آنچه در ادامه می خوانید
Kitab-i-Aqdas: Verse 36
This verse is divided into 6 parts.
The Haddad translation of Part 2 is as follows:
Some of them who claim inward knowledge and pretend to understand divine mysteries, say to them: “O liars, by God, what ye have is indeed naught save husks which we have abandoned to you, as bones are abandoned to the dogs.”
Critique : This verse degrades the Almighty God as it portrays an extremely haughty picture of the merciful God. God can censure and punish someone who misuses His bounties, but definitely He is too High to degrade and insult someone. Undoubtedly all honour belongs to God but it is an extremely unhonourable thing to grant and also bad mouth the receiver. Such verses which compare the grants of God to humans to as bones left to Dogs, prove without doubt that these are the words of a mortal haughty man. The Divine and honourable God can never insult the recipients of his bounties in such a debased manner.
The Part 3 and 4 is as follows:
By God, the truth, should anyone wash the feet of the people of the world and worship God in thickets and narrow foot-paths, and upon the summits and tops of mountains and hills, and in the neighborhood of every stone, clod or tree – all the scent of My good pleasure does not emanate from him. This is what hath been decreed by the Lord of mankind.
How many servants secluded themselves on the Indian Isles, and deprived themselves of that which God hath sanctioned, and underwent mortifications and hardships and yet were not accepted by God, the revealer of the signs.
Critique 1: These parts mention about those who worship God by depriving themselves of that which is sanctioned by God. It states that all that hardship in worship does not make a person emanate the scent of divine pleasure. Thus, the path of the Christian Priests, the Muslim Sufis and the Indian Saints are all rejected in one go. In fact, the Indian Saints receive a special negative remembrance in this so-called Holy book. If the path of leaving the worldly pleasures for the sake of worship is indeed wrong then shouldn’t the Baha’is strongly keep on condemning it? But we see that the Baha’is never highlight their opposition to the approaches found in the Christian, Muslim and Hindu cultures. They on the contrary, invite the Christian priests, the Muslim Sufis as well as the Hindu saints to their all religion conferences and try to project an image of a faith which tolerates all differing views. Like hypocrites they never use this verse to propagate against the practices of those who follow the path of leaving the worldly pleasures.
Critique 2: While this verse talks against leaving the sanctioned worldly pleasures, verse 3 of this misguided book says: Were any man to taste the sweetness of the words which the lips of the All- Merciful have willed to utter, he would, though the treasures of the earth be in his possession, renounce them one and all, that he might vindicate the truth of even one of His commandments. The common Baha’is are now confused whether to get divine pleasure by leaving the treasures of the earth as commanded in verse 3, or to get divine pleasure by not leaving the treasures as commanded in verse 36. Those who tread the path of falsehood always end up in contradiction and confusion!
Kitab-i-Aqdas: Verse 32
The Lord hath ordained that those of you who are able shall make pilgrimage to the sacred House, and from this He hath exempted women as a mercy on His part. He, of a truth, is the All-Bountiful, the Most Generous.
Critique : This verse is yet another example of discrimination against the fair gender by the so called Baha’i faith in its most holy book. Only the chivalrous men are granted the honour of spiritual ascension by undertaking the sacred pilgrimage. The poor woman of the 21st Century is reminded of her weakness by a categorical denial to her to undertake the arduous journey. She is just supposed to be happy that God has been generous to her in denying her an opportunity to undertake a sacred journey!
So much for being a modern religion and so much for being the sole advocate of equality between men and women!!
Kitab-i-Aqdas: Verse 25
We have assigned the residence and personal clothing of the deceased to the male, not female, offspring, nor to the other heirs. He, verily, is the Munificent, the All- Bountiful
Critique : In residential house and clothing women have been denied ownership!So much for the claims of being a progressive religion which champions women rights! It claims to be progressive but practically takes mankind to the era of ignorance(jahiliyat) when women had no rights of inheriting and owning property. It was Islam which first introduced ownership and inheritance for women. And after denying the modern women the inheritance of her parents it still has the audacity of calling itself the champion of women rights.
Kitab-i-Aqdas: Verse 21
In this verse we just highlight the apparent differences between the various translations available at bahai-library.com
Authorized translation: Should the deceased leave no offspring, their share shall revert to the House of Justice, to be expended by the Trustees of the All-Merciful on the orphaned and widowed, and on whatsoever will bring benefit to the generality of the people.
Haddad translation: If anyone dies without heirs, the house of justice has the right to the property and it should be expended by the house, bring the trustees of the merciful – for the widows and orphans, and for any purpose that may result in the welfare of the commonwealth.
Earl E. Elder translation: Whoever dies having no offspring, his rights return to the House of Justice (bayt al-‘adl) in order that the Stewards of the Merciful (umana’ al-rahman) may spend it on orphans and widows, and on what benefits the multitude of people.
Critique 1 : Since this verse deals with inheritance there should be complete clarity about those for whom the right of inheritance is being established.
The older Haddad translation says: If anyone dies without heirs…
While the latter Earl E. Elder and the authorised translations use the words offspring instead of heirs.
This can have differing implications. Offspring refer to the children of the deceased. The word Heir would additionally include spouses, parents and even siblings. Now since the second part of the verse establishes the right of “The House of Justice” on the property it would imply the following:
If the earlier Haddad translation is followed then the right of “The House of Justice” would be established if a deceased is not survived by any heir. That is, he/she neither is survived by an offspring nor by any spouse nor a parent and nor a sibling.
But if the later translations are followed then the right of “The House of Justice” is very easily established as the negation is only for offspring. So even if the parents, spouses and siblings of the deceased are present the “House of Justice” can throw them out and occupy the premises of the deceased.
Whether the later translations are purposely distorted to make the way for the “House of Justice” to annex properties is thus a valid doubt and question.
Even the original Arabic has not been updated on the website so that by referring to the original one may clarify the doubts. (It is declared on the website that that the Arabic text will be posted and entered in 1999 or 2000. We have accessed the website in 2019 and are still waiting for our efficient Baha’i workers to update their website)
Also it would be interesting if the Baha’is would declare what happened to the inheritance of Shogie Affandi who unfortunately died without an offspring thus creating a vertical split amongst the Baha’is.
The succeeding verses attempt to explain these contradictions on the issue of ownership and annexation by the house of Justice. Verse 22 lays down that if a deceased leaves only offspring but none of the other category of heirs then his offspring will get only two-third of his property and the house of justice the balance one-third. And in case he leaves no children but has other heirs then verse 23 lays down that these other heirs will get only two-third of his property and the house of justice the balance one-third. Thus, the house of Justice will have no share only if a deceased has both the offspring as well as other relatives. Otherwise the House of Justice is a sure winner in annexing at least one third of the property. And it goes without saying that if there are neither offspring nor any other relatives then verse 24 establishes the sole right of the house of justice on the entire property.
Critique 2: Three uses of this annexed property are also prescribed in this verse. There is no ambiguity about using this for widows and orphans. However, the third use can be open to dispute wherein it would be possible for office bearers in the Baha’i hierarchy to use such premises for their personal use. Since they are working for “the cause”, to ensure their dedicated services to the common good they can sanction the use of such premises for themselves. (After of course evicting the spouses, parents and siblings of the deceased from the house.)
Kitab-i-Aqdas : Verse 12
It hath been ordained that obligatory prayer is to be performed by each of you individually. Save in the Prayer for the Dead, the practice of congregational prayer hath been annulled. He, of a truth, is the Ordainer, the All-Wise.
Critique: After categorically rejecting in verse 5 that this book lays down ordinances in an unashamed manner ordinance are espoused in this verse.
How surprising that this so-called faith talks of uniting the people of various classes but abolishes the daily congregational prayer! It is during the congregational prayer that the differences are practically abolished. During the congregational prayer a poor or a low caste man may stand in the first row while a rich, powerful and a person of illustrious lineage may get a place only in the last rows, thus establishing perfect brotherhood among all men. Alas! the Baha’is have to just suffice with lip service and are deprived of practically implementing equality and brotherhood even within their own camp.
Kitab-i-Aqdas: Verse 7
Everything that is hath come to be through His irresistible decree. Whenever My laws appear like the sun in the heaven of Mine utterance, they must be faithfully obeyed by all, though My decree be such as to cause the heaven of every religion to be cleft asunder.
Critique : This verse states in clear terms that the decrees brought by Bahaullah are in contradiction with the basics of every other religion. The myth of continued divine guidance is blown apart by this confession. If the previous religions were divinely sent then the Baha’i faith cannot be divine as it has decrees which will cleft asunder the heaven of every religion
Kitab-i-Aqdas : Verse 5
لا تحسبنّ انّا نزّلنا لكم الاحكام
The Haddad translation of the above verse available at the Baha’i library is as follows:
Think ye not that we have revealed the ordinances unto you.
Critique : While this verse explicitly mentions that this book is not a book of Ahkam and practical laws, yet it is crammed with practical laws related to prayers, fasting, charity, inheritance, marriage, divorce, adultery, murder, stealing, washing, eating and so on.
Those with knowledge of Arabic language will agree with the Haddad translation of the Arabic words which categorically reject the exposition of practical laws in this book. And the very next statement contradicts this statement by talking about the laws of prayers. The next statement is as follows:
قد كتب عليكم الصّلوٰة تسع ركعات للهٰ
This is presented in the Haddad translation as follows:
In prayer, nine prostrations are ordained before God
So, the contradictions start in the very next verse!
Allah the Almighty degrades the liars in this way. They forget what they have lied and their very next statement contradicts their first thus exposing their lies.
Perhaps the Baha’is realized this and so later Shoghi amended the official translation as follows:
Think not that We have revealed unto you a mere code of laws.
Misinterpretation and mistranslating has always been the characteristics of the fraudulent and cheats.
Kitab-i-Aqdas : Verse 1
Verily the first thing which God hath ordained unto the servants is the knowledge of the dawning place of His command, which was the station of Himself, in the world of command and creation (that is, the knowledge of Baha, who is the manifestation of God in the world). Whosoever attaineth there unto hath attained unto all good; and he who is deprived thereof is indeed of the people of error – even though he bringeth all good actions.
Critique 1: It is very surprising that on one hand Baha’is talk of including all religions and cultures in the name of Unity of Mankind and on the other declare all those who do not acknowledge the divine position of Bahaullah as “people of error”. It declares all those who do not believe in Bahaullah as misguided even though they have committed all good actions, thus rendering all good actions null and void!
Critique 2: At the same time this verse excludes all previous messengers including even his mentor the so called “Bab”.
https://thebahaitruth.com/
Keep in touch with us: bahaismiran85@gmail.com
