A problem with the 'history' of the Baha'i Faith

Wednesday, 28 November 2018 04:34 Written by  font size decrease font size decrease font size increase font size increase font size

By: Dale Husband




Taherzadeh wrote in The Revelation of Baha'u'llah, Volume 4, Chapter 26:


"The signs of the violation of the Covenant appeared on the actual day of the ascension. The body of Baha'u'llah was awaiting interment when His sons secretly launched their treacherous schemes to rob the Centre of the Covenant of His legitimate successor which was explicitly conferred upon Him by Baha'u'llah Himself. A detailed account of this breaking of the Covenant is beyond the scope of this book. It is, however, the hope of the present author to produce, God willing, one or two volumes on the Covenant of Baha'u'llah as a sequel to the four volumes of The Revelation of Baha'u'llah. The study of the Kitab-i-'Ahd with all its implications will also be carried out in these forthcoming volumes."


Here's a problem with the 'history' of the Baha'i Faith: If the younger sons were indeed so unfaithful, why would Baha'u'llah, who was supposed to be a Prophet of God, proclaim in his Will and Testament (the Kitab-i-'Ahd) that the Greater Branch (Muhammad Ali) would have a rank in the Faith below that of the Most Mighty Branch (Abdu'l-Baha) and would also be Abdu'l-Baha's successor, even stating this was what God wanted? This is a clear failure on the part of Baha'u'llah. A real Prophet able to foresee the future would have avoided mentioning any of the younger sons at all.


If something does not make sense, it cannot be true, period.




Read 92 times
Rate this item
(0 votes)

Template Settings


For each color, the params below will give default values
Black Blue Brow Green Cyan


Background Color
Text Color
Layout Style
Select menu
Google Font
Body Font-size
Body Font-family