The \"Covenant\" and \"Covenant-breakers\"

 

By far, the worst problem with the Baha\'i faith as most Baha\'is understand it today is the Baha\'i concept called \"the Covenant\" and the treatment of Baha\'is who are considered heretics, called \"Covenant-breakers.\" Ever since Baha\'u\'llah passed away and his eldest son Abdu\'l-Baha became the leader of the faith, Baha\'is have had the notion of a special \"Covenant\" between God and the Baha\'is, that the Baha\'i religion will always remain united under one organization and will always have a perfect and infallible source of divine guidance in this world in the form of the highest Baha\'i leader or institution. Baha\'is who do not believe this, or who support alternative Baha\'i organizations, may be declared to be Covenant-breakers and shunned by all members of the Haifan Baha\'i Faith organization.

This fundamentalist, even cult like idea and practice originated in the teachings of Abdu\'l-Baha, who claimed that his appointment to lead the Baha\'is after Baha\'u\'llah meant that all Baha\'is must regard him as morally perfect and infallible; that all his writings were to carry the same authority as scripture; and that he had the authority to tell all Baha\'is what to believe and do. His younger brother, Ghusn-i-Akbar (usually called by his given name, Muhammad Ali), objected to these claims of Abdu\'l-Baha and believed that no religious leader other than the Manifestations of God should have that much authority. Ghusn-i-Akbar had been appointed by Baha\'u\'llah in his Will and Testament to become his second successor, after Abdu\'l-Baha. Instead, Abdu\'l-Baha declared him a heretic, excommunicated him, and demanded that all Baha\'is shun him. Most of Baha\'u\'llah\'s children and other descendants and relatives sympathized with Ghusn-i-Akbar and disagreed with Abdu\'l-Baha\'s claims, and they were also excommunicated and shunned by the majority of Baha\'is, who were loyal to Abdu\'l-Baha.

This is how the concept of \"Covenant-breaking\" was born in the Baha\'i faith. Abdu\'l-Baha appointed his own grandson, Shoghi Effendi, to be his successor instead of Ghusn-i-Akbar, and called him the \"Guardian\" of the faith. He instructed him to appoint a successor before his death from among his own children or relatives to become the next Guardian. However, Shoghi Effendi found himself unable to have children of his own, and during his lifetime he declared all of his relatives to be Covenant-breakers because, in his view, they were not sufficiently obedient to his supposedly absolute authority over the Baha\'is.

Therefore, the chain of succession of individual Baha\'i leaders came to an end. Shoghi Effendi died suddenly without leaving a will, and did not provide specific instructions during his lifetime about who should lead the Baha\'i Faith after his death. As one might imagine, this situation led to a power struggle. Ultimately, the vast majority of Baha\'is consolidated under the authority of an elected institution called the Universal House of Justice. However, according to Abdu\'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi, this institution was required to have a Guardian as its chairman, who would have the right to insist on reconsideration of its decisions and to expel its members if necessary.

Therefore, a Baha\'i who adheres to all the writings and teachings of the recognized successors of Baha\'u\'llah could legitimately question whether the current leadership organ of the Baha\'i Faith known as the UHJ could possibly be perfect and infallible without a Guardian heading it. However, Baha\'i Faith members are not allowed to question this or to regard the UHJ as merely a council of religious leaders making human decisions for the Baha\'i Faith organization. Instead, they must profess belief that the Baha\'i Covenant is still intact, that an infallible chain of succession of spiritual authority has never been broken. Baha\'is are not supposed to disagree with any decision of the UHJ, since this institution is regarded as speaking for God.

I disagree with this on two levels: For one thing, it seems clear to me from the facts of Baha\'i history that the Covenant did not pan out the way it was supposed to, first because the person who was originally supposed to become Abdu\'l-Baha\'s successor was excommunicated unfairly; and furthermore because of the untimely death of his replacement, Shoghi Effendi, who did not appoint a successor.

Secondly, I simply do not believe there could ever be such a thing as a perfect chain of infallible spiritual authority. The Holy Spirit doesn\'t want to be limited to working through such a single channel, and what happened in the Baha\'i faith ironically proves this. It\'s almost as if God Himself intervened to make sure that it would be impossible to believe, in a logical and intellectually honest way, in the fundamentalist Baha\'i idea of \"the Covenant.\" Also, since the time of Baha\'u\'llah there have been various other spiritual leaders and movements that were not part of the Baha\'i faith, and some of these clearly were infused with divine inspiration. Examples include the Unitarians and Universalists, Transcendentalists, the New Thought and New Age movements, and the Charismatic movement.

Today, most Baha\'is consider Baha\'is who reject the claims of infallible authority by the Haifan Baha\'i Faith\'s highest leadership institution to be \"Covenant-breakers,\" terrible heretics who are reviled and shunned by \"true\" Baha\'is. Two alternative Baha\'i organizations were sued by the mainstream Baha\'i Faith organization, simply because they use the word Baha\'i to describe their beliefs. The Baha\'i Faith\'s leaders actually had the audacity to claim that the word Baha\'i is trademarked by their own organization and that such a trademark – on the name of a religion – is legitimate. It would be as if the Roman Catholic Church claimed that Protestants cannot describe themselves as Christian and sued their churches. Such attitudes among Baha\'is are intolerant, fanatical, and characteristic of cults rather than the major world religion for modern times that the Baha\'i faith aspires to be. In 2010, the court sided with the small Baha\'i denominations and ruled that the name of the Baha\'i religion is in the public domain.

Baha\'is should put aside the notion of a special Covenant decreed by God that demands that all Baha\'is must only support one Baha\'i organization and always agree with its leadership. This idea has been disproved by Baha\'i history, and it is incompatible with the modern, progressive ideals of religious tolerance and diversity that the Baha\'i faith is supposed to stand for.

Sourced by:Bahai-Faith.com