=46rom the Hand of the Cause blog (http://
handsofthebahaifaith.typepad.com/)
I have been thinking back to the evidentiary hearing held last January
7th in federal court in Chicago in which I represented the Orthodox
Bah=E1'=ED respondents against the Wilmette NSA's unsuccessful attempt to
bind the Orthodox Bah=E1'=EDs to an Injunction entered in 1966 against the
long defunct NSA that had been loyal to Charles Mason Remey. For more
information on that legal action, click here:
http://trueseeker.typepad.com/true_seeker/court_case.html
But I do not intend to discuss that legal action in this posting,
except to discuss the testimony of NSA member and former Secretary,
Dr. Robert Henderson, speaking on behalf of the Wilmette NSA
concerning the Covenant of Bah=E1'u'll=E1h. In his direct testimony under
friendly questioning by the NSA's attorney, Dr. Henderson spoke about
the Bah=E1'=ED Faith, its teachings and his study of it. I am here
questioning Dr. Henderson on cross-examination about the Will and
Testament of `Abdu'l-Bah=E1 and whether it was a teaching of the
Bah=E1'=ED
Faith that the Will and Testament anticipated a succession of
Guardians:
Q. And did -- did not the Will & Testament anticipate a
succession or line of Guardians from one to another?
A. It didn't anticipate it. What it said was that the --
that Shoghi Effendi could appoint a Guardian within -- in his
lifetime.
Q. Did it say could or did it say he should?
A. Could.
That was not the time or place to argue with the witness, but he got
it wrong. `Abdu'l-Bah=E1 states in the Will and Testament:
"O ye beloved of the Lord! It is in***bent upon the Guardian of the
Cause of God to appoint in his own life-time him that shall become his
successor, that differences may not arise after his passing."
Dr. Henderson's reading of that passage is that the Guardian "could"
appoint a successor. My reading of it, and of the Guardians, is that
the word "in***bent" is mandatory. According to the American Heritage
Dictionary, the word "in***bent" means "obligatory." I think the
Guardian should appoint his successor, not could.
Here is a Bah=E1'=ED who has a distinguished career as a member of the
NSA, who testified about his extensive study of the Bah=E1'=ED teachings,
and on a fundamental teaching of the Covenant, he was woefully
ignorant. He did not know that Shoghi Effendi had an obligation to
appoint his successor during his lifetime.
This ignorance of the fundamentals is widespread amongst the Bah=E1'=EDs
under the jurisdiction of the Wilmette NSA. It is so embarrassing how
ignorant the Bah=E1'=EDs remain about these fundamental verities of the
Cause, that I would think the Wilmette NSA would want to embark on a
massive education campaign to teach itself and its followers about the
truth of the Bah=E1'=ED Faith.
The Orthodox Bah=E1'=EDs have recently begun participating on You Tube by
posting videos, and the comments and inquiries coming in again display
this appalling ignorance, in that they repeatedly say that Shoghi
Effendi did not leave a Will and Testament and therefore he did not
appoint his successor.
First of all, it is appalling that so many Bah=E1'=EDs have the audacity
to assert and believe that Shoghi Effendi failed to abide by and to
fulfill the wishes of his grandfather, who made it in***bent upon the
Guardian to appoint his successor. In fact, Shoghi Effendi fulfilled
all of his duties and obligations as Guardian, and all of you who
suggest otherwise should be ashamed.
It is also appalling that Bah=E1'=EDs continue to insist that Shoghi
Effendi should have left a Will when `Abdu'l-Bah=E1's instructions are
clearly otherwise so that differences would not arise, as is typically
the case with controversial Wills. The Guardian must appoint during
his lifetime. That means, not by a Will. If `Abdu'l-Bah=E1 intended that
the Guardian should leave a Will, it would be redundant to say that he
should write his Will during his lifetime since one cannot write a
Will after one is dead. A Will has no effect and its provisions are
unknown until death. Therefore, it is obvious that an appointment made
during one's lifetime must be by means other than a Will. If it is so
differences may not arise, then it is obviously supposed to be made
while the Guardian is still alive so that he might resolve those
differences.
Since the Orthodox Bah=E1'=EDs are going to have this conversation, like
it or not as there is no lawful way for you to prevent this
conversation from occurring, you would think the Bah=E1'=EDs who follow
and sup****t the Wilmette NSA would want to fully understand and to
study this subject before engaging us in debate. The problem for the
Wilmette NSA if they do that is, of course, they run the risk of
having their members awaken to the truth of the Orthodox Bah=E1'=EDs'
teachings.
Jeffrey
|
