Moojan; Smith, Peter (1989). "The Baha'i Faith 1957-1988: A Survey of Contemporary Developments". Religion 19: 63. doi:10.1016/0048-721X(89)90077-8. 
  • Rabbani, R. (1969). The Priceless Pearl (Hardcover ed.). London, UK: Bahá'í Publishing Trust: 2000. ISBN 1870989910. 
  • Schaefer, U.; Towfigh, N.; Gollmer, U. (2000). Making the Crooked Straight: A Contribution to Bahá'í Apologetics. Oxford, UK: George Ronald. ISBN 0853984433. 
  • Smith, Peter (2000). A concise encyclopedia of the Bahá'í Faith. Oxford: Oneworld Publications. ISBN 1-85168-184-1. 
  • Spataro, Francis C. (2003). Charles Mason Remey and the Bahá'í Faith, Tover Publications, Queens, NY 11427-2116. 2003 ISBN 0-9671656-3-6.
  • Stone, Jon R. (ed) (2000). Expecting Armageddon, Essential Readings in Failed Prophecy. New York: Routledge. pp. 269–282. ISBN 0-415-92331-x. 
  • Taherzadeh, Adib (1992). The Covenant of Bahá'u'lláh. Oxford, UK: George Ronald. ISBN 0853983445. 
  • Taherzadeh, Adib (2000). The Child of the Covenant. Oxford, UK: George Ronald. ISBN 0853984395. 

External links


Got something to say? Make a comment.
Your name
Your email address