The Fraudulent Will and Testament, Covenant

Status
Not open for further replies.
Responding to a question regarding Munírih Khánum, I would note, as I've already quoted, Ruth White on Abdul-Baha's "family, with the exception of his wife and sister...."

"In fact his family, and "in-laws," with the exception of his wife and sister, were somewhat materialistic, and viewed the religion more or less as a little family affair with a strong bent toward organization."

"...partly nullified the great universal teachings."

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/251399-post127.html

"Ahanu" seems to have a predilection for putting words in other people's mouths and then turning them to his own purposes. I would stick with the words of Ruth White. The burden of proof regarding whether or not the purported will and testament is authentic rests with the Haifan Baha'i denomination.

The overwhelming evidence as discussed in the "Website Suggestion" thread, citing,

Dr. C. (Charles) Ainsworth Mitchell's Report on the Writing Shown on the Photographs of the Alleged Will of Abdul-Baha. 1930. Certified Copy from the Library of Congress.
Dr. C. Ainsworth Mitchell, Report on the Writing Shown on the Photographs of the Alleged Will of Abdu'l-Baha

and citing,

Ruth White
Ruth White

clearly demonstrates substantial "prima facie" reasons for further investigation of the authenticity of the questionable document, especially since both Shoghi Effendi and the family of Abdul-Baha benefited monetarily from it but refused and denied all efforts to determine its reliability.

Since 1921, throughout the decades, significant reasons have only continued to mount to call the "will and testament" into question.

For further details, see,

Abdu'l-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant
Abdu'l-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant

An Analysis of Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant
Comments on Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant
 
"Ahanu" seems to have a predilection for putting words in other people's mouths and then turning them to his own purposes. I would stick with the words of Ruth White.
Click to expand...

I see your quote from Ruth White, who said:

"In fact his family, and "in-laws," with the exception of his wife and sister, were somewhat materialistic, and viewed the religion more or less as a little family affair with a strong bent toward organization."
Click to expand...

Before that, you also said:

As Ruth White observed, the overwhelming burden lied with Shoghi Effendi and his criminal family to prove the so-called "will and testament" was legitimate.
Click to expand...

One can naturally infer Munírih Khánum is also a criminal: she clearly supported Shoghi Effendi, the so-called criminal. The only other option would be that Munírih Khánum was unaware of what happened. The latter is very unlikely. I'm just taking your scenario of what happened to its logical conclusion.

Shoghi Effendi's wife was also very, very close to Munírih Khánum, and wrote the following words:

An American woman, Mrs. Ruth White, suffering from a truly remarkable form of delusion -- namely, that the Will and Testament of the Master is a forgery-expended a great deal of time, money and energy on expounding her views. The document in question, its handwriting, text and style, seals and history is so obviously protected from this accusation that her violent agitation had no effect on the body of the Baha'is, with the exception of a few simple souls in Germany. Most of these (who remained devoted to the Faith but confused on this point) have now expressed their deep remorse over these deluded and wasted years they spent outside the Bahá'í community, and have reentered it in Germany and are among its most active workers.

Why doesn't Munírih Khánum support your cause, Ruth White? Why did she continue to support Shoghi Effendi?
 
Hearsay, even from Munírih Khánum, is still hearsay.

Societies with respectable systems of law and order require wills to be probated, *proven* to be legitimate and authentic. It is entirely in character for criminals *not* to want wills probated, nor independently authenticated, especially when, as in the case of Shoghi Effendi, he both *translated* the purported will and was the major *beneficiary* of it!

In this context, thoughtful people concerned about justice, might want to reflect that Shoghi Effendi, when he "translated" Nabil's 70 page narrative of the early history of Babism, transformed it into a volume of several hundred pages. Only an authenticated will would prove that he didn't do so with Abdul-Baha's purported last testament. Shoghi Effendi always evaded and schemed against authentication.

Note Ruth White's observations,

"Shoghi Effendi ignored my request for permission to send a handwriting expert to Haifa to examine the original document."

"Therefore as all indications are overwhelmingly in favour of the belief that this alleged will, which was undated, unwitnessed, unprobated and unstamped by the government, is fraudulent, and especially as this belief is backed up by the report of Dr. C. Ainsworth Mitchell showing it to be fraudulent, I am confident that you will take the final step and have the document examined and make a report so that these victims may no longer be defrauded by Shoghi Effendi Rabanni, who claims to be the successor of Sir Abdul Baha Abbas, and that restitution may be made tome, and to many others, from whom large sums have been obtained under the false pretences."

"This alleged will is undated, unwitnessed, unprobated, and unstamped by the Government. It also contradicts the intent that its alleged maker held during his lifetime. For the alleged will commands people to obey Shoghi Effendi as if he were God, and to pay a tax to him. This is the motive of the fraud—money and power."
 
Ruth, can we try to start over here? Brian locked the other as it was just turning into exchanges of anger. When I say I have no opinion about whether the "Reform Baha'i" or "Orthodox Baha'i" or "Free Baha'i" or whatever other group does or doesn't have a more faithful interpretation than the multi-million-member group of Baha'ullah's original intent, I mean it in this same sense: what is your opinion about whether the "Reorganized Latter Day Saints" or the "Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints" are truer than the multi-million-member "Latter Day Saints" to the original intent of Joseph Smith? Probably you don't really have an opinion on that question. Now, you approach everyone as if they already have some strong opinions on the subject, and if they aren't with you they must be against you. If you are trying to gain more recognition of your position, start slow.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top