Who Are the Baha\'is Really?

Mirza Yahya or \"Everlasting Dawn\" who was appointed by \"The Bab\" as successor. The Babi Mirza Husayn Ali turned out to be a more aggressive organizer than the gentle Mirza Yahya and ended up with control of the movement.

The Baha\'is continually falsified their own history, especially the history of the Bab and Mirza Yahya. Though claiming to be the successorship of the Bab, they extirpated all copies of the Bab\'s writings including his main book \"The Bayan.\" \'Adbu\'l-Baha, the son of Baha\'u\'llah and his successor, continued to falsify the past in his history called \"A Traveler\'s Narrative,\" and the omissions and distortions were remarked upon by the orientalist E.G. Browne of Cambridge, who had studied the Babis and early Baha\'is right in their own locales, including a meeting with Baha\'u\'llah. 

Mirza Yahya:


An astounding photograph of Mirza Yahya, the Bab-appointed mystic, who Mirza Husayn beat in the struggle for leadership. He is 80 years old in this photo! Notice the serenity of his face compared to Boss Man Baha. A picture\'s worth a thousand words. A righteous, God-focused life shows on one\'s face and reduces the effects of aging. Note his lucid, calm eyes.


One reason for the suppression of the Bab\'s writings was that it contained doctrines like reincarnation which were now being denied by the Baha\'is. Another was that the Bab\'s writings made it seem unlikely or impossible that Baha\'u\'llah could be his successor or that the new Baha\'i Faith could be legitimate.

This falsification of history then extended to the complete suppression of the Baha\'i Faith\'s central scripture in the west, the \"Kitab-i-Aqdas\" or \"Book of Laws,\" touted by Baha\'is as their most important scripture and the blueprint and laws to guide mankind for the next \"thousand years.\" Baha\'is have long dismissed the value of other religions by stating, disingenuously, that \"they don\'t have their original texts, we have the original texts.\" Or, they state that distortions have crept into the old religious texts. But Baha\'is did that up 10 times better by simply suppressing the text (along with the photo of Baha\'u\'llah) and not allowing anybody to read it. Then, when finally obligated to offer up some sort of translation of embarrassing scriptures, the Baha\'i authorities regularly introduce their own distortions to doctor the text. 



Something Went Wrong
when they killed the Bab by firing squad. The modest Mirza Yahya looks down in this sad photo. If his older brother had not commandeered the religion, might the Baha\'i Faith still be a true mystical, God-oriented religion of world-renouncing devotees instead of a religion of world domination and race-fetishism?



Lives of the Idle Rich:
Another one of Glory-man\'s sons, the brute-mouthed, dwarfish Mirza Mihdi fell through a skylight on the roof of one of his father\'s pads and died. Perhaps because he was drunk. Or perhaps because, like his father, his eyes couldn\'t focus properly. Or perhaps because of evil acts by Baha\'u\'llah which gave him immediate fruits of bad karma.

This son had not had time yet to become alienated from his father and be declared a \"Covenant Breaker.\" Thus Baha\'u\'llah turned him into a saint-martyr and built up a big legend about him so he could moan all the more about his Trials. In photos the Baha\'is place a nimbus around his head. Now formerly sane White people in the Baha\'i Faith worship this rich man\'s son for falling through the roof. 

Physical notes for a physically-oriented religion:

This son of Baha\'u\'llah had a rather large mouth in which the lower lip jutted out slightly more than the upper lip, giving a loutish appearance. Sensual, his lower portion was raised up in a permanent pout -- an upside-down smile. A smaller version of it can be seen in the imp-like son Mohammed Ali (and an apparently misshapen left ear):



This upside down smile was a trait of Baha\'u\'llah\'s whole family, and one can discern it in the bearded photo of Baha above. The same mouth is suggested underthe beard of Baha\'u\'llah\'s brute-like little brother below (who looks like the perfect enforcer and heavy for getting rid of Babis):



It seems merely hanging out with Baha\'u\'llah and his crew put a pout on your face. The same dour reverse-smile is even seen on the face of Baha\'u\'llah\'s secretary Mirza Aqa Jan:



The downturned smile can be seen on the face of the grim-and-wan wife of \'Adbu\'l-Baha, Baha\'u\'llah\'s best son:



Note the deep-set eyes from a life of stress with a harsh husband too busy to care about the children. (When informed of the death, from long  fever, of one of his daughters \'Adbu\'l-Baha had not even been aware she was sick. Supportive husband! Baha\'is take this as evidence of his saintliness, since he was busy caring about \'everybody else\' instead of his family.) I can understand why his wife looks sad. But did no one in the Baha\'i camp ever smile? (Creepily, the woman who married Baha\'u\'llah\'s son has the same strange V-shaped lower face -- plus eyes -- of Baha\'u\'llah\'s midget son Mohammed Ali. Was she actually her husband\'s half-sister?)

We can surmise that beneath Baha\'u\'llah\'s woolly beard lay a similar erp-like mouth: One fish-like, as if you\'d expect it to make the sound \"erp,\"  with the lower portion jutting upwards in permanent dour judgment. But a smaller mouth like his impish son Mohammed -- a shrew-like mouth often found on those who speak many sharp words and who are ungenerous, and on creatures that have a sharp bite.

The roof-falling son of Baha\'u\'llah was also walleyed like his father (had one eye pointing a slightly different direction.) You cannot see it in the first photo. (It may have been doctored, like many Baha\'i photos are. Baha\'is regularly Photoshop the eyes of \'Adbu\'l-Baha to make them beautiful and mystical, a look they do not have in the actual photos.) But you can see Mirza Mihdi\'s eye defect in other photos easily, such as here:



Just like his daddy Glory Man, it\'s the right eye that\'s askew. 

Even in my early years as a Baha\'i I heard Baha\'is who had gone on pilgrimage processing their experience of seeing, at long last, the photo of their founder in Haifa, Israel. To account for Baha\'u\'llah\'s wild-and-crazy looking eyes, one said: \"Baha\'u\'llah\'s eyes were affected when  Everlasting Dawn tried to poison him.\" This is one of many lines that Baha\'is memorize and repeat to each other. (Babis and other observers make a solid case it was the other way around: Baha\'u\'llah\'s harem had prepared the food, which was eaten at Baha\'u\'llah\'s table. Baha accidentally poisoned himself when, trying to assure Dawn that the food was safe, he ate a bit from the side he believed was free of poison. Poisonings by Baha\'is of Babis, Bahas competitor group, are documented and \"Dawn\" was the leader of the Babis having an uneasy dinner with his half-brother.) Since hearing those fresh-returned pilgrims rationalize Baha\'s look, I have read the same stuff  from Baha\'is promoting their fake religion online. They want you to believe that their \"manifestation of God\" to rule mankind the next thousand years was not a wild-looking midget with one eye pointing off to the side.

But based on his son\'s eyes, this is age old Baha\'i history-fabrication and reality-distortion. Baha\'u\'llah\'s Marty-Feldman eyes, which he transmitted to a son, were his own lifelong karma, the body he was born with, and as with all bodily traits, a sign of his true inner nature.

This is a bodily defect that gives problems with vision. Did his vision defect play a role in his falling through a skylight on the roof of his father\'s house?

Note how Mirza Midhi, in the frontal  undoctored photo, has a peculiarly  sharp V-shaped facial structure.  His face is the shape of a wedge, with his chin the point. The first chair-sitting photo, an obviously doctored one, uses a  side-view to obscure this. Based on the one above it has also also been re-drawn to give him a much fuller lower face. A strong chin and full lower face is, after all, one of the timeless masculine ideals in faces. 



The same sharply narrow V-face is seen in his dwarfish full brother Mohammad Ali (Again, above).  Note in this son also the oddly narrow lower face and the smallness of his chin compared to the neck behind it. His look is highly unnatural. There\'s not much chin there at all. And this is with the head raised up and back a bit, which widens the look and increases the apparentness of chins. 

We can gather from the photos of his sons that beneath the full beard Baha\'u\'llah had a strange, narrow, V-shaped face -- the sort of face artists and cartoonists use when drawing a male who is a \"geek\" or \"nerd.\". 

Baha\'u\'llah was a physically unattractive man. Without the beard, maybe even ridiculously unattractive. Baha\'is realized this, and they hid both his face and body from us.

Nabil\'s history of the Bab and the Babis called \"The Dawnbreakers\" is an important text to Baha\'is. They use it to establish a divine validity for Baha\'u\'llah by documenting the attractive personality and mystical atmosphere surrounding the Bab, things lacking in their own founder. (While miracles are associated with the Bab and all other religious founders -- even advanced devotees and yogic adepts -- these divine signs did not take place around Baha\'u\'llah.) In the text the Bab is found stating to his first prospective disciple that one sign of a \"manifestation of God\" is perfection of the body. The official Baha\'i text takes pains to point out the physical  beauty, symmetry, and grace of the Bab. 

This idea comports with present Baha\'i notions of the \"attributes of God,\" presented without much explanation by official Bahaidom, which are said to include \"beauty,\" \"perfection,\" \"grandeur\" and \"loftiness.\" The idea is that a divine thing would have these Godly attributes of beauty, perfection, etc. This also fits with Hindu ideas. Krsna in the Bhavagad-Gita is found listing similar divine attributes in its 10th chapter. They include beauty. In one case Krsna describes himself as chief among the ghandarvas, which are celestial beings of great physical beauty.

Thus it is understandable that Baha\'is have been energetic and firm in hiding available photographs of their founder, this even though Baha\'u\'llah posed for photographs that he apparently intended to be seen. The photo of him beside a table is obviously set up carefully and he is showing his \"best side.\"

Baha\'is explain that they hide their photo because they revere Baha\'u\'llah so much that any display of his photo -- except in the most reverent of circumstances -- is disrespectful to it. This flies against Hindu concepts of the guru (and Hinduism is a religion Baha\'i hopes to supplant.) In their view, the guru represents God -indeed and in truth. Thus there is nothing that should be more attractive or comforting than the image of one\'s guru. All Hindu homes feature photographs of a guru plus images of divine characters like Ganesh or Visnu. And these are very pious, religious people. They even use \"meditation on the guru\'s form\" as a divinely effective meditation technique and develop great \"bhakti\" (felt devotion) toward it, the feeling of bhakti itself being a high and auspicious spiritual state. Does having photos of their guru harm them? No, they can\'t feast their eyes on their guru enough. 

Quite different from the devotional delight Hindus get from images of their eminently adorable divine incarnations -- the satvic-faced Anandamayima ma, the noble and radiant Swami Shivananda, or the endearing bhakta Ramakrishna -- a Baha\'i recoils upon seeing his guru. He explains that he is terribly offended by seeing it. You ask him why, and he\'ll say \"it\'s in \"the wrong place.\" And yet he never wants to see it at any time or at any place. Except perhaps once, at near the end of life, in Haifa, Israel briefly while on pilgrimage.

How many must be the shocked moments by westerners in the cloistered place where the photo is viewed! Many, in a state of very heightened emotions associated with the pilgrimage, probably view it through the benign distortion of devotionally misty eyes. But I have long noticed that Baha\'is, if going on pilgrimage early in life and seeing the photograph, afterwards draw away from the faith.

Their lineage-holder Shoghi Effendi did not have the temerity in the 1940\'s to ban the use of Baha\'u\'llah\'s photo throughout the Baha\'i world.  I think he saw how absurd that would be, and what an obvious ploy. He wrote to the Baha\'is that it could be used, if in reverent settings. Yet you never see it in any Baha\'i setting. Not even in theri beautiful temples! Not even \"just for Feast\" or spiritual services! In practice, no Baha\'i sees it unless he goes on pilgrimage to Israel, usually in older age, in a cloistered viewing room. 

Unlike Hindus, somehow Baha\'is have no attraction for the form of their guru and do not desire to see his form. Because Baha\'is, being natural promoters, understand that the photograph is not good for the Faith. Thus the umbrage they take on accidentally seeing it (such as on the internet) is one-part  devotee-disappointment, another part Baha\'i management concerns. As in: \'Don\'t show our founder. It hurts our movement.\'

Because this religion threatens to destroy the White European peoples (and in fact all distinctive peoples) I am quite happy to let Baha\'is see their guru earlier in their deluded membership, haply, before they misspend any more years.

Now, the very idea of the \"manifestation of God,\" indeed, is that God \"manifests\" himself -- makes himself visible -- for us to see. And in a human form, one that is human yet has divine signs and attractiveness. (Since the divine is attractive.) And Baha\'is have all kinds of patter addressing this theory; that we can\'t handle God directly so he attenuates and downgrades His signal, as it were, by taking a human form that we can \"relate to.\" So Baha\'is have ended up with a \"manifestation of God\" who can\'t be manifest, i.e. seen, and does not seem to \"manifest\" divine qualities in his physical form at all. Thus the very idea of divine \"manifestation\" and \"incarnation\" is itself neutralized; turned in on itself, in the Baha\'i experience. Baha\'u\'llah is a \"manifestation\" with two dire problems: 1) He does not manifest divinity in his person, and 2) Baha\'i managers are hellbent for leather that he must not be manifested to us at all!

But Baha\'is do their cultural control covertly, silently. Somehow Baha\'is have not found situations -- whether at their spiritual \"Feast\" gatherings or in their vaunted temples -- sufficiently \"reverent\" for the display of the photo. 

Now to be sure, they can\'t hoist \"enough\" photos of their lineage holders \'Abdu\'l-Baha, who was much more charming and photogenic. Have they no proper \"reverence\" for him? 

Baha\'i mendacity then takes another leap and they cite Islamic ideas for hiding the picture. They say that the \"manifestation of God\" should not be depicted bodily in art. They say that Muslims consider any physical depiction of Mohammed to be  disrespectful, even sacrilegious, and that\'s where they get this idea of hiding Baha\'u\'llah\'s photo. But one has to point out that Baha\'is have dispensed with every other Islamic idea and standard but that one. 

Baha\'u\'llah himself dispensed with most rules of Islam in his \"Most Holy Book.\" And curious to note, in his book containing many sundry prohibitions he did not list any prohibition against photographs of himself or of prophets, while he did pose for a stately photograph in which he clearly intended to be seen.

Meanwhile even if this prohibition did exist in the Baha\'i \"Most Holy Book\" it would hardly matter, since Baha\'is have long dispensed with even their own laws -- or staved them off saying they are for some \"future time\" when mankind is \"ready.\" 

So we have the phenomenon of Baha\'is dispensing with all Islamic laws en toto, plus ignoring most of their own laws -- yet hewing  scrupulously to an arcane Islamic prohibition not even present in their texts. 

That\'s funny. And that\'s typical Baha\'i mendacity. Because the real reason they do it is transparent. This religion is all about promotion and has already invented itself outside of its own scriptures. They knew that the photo of their founder would not be good for the Faith\'s progress. 

The Hindus have observed that the voice takes on a beautiful tone due to chastity, personal virtue, and God-meditation. This can be experienced and seen in the voices of meditative sages. Further, their scriptures and srutis state that physical beauty is an inevitable product of good karma; of past-life virtue and that physical flaws in this birth are the outcome of sin, especially moral sin.

The Baha\'is have a founder who\'s look and physical nature contravenes the Bab\'s teaching that a \"manifestation of God\" displays beauty and perfection of form. And contravenes the teachings of other religions associating physical beauty with spiritual and moral virtue. Certainly within his own cultural context, his unusually small stature and wild off-pointing eyes were regarded by others and by himself as defects. That\'s why he wore rather outlandishly tall hats and posed sitting in a low-backed chair to obscure his size. I note that in the \"passport photo\" (shown above) Baha\'u\'llah was obligated to face the camera. But in the \"posed\" formal photo we have of him he chose to face slightly turned to the right side. Was this to de-emphasize his off-kilter right eye? 

Certainly clever western Baha\'is early on, the consummate promoters then and now, understood that these matters would have an impact on the mind of prospective seekers and their natural human instincts. Jesus Christ has long been shown as noble and handsome because the human intuition demands that an incarnation of God would have humanly attractive qualities, and Baha\'is knew they had to cope with these innate  sensibilities of the Christian public. So this attempt to cover up Baha\'u\'llah\'s physical appearance probably goes all the way back to the beginning.

It is astounding, indeed, that though physical traits -- even of early believers such as Quddus and Tahirih -- have been cataloged in their texts, no word has ever come from Baha\'i writers about Baha\'u\'llah\'s physical traits - even though they were highly unusual! Only a deliberate campaign to hide these matters can explain it.

In their promotional work, Baha\'is have relied heavily on one sentence by E.G. Browne, the English orientalist who once met Baha\'u\'llah, to address his physical features. It is a statement that creates an impression that Baha\'u\'llah had, at least, an  \'impressive\' look. Baha\'is frequently use Browne\'s \"ample brow\" quote:

\"Those piercing eyes seemed to read one\'s very soul; power and authority sat on that ample brow.\"

No doubt this meeting with an important western scholar was considered important by Baha\'u\'llah and he was decked out as royally as possible, be-robed to hide the position of his feet, and probably sitting on a raised chair. Based on the photos we have of Baha\'u\'llah, he indeed did not seem shy to stare or even glare. Charles Manson, too, was said to have \"piercing\" eyes.

It is very interesting that the only reference to Baha\'u\'llah\'s physical features by Browne involves two items that refined western eyes would find problematic or off putting: His bushy eyebrows, and  his eyes. (Notice the photo of Baha\'u\'llah\'s little brother at top, who had even bushier brows than Baha -- a veritable uni-brow.  I guess even more power and authority rested on them. I am going to take a guess that Baha\'u\'llah possessed a uni-brow also, but that he plucked out the middle.) 

Was Browne, in a momentary good disposition toward Baha\'is, striving on their behalf to come up with some kind of compliment? Reaching for something to say about both his brows and his eyes? Was he trying to finesse the situation on behalf of Baha\'is by taking two unattractive traits and spinning them in the most positive way? Was he covertly trying to assist the Baha\'is by omitting any other physical references and distracting from Baha\'s personal oddities such as unusually small stature? It seems then that Baha\'u\'llah\'s brows, which were apparently in a permanent furrow as if perpetually angry, set over eyes that were odd and disturbing -- were two items needing immediate spin-doctoring by this early friend of the religion. Being friendly to them at that point, he was a good sport for the Baha\'is and ministered to two of Baha\'u\'llah\'s most problematic features. But I wonder if  Browne said other things about his appearance now sunk in the vaults as with other texts. (Like his apparently first translation of the Baha\'i Kitab-i-Aqdas, somehow lost to time.)

It is very telling that Baha\'is continually quote these few words of Browne, yet cover up and vilify most of his other writings. (Because E.G. Browne, who was there, states things about the Faith\'s origins that are inconvenient to Baha\'is, including decrying Baha\'i falsification of their own history.) As disinfo artists, it is obvious that Baha\'is have pounced on this one sentence by Browne to spin and direct prospective seekers in a particular mental direction and pre-empt any discussion of the  reality of Baha\'u\'llah\'s physical persona.

Recently I found a photograph of a cabinet at the Baha\'i World Center (Haifa, Israel) that features two of Baha\'u\'llah\'s robes, seen through glass. The photo contained many other objects. I saw it as a possible opportunity to gage his height by measuring the robes against the size of other objects. But clearly, Baha\'i managers had long ago considered this possibility. The photo did not contain a single item having a reliable size or predictable length. (Any object with a definite, known size -- even one of his turbans.)
There were candles and candelabras, but they could have been very small. I also have not been able to find one photograph of an individual standing in front of this cabinet, which is there to be seen by pilgrims. Normally, pilgrims would delight to take photos of themselves standing in front of these things. So the Baha\'is must have a strict rule against pilgrims taking any photos of these items, especially standing within the photo. Thus I believe that Baha\'i concern about Baha\'u\'llah\'s physical nature  goes way back to the beginning, and they are practiced in it. 

A final note is that Baha\'u\'llah never chose to be photographed with any other man -- not even any of his sons, including his most important son \'Adbu\'l-Baha, who was of normal stature. (Shoghi Effendi inherited Baha\'u\'llah\'s shortness, though probably ameliorated through his mother. A photo exists of a full grown Shoghi Effendi standing next to \'Adbu\'l-Baha, and S.E\'s shortness is remarkable.)

So it is that the Baha\'i Faith was created by an impish man of very small stature with wild, ill-pointed eyes and a coldly stern visage. Yet we don\'t know, because Baha\'is are obfuscation and disinfo artists, like their founder. For just as Baha\'u\'llah says \"God is the compassionate\" after directing us to mark the foreheads of thieves with scars or tattoos; or says \"He has no need of the worlds\" just after specifying that his \"House of Justice\" would get all your possessions at death -- the Big Player and manipulator Mirza Husayn, knowing he had a reputation as an ugly man, had the brazen chutzpah to name himself \"The Blessed Beauty.\"

The disappointing visage of  their Mansonesque founder, who could stand in as the frightening leader of a Bakersfield, California biker gang circa 1965,  must hurt for Baha\'is. Because after all, this is nothing if not an  outer-focused, material oriented religion. Sometimes I have pointed out these things to Baha\'is. I have confronted them with their hiding of the photograph, and raised the real reasons they have done it. I point out that most people would instinctively consider Baha\'u\'llah\'s visage to fail in signaling divinity. I have also mocked it. They have often replied saying \"The physical isn\'t important. I don\'t care what he looks like.\"

But we must then  note how important the physical really is to Baha\'is.  They erect beautiful temples (and other buildings) of the greatest majesty they can afford, with a full focus on physical beauty. They continually point to these pretty buildings as evidence for the validity of their religion. I know that is why they point to them; I used to be a Baha\'i, and that\'s why they point to their buildings: To demonstrate power and divine validity. Yet the very face and body of their  founder lacked any correlative beauty or  majesty.

So, just as their teachings are now disconnected  from Baha\'u\'llah\'s texts which have long been ignored and hidden, their great and beautiful buildings also are disconnected from their usurper-founder who was a small, ugly and frightening man.

||||

Incest

The wife of \'Abdu\'l-\'Baha is also walleyed like Baha\'u\'llah. This trait is a genetic flaw that is sometimes associated with early poor diet, or with incest.



Eerily, note also the same sharp-bottomed, wedge-shaped face and pointy chin seen on two of Baha\'u\'llah\'s sons (and probably present on the Blessed Beauty himself.) Was the wife of Baha\'u\'llah\'s son a relation of her father-in-law? Perhaps Adbu\'l-Baha\'s cousin or even half-sister? The Baha\'is were exactly like a mafia headed by a Don, with all the murders and deaths associated with crime families. Such power cadres like to keep things \"in the family.\" With all the secrets Baha\'is hide, I would not be at all surprised if \'Abdu\'l-Baha married a cousin or even a half-sister.

Baha\'i Distortion of their own \"Most Holy Book\"

An example would be the \"wear sable\" instruction of the Kitab-i-Aqdas. The unbiased, impartial Arabic scholars Miller & Elder translated it this way:

\"Wear sable (sammur) just as you wear silk and squirrel-skin and other things.\"

The Miller/Ender translations contains cases of mere suggestion by Baha\'u\'llah as contrasted to explicit commands. They are easily  distinguished from each other in their text.  Baha\'u\'llah makes explicit commands regarding hair-length for men. He was a royal, and wanted his people to come off nicely to make him proud. Elsewhere he tells them to use perfume and rose water and renew their furnishings every 9 years. (He also enjoins upon Baha\'is very fancy and pricey coffins.) But the \"official translation\" (when it finally came out) renders the line this way:

\"Ye are free to wear the fur of the sable as ye would that of the beaver, the squirrel, and other animals.\"

...changing what was evidently a command into a mere option.

Who needs textual distortions brought by time and history to mess up your religion if you can simply suppress the text? Then, when obligated to come up with something, when you can create your own distortions yourself?

http://www.bahaiface.com/