The Bahá'í Faith is as much or more about who is believed as it is about what is believed. This is principally a result of the Bahá'í Covenant. This central Bahá'í doctrine is intended to dictate who is regarded as an authority, that is, who is to be regarded as infallible, and in what way that party is to be regarded as infallible. Fundamentally, then, the Bahá'í Faith is not so much a belief system as it is an chain of command, and this makes it extremely succeptible to idolatry; or rather, this makes it intrinsically idolatrous.
What?, I can hear a Bahá'í respond, we have no idols! There is no golden calf in the Bahá'í Faith!
Ah, but there is, and it has a name by which you can seek it out. That name is infallibility.
Infallibility grants a measure of divinity to persons. When Bahá'ís refuse to publish and keep pictures of the Báb and Bahá'u'lláh, it is because these individuals are regarded to be too close to divinity to risk confusing their divine stations with their worldy countenances. Bahá'ís regard this as a measure taken to prevent idolatry, but it only conceals the idolatry. Curiously, Bahá'ís post photographs of another infallible leader all over. One probable reason why pictures of `Abdu'l-Bahá are so popular is that he was so photogenic, but the core reason is that he is regarded as infallible. Add Shoghi Effendi to the list of infallibles, and finally, depending on who you believe, all of the past, present, and future members of the Universal House of Justice. This last—and least—group of infallibles are only considered infallible when they meet as a governing body, but their membership in this infallible body doubtless grants them each an air of divinity. I have seen this up close, having worked at their office in Haifa, Israel. The silent cult of idolization that surrounds these men may have to be seen to believed, but ought to take no one by surprise.
Another immediate effect of the Bahá'í Covenant is litigation. Like the Church of Scientology, the Bahá'í Faith is highly litigious at the organizational level. It is compelled to be so litigious by the Covenant, which requires that there be a single chain of authority. Thus, when two competing Bahá'í authorities arise, the two are not permitted to condone each other, and so must occasionally take each other to court.
The most recent case of note was the case between the Haifan Bahá'ís of the United States and the Bahá'ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant. The former party issued a complaint against the latter party over the use of the Internet domain uhj.net. In this case, WIPO ruled in favor of the latter party. One interesting comment made by the WIPO panel was the following:
Complainant did not send a copy of its request directly to Respondent, apparently believing Respondent had a “religious objection” to communicating with it. While the Panel appreciates Complainant’s sensitivity, it did not interpret the statement that Respondent had, consistent with Respondent’s religious beliefs, ignored Complainant’s cease and desist letter, to be an objection to receiving communications. Moreover, the Panel reminds Complainant of Rule 2(h): “Any communication by . . . a Party shall be copied to the other Party, the Panel and the Provider, as the case may be” (emphasis added).
It is striking how much these confrontations between Bahá'í sects can display all the irrationality of a divorce case.