Talk:Covenant-breaker

August 2003

Last edit totally became an apologetic for the larger group which proves apoint I guess as to the hardness of maintain a neutral point of view, So brought back Zoe's corrections as more neutral and non apologetic for either side and also gives in 3 paragraphs the definitions of Covenant Breaking that have existed, instead of a huge volumne defending the practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.219.219.117 (talk • contribs)

I can see the problem of neutrality you might have had on this. I've edited some other pages to tweak the presentation. It is probably useful to mention that the main group don't consider Ruth White and such covenant breakers because of their dissidence, per-se, but that they challenge the authenticity of the transfer of authority to Abd'ul-Baha. It's not only advancing a "false claim", but opposing a "true claim". But dissidence itself is a bit more fuzzy. In the modern context, dissidence and disobedience largely subjects one to administrative sanction, since Covenant Breaking is very specific. I wouldn't change the presentation, since it's quoted from elsewhere, but a suppliamentary note would be good.

Also, though I don't know how one would write this, there are some who have been "disenrolled" but who are not considered covenant breakers, because it was clear to the Universal House of Justice that they had not understood the covenant upon becoming Baha'is, and their opposition to the head of the faith was out of an ignorance of the meaning of the covenant. Baha'is are not encouraged to hang out with them, because they are, essentially, antagonistic. However, they are not required to shun them, as per the Will and Testament of Abd'ul-Baha. --ChristianEdwardGruber

you're doing absolutely fine there :) As long as you're not talking out of your arse (and you appear to know your stuff so you're not) just edit what you think needs changing, and someone will read over it to make any tweaks. Welcome to Wikipedia -- Tomhab 09:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The "Larger Baha'i Group"?

It seems inappropriate to refer to "the larger Baha'i group". The term implies that there is some degree of parity in numbers between the Baha'i community that recognises the Universal House of Justice and the Orthodox Baha'is who recognise personal successors to the Guardian instead. The former are numbered in millions while the latter seem to be numbered at most in hundreds. The former are in general universally recognised and represented while the latter appear to be limited to a few localities. Simply on the basis of numbers, it does not make sense to refer to the "larger Baha'i group" or the "main group". Unless and until the numbers are of the same order of magnitude, it would seem most appropriate to refer to those who follow the Universal House of Justice as simply the "Baha'i Community". Keeping numbers in context, groups such as the Orthodox Baha'is would then be presented as peripheral to the Baha'i Community, whatever the veracity of the respective claims. As this point would have repercussions through the various Baha'i-related articles, I prefer to read the opinions of other contributors before making changes to this--and maybe other--articles. --202.75.179.10 1 July 2005 12:51 (UTC)

Sorry, that was from me. --Occamy 4 July 2005 18:27 (UTC)

Do you think "Haifan group" would be more appropriate terminology? In an NPOV article about something as contentious as covenant-breaking, it is surely even more important than ever NOT to write the article from the assumption that one of the contending groups is correct and the others are wrong. PaulHammond 11:43, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

To call it the "haifan group" is as ridiculous as calling catholics the "italian group" Peter Deer (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy

Accuracy of statements about succession in the Will and Testament: The Will and Testament of Abdu'l-Baha states that the successors of the Guardian should be his lineal descendents, not any of Baha'u'llah's descendents. This critical distinction indicates clearly that no further Guardians can be appointed and the article should be edited accordingly. 70.22.11.40 03:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not correct. The Will says: "then must he, (the Guardian of the Cause of God) choose another branch to succeed him."(p 12)

Branch refers to male descendants of Baha'u'llah. This is clearly defined in the writings. Cuñado - Talk 04:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

While in the Will and Testament it does indicate that the first born son of the Guardian is his natural successor, it similarly states that if he does not manifest "the secret essence of his sire" as well as "manifest in himself detachment from all worldly things, must be the essence of purity, must show in himself the fear of God, knowledge, wisdom and learning" and does not have the assent of the nine elected from and by the Hands of the Cause, then another Ghusn must be chosen who meets the qualifications. (see page 10 of the Will and Testament in this regard.) On Remey's claims, even if everything regarding his supposed implied appointment and his alleged implied adoption were sound and true he did not have the approval of the majority vote of the selected Hands of the Cause. On the contrary, the custodians were such elected persons, of which Remey was one, and their unanimous conclusion was that Shoghi Effendi had not appointed a successor and that that there were no Aghsan left alive who had not been expelled as covenant-breakers, and thus there was no way that in accordance with the Will and Testament that Shoghi Effendi could have appointed a successor. Peter Deer (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed neutral lead

In order to remain neutral on this subject, one must try to think like a non-Bahá'í, expressing only the necessary and leaving out our own natural pro-Bahá'í biases (a phrase which seems to be an oxymnoron...). Thinking thusly, I edited what had been written before and came up with:

A Covenant-breaker is a person who has been expelled from the Bahá'í Faith for disunifying actions in open opposition to the laws and leadership of the Faith. The determination of Covenant-breaking and the authority to declare a Bahá'í a Covenant-breaker resides solely with the head of the Bahá'í Faith, which, since 1963, is the elected nine-member Universal House of Justice, the international governing body of the Bahá'í Faith. Bahá'ís are expected to avoid all association with Covenant-breakers, even with members of one's own family.

Suggestions for any needed ref cites? Questions? Comments? Great thoughts? (aka consultation...) GWFrog (talk) 17:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The lead is simply dishonest: Excommunication among Baháʼís is rare and not used for transgressions of community standards, intellectual dissent, or conversion to other religions.[2][4] Instead, it is the most severe punishment, reserved for suppressing organized dissent that threatens the unity of believers.[5] . It's well documented that Shoghi Effendi declared multiple individuals as covenant breakers, and in each case the reason was for more petty than those listed here, e.g. people marrying against his wishes, travelling against his wishes, having certain parents or lineage, etc. Drcombo (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Lead rework 2017

I'd like to improve the lead and get the notice removed. I've tried to expand it a little and get it to summarize important points below. I feel none of the points need citations because they are clearly cited when they are addressed in more depth, and my understanding of policy allows statements in lead to go uncited if this is the case. Thoughts? penultimate_supper (talk) 23:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Pretty good effort IMO; your additions add some much-needed context. dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 13:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Adding Joel Marangella's book to "Further reading" section

I would like to add this book https://www.worldcat.org/title/brief-history-of-the-violation-of-the-covenant-of-bahaullah-at-the-world-center-of-the-bahai-faith-following-the-passing-of-the-first-guardian-of-the-bahai-faith/oclc/852532044 to the article. Please suggest where should I add this?Serv181920 (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

avoid unnecessary association

I think the original version was actually more neutral. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, There are many quotations that explicitly say that association with covenant-breakers is forbidden. So, i believe the current version is accurate. However, if you wish to add that "Baháʼís are expected to avoid unnecessary association", please add it somewhere in the next paragraphs.Serv181920 (talk) 07:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

covenant breaking

Cuñado , Gazelle55 , Serv181920, I have edited the page: -“Baha’is consider covenant breaking as a contagious disease hence they maintain a safe distance from covenant breakers and are relatively unaware about existence of other groups except their names. To be fair with these groups, they do not consider themselves as covenant breakers but see the Haifa Baha’is as real covenant Breakers. They believe that it is a ploy of Haifa Baha’is to keep them ignorant of the actual fact hence a scientific study of both the groups are required so as to be appreciated by both the groups”. This is taken directly from Johnson’s book. xiv The above paragraph is perfectly neutral because Guardian and UHJ both have a right to declare a covenant breaker.Cunado says it is non neutal. Havent my edit mentions both the groups.Jammu58 (talk) 11:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jammu58, some part of what you want to add from Johnson's book is already there in the article, except that "Covenant-breaking is believed by the mainstream Baha'is as a contagious disease."Serv181920 (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Is the statement that “The Universal House of Justice has the sole authority to declare a person a Covenant-breaker,” is a NPOV case?. Isn't Guardian have also a right to declare a person as covenant breaker? I feel my paragraph is a NPOV case and it should appear in the second lead paragraph against what is already present.Jammu58 (talk) 08:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Why are you removing this Cuñado?

Shoghi Effendi applied the following terms to covenant-breakers, dissidents, apostates and opponents:

Diabolical, ambitious, malevolent, deluded, ‘shameless apostate’, brazen, infamous, insidious, ‘vile whisperer’, Antichrist, ‘the living embodiment of wickedness, cupidity and deceit’, blasphemous, unspeakably repugnant, perfidious, unquenchable animosity, arrogant, treacherous, despicable, ‘blind, uncontrollable animosity’, ‘the most shameless, vicious, relentless apostate’, ‘the incarnation of Satan’, ‘fiendish ingenuity and guile’, infernal, nefarious, defectors, betrayers.

Udo Shaefer also mentions these titles in his book on the Introduction of Baha'i Law:

...they who "sow the seeds of doubt in the hearts of men" and promote "discord" and bring about "division." 'Abdu'l-Baha calls them "mischief-makers" who are "seeking leadership." Because they do not declare their evil intentions openly but instead "they secretly sow the seeds of suspicion" — "sweet in words, ... but at heart a deadly poison" — they are also referred to as "hypocrites" (al-munafiqun).

https://bahai-library.com/pdf/s/schaefer_introduction_bahai_law.pdf

References

Serv181920 (talk) 10:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I fail to see how it adds to the article. Show me an independent reliable source discussing Baha'i Covenant-breaking that gives that list in a 3-page summary of the issue. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

How it adds to the book of Udo Schaefer? Why would Schaefer bring the quoted part into his book? This gives a good summary of what Baha'i leaders and Baha'is think of the Covenant-breakers.Serv181920 (talk) 11:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

It is pretty obscure to quote a paragraph of words Shoghi Effendi used. The burden of good editing is on you. I spend a lot of time cleaning up messes. In the right context, some of those phrases he used would go in the article text to give examples of how they are portrayed. Maybe someone has already selected a few examples, but the article should be written as a summary of the issue, not pulling in any-and-all material that is picked from a large book to push a POV. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

This paragraph represents a concise summary, curating the hateful and divisive rhetoric of Shoghi Effendi on the topic of covenant breakers. Cunado is not the authority here and mustn't be permitted to whitewash Baha'i articles based on his personal beliefs. This is a valid secondary source and adds greatly to the article for the general (non-biased) reader. It must be reintroduced. Drcombo (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

And Cuñado why have you been violating WP:EDIT

According to WP:EDIT "Improve pages wherever you can, and do not worry about leaving them imperfect. Preserve the value that others add, even if they "did it wrong" (try to fix it rather than delete it)."

You have removed so much, Why?

Serv181920 (talk) 11:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Long quotes of primary sources pulled together out of context to push a POV? I'm here to build an encyclopedia by improving articles. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

You are vandalizing them. You can surely improve them with your ability but I feel you don't want to. Because as a Baha'i you don't like it. "There is no doubt that in a thousand passages in the sacred writings of Bahá'u'lláh the breakers of the Covenant have been execrated." - Abdul Baha ( https://bahai-library.com/writings/shoghieffendi/gpb/251-255.html)Serv181920 (talk) 11:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Dear Cuñado, you are very well aware of the fact that Second Guardian of the Baha'i Faith Charles Mason Remey and his followers-the Orthodox Baha'is are regarded covenant breaker by Mainstream Baha'is (Also known as Haifan/Hetrodox/sans-guardian Bahais). Hence kindly put factual information and do not in general terms call us (The Orthodox Baha'is) a Covenant Breaker.Asad29591 (talk) 04:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

You are pushing a pov that is not only not mainstream but fringe and unsupported. Cuñado's edits have been in good faith to the goals and policies of wikipedia. Smkolins (talk) 11:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Dear Smkolins removing disrespecting and nonfactual content shouldn't be termed as POV pushing. What I have put, I have supporting reference for the same. I shall add that. #Orthodox Baha'is deserve to be respected and not be labelled as covenant breakers (a term given to them by mainstream/haifan bahais).Asad29591 (talk) 03:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The only basis for inclusion in wikipedia is what reliable sources present. Even saying mainstream suggests there is a alternative group. The legal status and membership numbers of the host of Baha'i organizations and institutions is beyond "mainstream". No other group has hardly a presence in reliable sources save to say they once existed as groups and now hardly number more than a handful of which no organization, no institution, is to be found save in unreliable sources. Smkolins (talk) 10:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Dear Smkolins, the very first point that i want to make here is that the reference which has been put against the statement is from Moojan Momen who belongs to the Heterodox/Mainstream Baha'i faith and it is obvious that since he belongs to that group, his view will be against the other Baha'i sects like Orthodox Baha'i Faith. The statement is not neutral and it also disrespects the second Guardian of the Baha'i Faith as well as his followers.

Secondly the reference which I had put is from a reliable secondary source. Now since it is not in favor of the sect that does not believe in continuation of Guardianship, it is being called unreliable.

Thirdly, you are saying that mainstream suggests an alternative group. So yes Baha'i Faith is divided into different sects and there are enough evidence for the same which one should not shy away from. There are evidences of their existence, their texts, their writings and the justifications that they provide like in the case of Orthodox Baha'i Faith.

As i have requested Cuñado as well in the past, I request you to not treat Wikipedia as a personal blog or website. Before you edit to reverts you should check or seek justifications and not go against the policies of Wikipedia. #Respect the policy of Wikipedia.Asad29591 (talk) 13:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Asad29591, as I have mentioned on your talk page 3 times, and numerous article talk pages, read and apply WP:WEIGHT. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Dear Cuñado, the information that you are putting is completely biased and promoting POV of Mainstream Baha'i sect. So I would request you to kindly not be biased and put correct information. We both are here to make the articles better and not to spoil it.Asad29591 (talk) 03:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Dear Smkolins, you had reverted my edit stating I am removing correctly cited material. So I apologize for the same however I hope when I put a correctly cited matter, the same will not reverted by you or Cunado. Because the fact still stays the same that the matter you and cunado are putting is biased and promoting POV of Mainstream/Hethrodox Baha'i sect. I have made a small addition to the same and hope that the same will not be reverted. Lets work together to improve the page and make it not only factual but also truthful.--Asad29591 (talk) 03:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Names of Covenant-breakers that can be added to the article.

Covenant Breakers: in the East, the West, and at the World Center.

In the East:

1. 'Abdu'l-Husayn Avarih (1853-1953): Native of Taft, clergyman, outstanding teacher, opium user, called to Haifa, fame in West, agitation in Egypt, expulsion, asks for income, he requested for reinstatement but did not repent, alliance with external enemies, shunned, bankrupt, his books; '..sordid and treacherous mind...' '...most shameless, vicious, relentless apostate...'
2. Faydu'llah Subhi: secretary to Master, followed Avarih, repented from the Faith to Ayatu'llah Burujirdi.
3. Fa'iq: American, in Egypt, founded 'Scientific Society'.
4. Falah: in Iskandarun, '...pride, obstinacy and insatiable ambition...'
5. Hasan-i-Niku: teacher of the Faith in India, followed Avarih, three books against the Faith, ignored by the believers.

In the West:

1. Ahmad Sohrab (1888-1958): sent to America by the Master to serve Mirza Abu'l-Fadl, secretary and interpreter of the Master, rebelled, formed 'The New History Society' and 'Caravan of East and West', attempted to penetrate American Baha'i community, joined the old Covenant breakers, press conference in Haifa and Tel Aviv, wife and daughter faithful, changed their names.
2. Dr. Amin Fareed: nephew of Munirih Khanum, son of Mirza Asadu'llah who transported the remains of the Bab to Akka, Interpreter of Abdu'l-Baha in West, MD from U. of Chicago sponsored by the Master, stole 'Abdu'l-Baha's seal and collected funds fraudulently, broke the Covenant, was expelled by 'Abdu'l-Baha, '...ungovernable cupidity...'
3. Mrs. Lewis Stuyvesant (Julie) Chanler: supported Ahmad Sohrab, petitioned President of Israel for property rights of Covenant breakers, representing 'free Baha'is'!
4. Mrs. Ruth White: challenged authenticity of the Will, petitioned US Postmaster General, her husband repented but could not remain faithful.
5. Dr. Herrigel: founder member of German Baha'i Community, followed Mrs. White
6. Dyre in Washington; and Fernald in Chicago;

And at the World Center:

1. Mirza Muhammad-'Ali (?-1937): The Greater Branch, son of Baha'u'llah, arch-breaker of the Covenant.
2. Mirza Badi'u'llah (?-1950): youngest son of Baha'u'llah,
3. Majdu'd-Din (?-1955): son of a faithful brother of Baha'u'llah (Mirza Musa, Aqay-i-Kalim), '...incarnation of Satan...'
4. Shu'a'u'llah (?-1950): son of Mirza Muhammad-Ali,
5. Musa (?-1950): son of Mirza Muhammad-Ali,
6. Haji Siyyid 'Ali Afnan: son of Haji Mirza Siyyid Hasan Afnan-i-Kabir, brother of the wife of the Bab, one of the greatest enemies of 'Abdu'l-Baha
7. Nayyir Afnan (?-1952), greatest enemy of Shoghi Effendi, son of Haji Siyyid 'Ali Afnan
8. Ruhangiz Rabbani: eldest sister of Shoghi Effendi, married Nayyir Afnan, arranged infiltration of Covenant breaking families into the family of 'Abdu'l-Baha by marriage
9. Mehrangiz Rabbani (Shoghi Effendi's younger sister), Hasan Afnan and Faydi Afnan, all expelled in Oct. 1941
10. Ruhi Afnan (secretary of the Guardian), Fu'ad Afnan, and Thurayya Afnan, children of Tuba Khanum, daughter of 'Abdu'l-Baha, expelled in Nov. 1941
11. Munib Shahid, son of Ruha Khanum, daughter of 'Abdul-Baha, expelled Nov. 1944.
12. Husayn Rabbani: younger brother and secretary of the Guardian, expelled April, 1945.
13. Riaz Rabbani: youngest brother of Shoghi Effendi, expelled Dec. 1951

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20140221112645/http://www.bci.org/bahaistudies/courses/shoghi.htm Serv181920 (talk) 11:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Rather than repeat this on several pages, I suggest you agree to the name change at Baha'i divisions and make that the place to consolidate this information, then leave this page and Baha'u'llah's family dedicated to their subjects. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

We are not repeating anything. Even if we are, I guess, there is no problem if relevant information is repeated on few pages. Serv181920 (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)