Jhon

Dan: I wrote the following on http://www.bahai-faith.com (see the section on “The ‘Most Holy Book’”): “I also disagree with Baha’u'llah’s claim that all people must recognize his absolute spiritual authority and must accept and follow all the laws and teachings in his book. I do not believe in an infallible Bible nor an infallible Qur’an or any other scripture that conservative religious people believe is perfect. Although I think Baha’u'llah taught many beneficial and inspiring things in his writings, there are some things he taught that I simply disagree with – just as I disagree with some things taught by Moses, Jesus, Saint Paul, Muhammad, Buddha, or any other spiritual teacher who has left behind writings or sayings. I wish that Christians, Jews, Muslims, and people of all faiths would would move beyond the idea of rigid support for every law and teaching contained within their own preferred religious scripture.”

So ‘unitarian’ simply means ‘monotheist’? Why use the term at all, then, unless they’re attempting to make themselves look special? It sounds to me like they’re applying a standard to `Abdu’l-Baha’ that they’re unwilling to apply to his father. That’s called a double-standard, and as usual, that double standard indicates a two-faced position. They are every bit the idolators that they accuse the mainstream Baha’is of being, only they are more guilty of claiming to be distinguished for some kind of rigid monotheism which they clearly are aliens to.

But I don’t think the meaning of words has to be limited to their original usage — meanings evolve over time. There are different versions of Unitarianism, some Christian and theological, some non-Christian and non-theological. The Unitarianism of the Behaists was based on an Islamic concept of Unitarianism, meaning the belief in One God rather than polytheism. Behaists or Unitarian Bahais historically argued that the Abdul-Baha/Shoghi Effendi school of thought, based on the notion of a “Covenant” of infallible authority, was tantamount to joining partners with God. I would argue that believing in Bahaullah’s infallibility — or that of any prophet or spiritual leader — would also be joining partners with God, and therefore I reject it, because I am theologically Unitarian.

Perhaps those among the Unitarian Bahais, either historically or in the present day, who believe Bahaullah was infallible are not Unitarian enough.

Many of the historical Unitarian Bahais (Behaists) tended to frame Bahaullah and his movement as less of a messianic theophany and more of a progressive spiritual and social reform initiated by a bold and charismatic leader. That’s not true of all of them — a noteworthy exception, who favored a literal theophanic view, was I.G. Kheiralla. But many of Bahaullah’s own grandchildren, such as Shua Ullah Behai and Qamar Bahai, preferred to emphasize his role as a spiritual and social reformer and to frame all of the great prophets/manifestations this way, in contrast to Shoghi Effendi’s emphasis on Bahaullah’s claims of a theophanic station.