Jump to content

Talk:Shoghi Effendi/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Image notice

Please don't remove the image notice, that warns that the image will be deleted if the copyright status is not determined in the next 15 days. This is so that people will know that there is a problem, and so that the image may be updated with correct information. If the notice is removed, no one will know there's a problem, and the image will be deleted without anyone having had a chance to fix it.

The notice looks ugly, but it will be removed either when the image info is updated, or in 15 days, when the image is deleted. See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images for more info.

By the way, I think the image may be in the public domain - but that's not good enough. If anyone knows where the image came from, or when the photo was taken, then we can find out for sure whether it's in the public domain or not. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 11:55, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Since English is not my mother tongue and I only learnt in school, I would appreciate it if you could look for misspellings or grammar errors in the article. Thank you! Saed

Wikipedia does not allow for deleting links in an article even in a redirect, and must maintain a neautral point of view, restored link to Orhtodox Baha'i sites which was in the orginal article on Shoghi Effendi.

such "alternative" groups are very very small and are already mentioned in the main article, mentioning OBF everywhere is like mentioning "Potters of God" on every Chrstian related article - --Cyprus2k1 07:58, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Incorrect, when both gropups recognize the first Guardian, and one group only recognizes a second or third, then the group should be mentioned. The fact that it si smaller is not relevent to this. The link should stand, but if you want a war on this that can happen.

As Mason Remey later made the claim that he was the first guardian, you are incorrect, because the Baha'i Faith does not recognize the authority of Mason Remey and never has. Peter Deer (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

References

The main criticism of Wikipedia is the shortage of references. These are the main biographical books Shoghi Effendi:

  • Ru'hi'yyih Rabbani, The Priceless Pearl, Bahai Publishing Trust, UK; ISBN 1-870989-91-0. 404pp. The author was the widow of Shoghi Effendi. She described it as an appraisal of his life and work.
  • Riaz Khadem, Shoghi Effendi in Oxford, George Ronald, Oxford. ISBN 0-85398-423-9. 173pp. Records the Guardian's education through to his year at Oxford. It draws on his letters as well as those of contemporary Bahá'ís, and on memoirs of Shoghi Effendi's fellow students at Oxford. --Occamy 08:58, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Ugo Giachery, Shoghi Effendi - Reflections, George Ronald, Oxford. ISBN 0-85398-050-0. First hand personal experiences of a Hand of the Cause who worked closely with Shoghi Effendi during the construction of the Shrine of the Bab superstructure and the International Archives in Haifa. --Occamy 12:00, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The recently added point about Shoghi Effendi's interest in reforestation in Palestine and his being instrumental in forester Richard St. Barbe Baker's obtaining backing from multi-faith religious leaders in Palestine comes from St. Barbe Baker's autobiography, My Life, My Trees (1970, 1985). By the way, Richard St. Barbe Baker is said to have been a Baha'i from 1924 onward.

I believe you misunderstood the point about the "potters of God." It is an issue of size. There are presently 5 million members of the Hiafa based group, the next largest group is the "Orthodox Baha'i Faith" with somewhere around a thousand. In other words about 5000 OBF for one "mainstream" Baha'i. If size truely doesn't matter in the Wiipedia, then why does you website on the Pope not treat Pope Micahel I equally with Pope Bendeict XVI? The truth is size doesn't matter for Baha'is only. [unsigned by User:216.170.215.73]

Shoghi Effendi and Covenant Breakers

Amir has added a section "Shoghi Effendi and Excommunication" that appears to provide partial and POV information in the first paragraphs and a grossly distorted POV in the final paragraph. The last paragraph is therefore an easy target for deletion. The first paragraphs can be dealt with by putting them in context. Paramount over all is the subject of obedience to the Head of the Faith. In His Will and Testament Abdu'l-Baha exhorts the believers "...to show their obedience, submissiveness and subordination unto the Guardian of the Cause of God, to turn unto him and be lowly before him." Also, concerning shunning covenant-breakers: "And now, one of the greatest and most fundamental principles of the Cause of God is to shun and avoid entirely the Covenant-breakers, for they will utterly destroy the Cause of God, exterminate His Law and render of no account all efforts exerted in the past." And: "Hence, the beloved of the Lord must entirely shun them, avoid them, foil their machinations and evil whisperings, guard the Law of God and His religion, engage one and all in diffusing widely the sweet savours of God and to the best of their endeavour proclaim His Teachings." Concerning Ruhi Afnan, two cables sent by Shoghi Effendi on 2 November 1941 provide further background to his eventually being declared a covenant breaker:

  • "Ruhi's sister married Covenant-breaker Faydi whose mother joined and supported arch-enemy Muhammad-'Ali and whose father 'Abdu'l-Bahá denounced openly and repeatedly as His deadly enemy. Ruhi's family concurred. Inform all believers all manner communication excommunicated family forbidden."
  • "Flagrant disloyalty Ruhi's family compels me disclose information so long patiently withheld American believers concerning his failure obtain my approval his second visit America. His subsequent conduct regarding his marriage which I refrained from revealing anyone except your Assembly, as well as Fu'ad's departure England without my knowledge, should now be made known believers. Confident unshakable steadfastness exemplary American Bahá'í community."
  • And in a 1950 cable to the Baha'i world: "Inform friends that Ruhi, his mother, with Ruha, his aunt, and their families, not content with years of disobedience and unworthy conduct, are now showing open defiance."

This is a large and complicated subject. By highlighting the instance of Ruhi Afnan, Amir produces a very unbalanced extract of the whole situation. This part of the article needs extra work, or maybe on another page. Occamy 22:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I was asked by what appears to be a small group of people who have joined forces to fight off what they call "Baha'i manipulation" of Baha'i related Wikipedia articles. Initially I was going to stay away from it. But having browsed the history pages of various articles, I am convinced that there is an organized effort by a group of Baha'i Faith members who are indeed trying to control the level of information these articles can contain. For example, today I learned about the the threat of excommunication that exists in the Baha'i religion. I would have never learned about this had I not read the history pages. I see that even that bit of information was finally allowed to get in after some effort, but even then, our Baha'i friends are unfortunately still trying to cut out pieces of information from the article. Don't you think this is important information? Or in your heart you know it is important, but you still decide to suppress it? What if someone wants to take an honest look at this religion and evaluate it for himself/herself? This is really making me mad. I will stand for the truth, but hopefully gentlemanly and without getting muddy. Ardavan 10:12, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Welcome to the discussion Ardavan. To the best of my knowledge, Baha'is are not co-ordinating their contributions. As I see it, the problem is that major controversial statements are being made without prior discussion. They usually express POV and/or take things out of context, effectively making mountains out of molehills, when the purpose of Wikipedia is to produce balanced NPOV articles.
All faith communities emphasize their unity and the expression of this unity in the Baha'i Faith is the Covenant of Baha'u'llah. As an article of faith, Baha'i's must accept the Covenant, which defines the passing of authority from Baha'u'llah to Abdu'l-Baha, then to Shoghi Effendi and the Universal House of Justice. Baha'is are required to be obedient to the head of the Faith. The very few who have claimed to be Baha'is and yet attack the authority of the head of the Faith may be declared covenant breakers--which is equivalent to excommunication--only after long and extensive consultation with them has failed to change their actions. Anyone who decides they no longer "believe" can and do leave the Faith without restriction or rancour. Being declared a covenant breaker has occurred in only the most extreme and exceptional cases. This contrasts sharply with at least one other major religion that has applied the death penalty for apostates.
FYI, the Faith's main sanction against the few Baha'is whose behaviour may threaten the reputation of the Faith is Withdrawal of Voting Rights. The main characteristics of this sanction are not being allowed to do the following: vote in Baha'i elections, contribute to Baha'i funds, make a pilgrimage to the Baha'i shrines or have a Baha'i marriage ceremony. This is effectively a spiritual sanction and such a person otherwise participates normally in the Baha'i community.
A review of the Wikipedia History pages is not enough. Please review the extensive discussion and archive pages to understand the threads. The only real information that Baha'is have tried to take off articles is the photograph of Baha'u'llah. The discussion pages explain how much offence any image of the revered founder of the Faith causes to Baha'is. From what I read, the consensus among the Baha'is is to provide a link to the image for those who want to see it. This is not suppression of information.
As to unfounded and scurrilous claims, those wanting to insert such things should support them with respected references and sources, rather than "Some say..." or "It is rumoured..." phrases which Wikipedia itself describes as unacceptable "weasel phrases". You are correct that gentlemanly behaviour is much more constructive than being mad. Please read the discussion pages. Occamy 12:59, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

POV section

this paragraph is clearly POV:

"So as we can see from the above, this man's "fault", after years of dedication to the Bahai Faith, was that his sister had married someone whom the Bahai leader considered to be an "enemy". And the statement made is "allowing his sister to marry [some enemy]", and that was enough to get him excommunicated from the faith and effectively, cutting him from his entire past and friends (because if other Bahais would stay in touch with him, they would have gotten the same treatment)."

its doesnt really seems to state anything, but instead just disaproves (POV) something.

and this one: "Therefore, the culture of excommunication and the threat of it for the members of Bahai Faith is always present, and it has continued ever since."

->ISNT TRUE,

" It is debatable whether this culture of threats and intimidation in the Bahai Faith is intrinsic to the teachings and culture of the faith itslef or it is, for the most part, the "Shoghi Reforms" that has ushered in such a spirit and culture into the faith."

is POV.

---Cyprus2k1 17:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I didn't put in Shoghi's letter in the article. I first wrote about the fact that he excommunicated Ruhi Afnan for the apparent "mistake" that his sister had married someone that Shoghi had already excommunicated. This is extremely negative reflection of the whole Bahai religion. So one of your team leaders (the guy who is the moderator of bahai usenet newsgroup) replaced my changes with his own, and he put in Shoghi's letter.
By the way, he did that after some IP was deleting my contributions as "unfounded trash" or something to that effect, until I mentioned in edit history line that this is documented. The IP still deleted my changes and said "if it is documented then show us the doc". So I put a link to the letter which is on the Bahai official web site. Immediately after that, your team leader "showed up" and modified my changes. Frustrated that you guys do not allow any non-Bahais touch your religious leaflets, I simply added two little paragraphs to what His Eminence had added.
My additions are 100% correct. Shoghi excommunicated this guy for the "mistake" that his sister had married to a so-called "Covenant Breaker". It is also a rule in Bahaism that if you associated with someone who is excommunicated, you also will be excommunicated. If you guys continue to be unreasonable and piss me off by your stupid censorship, I will open up a whole series of issues that you guys will wish you had never provoked me into doing so. I just don't want to spend too much of my time on this sort of crap, because I have to study for my classes. But if provoked, I will react. --Amir 18:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First off, I'm not a team leader, I'm a participant in the wiki. Second, the simple fact that Ruhi Afnan allowed his sister to marry a CB is _not_ the reason he was excommunicated, it's one of SEVERAL reasons. AAMOF, the damned source YOU CITED didn't even MENTION the sister. If you want, we'll post the ENTIRE SET of four cables announcing to the world the list of stuff Ruhi did. Sohrab's "oh oh Ruhi is oh-so-innocent" book, and the various sigantures he collected about it aren't relevent. Sohrab never EVER explained, or commented on Ruhi's _real_ problematic actions, the most blatent of which is SELLING BAHA'I HOLY SITES without permission or consultation, and then, frankly, pocketing the money and using it to finance his life in Europe and America.

If you want the non-bahai sources for that, they exist, but if you insist on draggin this out in that kind of detail, we're going to end up with a wiki page entitled "The Ruhi Afnan affair." And I suspect that if you don't REALLY want a time suck, then let's stay away from this.

The Ruhi Afnan affair is a CLASSIC example of what happens when a young man gets involved with a power-hungry older man. Sohrab, for all that he's a wonderful writer, attempted to grab power in the Baha'i Faith, and convinced the members of Baha'u'llah's extended family, beginning with Ruhi, that they could rest the power from Shoghi Effendi, rest the ownership of the various holy places, including Bahji from him, and eventually, get the income from the Huququllah. The courts in Israel, the international Baha'i community, and the courts in the US and Europe didn't allow that to happen. Duh.

This is NOT an appropriate topic for the BIO PAGE for Shoghi Effendi. If you WANT a topic page on Sohrab, and Ruhi Affnan, and the others, we'll go there. And no, without access to the Afnan archives in London, which, I admit, is currently closed because they don't have the budget to keep them open, this is going to be kinda thin on the ground. But unless you start CITING SOURCES for the accusations you make, instead of just writing anti-Baha'i polemics on each page you touch, then yes, we're going to keep replying.

And no, we aren't coordinating this. You've managed to offend each of us INDIVIDUALLY. Rick Boatright 19:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The subject is expanded in Covenant-Breaking in Shoghi Effendi's Immediate Family. Occamy 00:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Genealogy

Come on Tom :) Surely you can't expect to add a little "he did it too" to support a completely ficticious genealogy ? Esp one which attempts to link all the great religious leaders of the past to show that they all descend into Shoghi? Don't you think that's just a tad enormously self-serving of the family? Show me one single credible historian that believes this genealogy could have any semblence of truth and I'll let you off (grin) Wjhonson 01:38, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh no, I'm not saying its not. I just think saying its not supported by any documentation is a little harsh (for example, I reckon that they must have got Baha'u'llah's grandfather right, and probably his great-grandfather). I'm sure people can realise that going down to Adam is probably wrong, but from my understanding people can regularly claim to trace their line back to an Imam or Muhammad etc.
I added the last line to point out that this genealogy is not all THAT special. My first experience of this type of thing is when a friend from Pakistan mentioned that she had one. I'm half iranian half british, and I don't know anything about my british great-great-grandparents. I just want to point out that being able to trace back even 10 generations isn't unique to the Baha'i holy family.
-- Tomhab 10:34, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
OK a couple of problems. I think it's Maulani who mentions that the descendents of Mohammed wore some kind of special clothing like green or something? I forgot. But he goes out of his way to mention that the Bab was such a descendent. But then when he comes to talk about Mirza Yahya and Baha U'llah he says nothing about it. That to me is suspicious and of course adherents of the Baha'i religion would be embracing of the idea that Baha U'llah was so descended. So I'm seeing conflict there. In addition, nothing else I've read indicates or even implies that he has Mohammed as an ancestor. So until someone comes up with something I'm prone to think this genealogy is spurious. With spurious documents, once it's questioned it's hard to tell what is good from what is bad there. As to whether it's special compared to others in that region, I agree that some people can claim descent from Mohammed but I'm not sure that we can say the *most* people can or even that a *large* number can. Wjhonson 02:19, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sorry if I mislead. Baha'u'llah is not related to Mohammad. If you look at the genealogy on this page I'm pretty certain it doesn't say he is (I believe he's related to Zorastra - sorry for any misspelling in that). It is a little confusing because it also tracks the Bab's line (who is no way related to Baha). I think it also points out where Jesus fits in on the side.
The Bab was a Siyyid (he's sometimes called Siyyid Ali Mohammad), which means in the line of Mohammad. They wear green turbans I believe yes. Its in much the same way that the relatives of the Babs are known as the Afnans (thats their surname).
As for that additional line, I was just trying to say that its not all that rare in the middle east. If you can trace yourself back to anyone in the 5th century thats damn impressive in Western culture even if it has a ... in the middle where you're not sure :).
I am dubious about it. If it didn't have so many ...s I'd be far more impressed, but I think it can only track back 6-7 generations above Baha'u'llah which although is good, isn't unique.
Anyway, I'm not bothered with it not being in if you don't feel it appropriate, but at the time I thought it was implying that it was a great proof of the Baha'i faith because we can trace that far back. My point is "although its nice, it's not actually that special". If you want to reword it go for it. -- Tomhab 14:35, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There seems to have been no further discussion of the Genealogy here. I don't like it either, Tom said he doesn't mind if it goes, I don't it adds anything much to the article and it strikes me as a bit weird having unreadable graphics on this page, so I'm removing that section. PaulHammond 16:21, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Might it be an idea to leave a link to it though - as in no image just "genealogy"? Possible "see also"? -- Tomhab 03:00, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please excuse me arriving late in the discussion. I am copying below a comment on genealogy that I made in the Baha'i Faith article...perhaps it should have been here in the first place. Sorry about the duplication. The point is that nowadays we search backwards to find ancestors. But aristocratic families such as Baha'u'llah's would have kept detailed records of marriages and births for generation after generation. Maybe there is some expert research on the reliability of these genealogies. But Baha'u'llah's lineage has not been a subject of controversy in Iran, so the doubts expressed above are simply POV.
Concerning the Bab's lineage, can you imagine what a hullaballo there would be in Iran and elsewhere if a non-Siyyid claimed to be a descendent of Mohammad?
As Mirza Buzurg's family would have been, aristocracy everywhere is very protective of their lineage; they would not allow their offspring to marry just anyone. Backgrounds were checked and researched, and details of lineage were recorded carefully from generation to generation...wholly different from today's disposable society. Consider how careful enthusiasts are nowadays about their champion pets' pedigrees and your get some idea how how serious a business lineage was and still is for many. --Occamy 09:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ruhi Afnan and more additions

I moved the information about Ruhi Afnan to a separate page. I really think that a biography of Shoghi Effendi is not an appropriate place to talk about this in detail, and I didn't want to outright delete someone else's contribution. I saw the discussion earlier and I think this is fair.

I made a lot of changes to this page, and I want to work on it more, because it seems to be short and not focused. I don't want to be a nuisance to people who have worked on this a lot, so if you have any ideas for what to keep, delete, or add, please mention them now. Cunado19 03:25, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for all your contributions. As many editors do not work on these articles on a daily basis, I would urge patience and wait perhaps a week for comments before deciding on major changes. I wish I could spend more time on the Baha'i-related articles, but at the moment.... --Occamy 28 June 2005 12:05 (UTC)

Name Change

Can we move the name of this article to Shoghi Effendi instead of Shoghi Effendi Rabbani. It seems like it's just better. I think this would follow wiki's naming rules, cause he's much better known as Shoghi Effendi, and there's no disambiguation issues. Cuñado - Talk 09:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I moved it. Cuñado - Talk 17:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

moved comment

The following was improperly placed. I moved it. Cuñado - Talk 22:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires a neutral point of view, does not condone promotion of one group over another. Statements saying one group is wrong and another right does not fit the standard. Hence the statement that the Bhaa'i faith administered out of Haifa is the only true Faith is not one which meets the critereon of Wikipedia. Hence the paragraph about the Gaurdianship of Shoghi Effendi being the only one, and that the larger group administered out of Haifa being the only true adminsitration of the baha'i Faith was removed. [unsigned by User:66.219.220.101]

It should be noted that approximately 99% of individuals who believe themselves to be Baha'is profess loyalty to the authority of the Haifan Universal House of Justice. Strictly speaking, the other sects that claim authority are relatively insignificant in their numbers by comparison, and the widely accepted authority of the Universal House of Justice in Haifa would indicate, by wikipedia's standards, that the notability of opposing sects is negligible. Hence, while there may be some sect of catholicism in the world claiming to be TRUE catholicism with its own pope and its own vatican, the fact remains that by an overwhelming consensus of Catholics the Pope in Vatican City is the recognized pope and the Vatican in Vatican City is the recognized Vatican. However, I shall alleviate your perplexity on this issue as I am intending to make a seperate article regarding the station, duties, history, and authority of the guardianship and I shall include information regarding the claims of these covenant-breakers who claim as well to be guardians. Peter Deer (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Needs more info

i feel that more should be included about the transition from Guardianship the Universal House of Justice. right now it just looks like some arbitrary moves that brought it to be. it should be inluded that in Shoghi Effendi's last message to the Baha'i World, he specifically named every single point of the Baha'i Administration and Baha'i World a "steward" of the faith, asking them to steward it through the end of the 10 years crusade, and named the Hands of the Cause of God, the CHIEF STEWARDS of the embryonic Baha'i commonwealth.

It should also be mentioned that the 9 elected custodians are a body that was mentioned in the Will and Testament of Abdu'l Baha

The transition is on Bahá'í divisions in more depth. In a biography of Shoghi Effendi it's not appropriate. Cuñado - Talk 23:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
An article on the institution of the Guardianship itself, independant of the biographical article on Shoghi Effendi, would probably be appropriate, containing information regarding the basis of authority of the guardianship, the duties and station of the guardian, and the claims to guardianship by the covenant-breakers. It is important that they be represented fairly in their case ("truthfulness is the foundation of all human virtue") but it should be noted in the article as well that by most estimates their combined numbers are less than 1% of the bulk that the more than 6 million adherents who accept the Haifan Universal House of Justice hold. I am still looking for a more reliable source of the numbers of the adherents of all the remeyite and azali splinter groups (it has already been established that the followers of Mirza Muhammad-Ali are limited to an estimated two families with no known activity or organization.) but it is made difficult by the fact that the Remeyite movement has had more divisions in and of itself in the past fifty years than the Baha'i Faith has in the entirety of its history. Peter Deer (talk) 13:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Terminology about his studies at Oxford

He is described as double majoring. I have never heard of anybody "double majoring" at Oxford. This sounds like American (or otherwise non-English) terminology being applied to an English context. At English universities (at least the ones I know) one does not major, or double major, in anything. One reads a School (certainly at Oxford that is what one does). Does the article mean to say that he read the famous school of Philosophy, Politics, and Economics, or did he follow a special course of studies tailored to his requirements but not leading to a degree? If the former, it should say that he read PPE (students often drop one of the three subjects after the first year), and if the latter it should say just that. If he followed a graduate course then I am confused because I don't know of any that fit that description.--Oxonian2006 19:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

After skimming through Khadem, Riaz (1999). Shoghi Effendi in Oxford. Oxford: George Ronald. ISBN 0-85398-423-9. it seems like Shoghi Effendi was matriculated in "Economics and Social Sciences." His tutor, however, was A.D. Lindsay who held the position of classical tutor and Jowett Lecturer in Philosophy. I don't know what these exactly mean or imply though. -- Jeff3000 23:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I recall listening to a lecturer mention that he majored in both economics and political science. I don't remember how it was worded, or whether the speaker knew the subject well. I think it should be changed to fit the references. Cuñado - Talk 01:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll try my best to change the sentence to fit the reference. -- Jeff3000 02:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Controversy Surrounding Shoghi

There is a good deal of controversy surrounding Shoghi, including among many who subscribe to the generic Baha'i Faith. While the most outspoken critics are in a very small minority, their arguments are cogent, and deserve to be acknowledged in Wikipedia, if only in a separate article. Entire websites are devoted in whole or part to this controversy, so there is no shortage of source material.

The central problem of the Guardianship is the authenticity of the Last Will and Testament (LW&T) of (the man, known to Bahais as) Abdul Baha, from which Shoghi drew almost all his authority as Guardian.

There are reasons to, at least, doubt this document. Those reasons have been publicized for many years, especially by the late author Ruth White, a devoted adherent of the Baha'i Faith, and an adulator of Abdul Baha, Shoghi's grandfather. (Not to be confused with at least one other author of the same name.)

It would be a simple matter to have an independent third party investigate the LW&T, and either authenticate it, or else refute it as a forgery. This has never been done, according to many online discussions, and was apparently resisted by Shoghi himself.

If the LW&T is shown to be forged, then there is little reason to believe that Bahai doctrine calls for any formal Guardian at all, and even less reason to hold that such a station has a specific method of succession. This would make of Shoghi at best a dupe, and at worst, a fraud.

On the other hand, if the document is shown to be authentic, then Shoghi's authority is certified in the context of his religious profession.

Either way, such a straightforward finding of fact would certainly be relevant to the Wikipedia article.

Without such a finding, the questions of Guardianship succession (see the article on Mason Remey) can never be adequately addressed, since the LW&T is the basis of any claim to succession. There are also many peripheral issues which remain in controversy until the LW&T can be analyzed.

The refusal of the Baha'i mainline authorities to permit such an analysis is the main impediment to resolving this matter once and for all. Lutelatner (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Government Authorities in Haifa confirmed its authenticity when it was used as evidence for expelling Mirza Muhammad Ali from the Shrine of Baha'u'llah and the Mansion of Bahji. Peter Deer (talk) 12:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Ruth White and her speculation about the will are mentioned in Baha'i divisions. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Date error???

Here is: While studying in England, on 29 November 1921, the news of `Abdu'l-Bahá's death reached Shoghi Effendi ... then: he arrived in Haifa on 29 December ..., is it right or wrong??? --giorces (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The dates are correct. Based on Taherzadeh, A. (2000), The Child of the Covenant, Oxford, UK: George Ronald, pp. 272–273, ISBN 0853984395 and Rabbani, R. (1969). The Priceless Pearl (Hardcover ed.). London, UK: Bahá'í Publishing Trust: 2000. p. 41. ISBN 1870989910., Shoghi Effendi got news of the event on November 29. He spent some time recovering from the shock with John Esslemont. He then has some passport difficulties which delayed his travel, but he finally sailed from England on December 16 and arrived in Haifa on the 29th, one month after the passing of the `Adbu'l-Baha. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous unencyclopedic style

Statements such as the following are not fit for an encyclopedia:

The marriage was a source of great joy and celebration amongst the Bahá'ís and messages flooded Haifa from all over the world.

First of all, Wikipedia is no collection of fan-site praises of any person, letting them drown in superlatives (so called peacock style). The reader should have the right to decide whether the guy was good or not – even if that overrides the Bahai policy of don't-dissent-or-face-expulsion – Wikipedia doesn't have don't-dissent-or-face-expulsion rule, that's for minor stagnant sites like Conservapedia only.

Secondly all claims in Wikipedia must be sourced and factual. If the claim be factual, it must have some secondary sources that analyses the data.

as Guardian he was empowered to interpret the writings of Bahá'u'lláh and `Abdu'l-Bahá, and these were authoritative and binding

For whom?

Throughout Shoghi Effendi's life, nearly all remaining family members and descendants of `Abdu'l-Bahá rebelled against his authority at some point

Or was it the other way around, such as: for all his life he created conflicts by an authoritarian leadership... (just an example) ... The dissonance between the wording and the minimalist interpretation makes many statements of the article hollow. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 22:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Mary Maxwell (Rúhíyyih Khánum).jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Mary Maxwell (Rúhíyyih Khánum).jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No. of countries in the world?

"the countries in which Bahá'ís had representation went from 35 to 250" .. as far as I know there are only 193 countries... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gulpen (talk • contribs)

Nationality?

Is it correct to list Shoghi Effendi in Category:Iranian Bahá'ís? It doesn't appear that he ever lived in the country of Iran. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shoghi Effendi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Merge from books

See RFC at Talk:Baháʼí Administration (book). The non-major works of Shoghi Effendi (defined by Iranica) can merge into this page. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 08:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Merge from Guardian (Baháʼí Faith)

A lot of the two pages are redundant. Could easily consolidate into the biography page. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. Any general material that speaks about how the institution works without reference to Shoghi Effendi could go to Baháʼí administration to improving the sourcing there. Gazelle55 (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Guardianship

Asad29591, I removed your addition of the "mutilated" quote. You should avoid pushing quotes from primary sources that promote a disputed POV. In this case, taking that quote out of context is leading the reader to a conclusion that you support, but is not how the issue is presented in neutral secondary sources. When these problems come up on Wikipedia they can easily turn into a back and forth of quoting primary sources. Wikipedia should summarize secondary sources, presenting things according to their weight in the sources. The subject of this article is Shoghi Effendi. So, for example, look at several biographies of Shoghi Effendi by neutral sources and see if the "mutilated" quote appears at all, let alone in all of them. It's not a question of whether the quote is real or referenced. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Question for Asad29591 or Cuñado: Is Johnson an ex-Baha'i? It is not a game changer but could have some effect on how we should regard his book with regards to WP:DUE, here and elsewhere. Correct me if I'm wrong but it looks like Asad29591 cited Johnson, who is not a primary source. As far as high-quality sources in the article, I see Momen, Smith (2000 and 2008), Hartz, Adamson, and Johnson. We don't have any full biographies from independent sources so we can hardly use that as a threshold for inclusion, so Johnson looks as good as any of them to me. That said, what I think would be decisive would be if multiple independent reliable sources indicated their view that having only one Guardian went against Shoghi Effendi's intentions or apparent intentions. That would be WP:DUE, I'm not sure this is. I've just looked at Margit Warburg's 2006 book and haven't found anything where she says this. Gazelle55 (talk) 04:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
As far as I know Johnson was never a Baha'i. He is a secondary source, but the addition in the article was a primary source, and the subject of Johnson's book is not Shoghi Effendi. As an example, the Iranica biographaphy by Momen gives a paragraph on the subject: "In the absence of a living Guardian, some aspects of the Guardianship, such as the headship of the Bahai Faith, devolve, according to the Will and Testament of ʿAbd-al-Bahāʾ, upon the Universal House of Justice. Other functions such as the authorized interpretation of Bahai scripture continue in that the Universal House of Justice considers itself bound by Shoghi Effendi’s interpretations and therefore searches through Shoghi Effendi’s writings on each issue on which it intends to make a decision."
Similarly, Hartz's section on Shoghi Effendi covers the transition of authority on pages 84-5 and only mentions, "‘Abdu’l-Baha had obviously meant the institution of Guardian to be handed down within the family, but Shoghi Effendi and his wife had no children. He had not named a successor. There would be no more guardians."
Sen McGlinn wrote this essay on the Guardianship and the Universal House of Justice, and what it means to not have a Guardian. He includes the "mutilated" quote and many others. As you can see from McGlinn, addressing the subject would be extensive and it is inappropriate to selectively sneak in a primary source that promotes a disputed POV without context. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Cuñado Hiding of facts is not something which is uncommon for mainstream Heterodox Baha'i sect. What I have put completely meets the policy of Wikipedia. I do understand that it contradicts your sect beliefs but it is a fact and is related to the article hence it does deserve space in the article. Kindly do not remove factual information as you will end up making the article biased.Asad29591 (talk) 00:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Asad29591, please assume WP:GOODFAITH. You have a WP:RS but you should address the concern about WP:UNDUE weight that Cuñado and I both discussed above. I am on the fence here. If you want to show this is important for inclusion, I suggest you show that multiple secondary sources have argued what happened with the guardianship went against Shoghi Effendi's plans. In fact, I tend to agree with you based on my memory... but that would be WP:OR. Gazelle55 (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
I think there needs to be a distinction between Johnson sharing his analysis of the sources and events, and Johnson sharing Remey's opinion. If it's documenting Remey's belief, then it would be appropriate to use it on Remey's biography or similar. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, absolutely agree. If the quote is Remey's view without any endorsement by Johnson, that doesn't count as support from a reliable secondary source... I think Johnson includes Remey's opinions because it is his book's topic, not because it's particularly relevant to this article's topic. Gazelle55 (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Gazelle55 Cuñado Firstly i apologize if i sounded rude. Per what I understand from what you both have mentioned, I shall provide some more secondary sources for the saying which should be help.Asad29591 (talk) 00:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Asad29591, it is okay. In fact, I checked the "History" section of Denis MacEoin's chapter on "Baha'ism" (as he calls it) in the Penguin Handbook of Living Religions, and found this:

Shoghi Effendi’s death in 1957 provoked a serious crisis in the movement, the details of which remain unclear. He had been appointed first of a line of Guardians intended to lead the Baha’i community in parallel with the then unestablished legislative body, the Universal House of Justice, but had died without issue and without leaving any instructions as to the future leadership of the religion. He had, moreover, by then excommunicated all his living male relatives, so that there did not seem to be any way of perpetuating the Guardianship through a collateral line. ‘Abd al-Baha’ had been explicit about future Guardians in his will and testament, and Shoghi himself had stressed that, without the Guardianship, the Baha’i system would be ‘mutilated and permanently deprived of [the] hereditary principle’ [45: 148]. The effective termination of a hereditary Guardianship thus called into question certain basic assumptions about the workings of the system and left open the possibility of future factionalism, an eventuality which the present Baha’i leadership has come to regard as particularly threatening. It is, however, a measure of Shoghi Effendi’s success in creating a functional religious bureaucracy that, in 1963, the National Assemblies elected the first Universal House of Justice with virtually no opposition. The centralizing authority of this institution, combined with others since created at the Baha’i World Centre in Israel, has so far proved an effective means of preserving the unity of the Baha’i community in the face of occasional factionalism (see figure 16.2).

Since this is a contentious point, we'll have to look at several sources and then discuss in the article how they have presented the issue differently (since even MacEoin here says "the details ... remain unclear"). I suspect a few editors will get involved, but probably the quote could be included. Gazelle55 (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Cuñado, I was meaning to reword Asad's addition a bit and integrate it more seamlessly into the text, but at this point I think it should be included in some form. Quotation marks around the word mutilated would be good. Pablabra Publications is a Baha'i publisher so I don't think it should be used, but the other two look good... Adamson is published by a non-Baha'i publisher and is a professor (if not on the topic), so I don't see any issue with using him as a source. In addition, the MacEoin source I quoted from above could be included. That makes three, including two that saw the quote as important enough not only to Shoghi Effendi but to the religion as a whole to include it. So it's not an issue of WP:PRIMARY, and I don't think it's an issue of WP:UNDUE. Gazelle55 (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The way the quote was added, it was clearly leading the reader and it lacked an explanation of how Baha'i sources understand the situation of not having a living Guardian. For example, there is an obvious flaw in citing the "mutilated" quote without citing the next paragraph: "Severed from the no less essential institution of the Universal House of Justice this same System... would be paralyzed in its action and would be powerless to fill in those gaps which the Author of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas has deliberately left in the body of His legislative and administrative ordinances." As McGlinn and others have written, Shoghi Effendi went his whole life without the Universal House of Justice, and he did not regard the system as "paralyzed" and "powerless". In the same way, Baha'is do not regard the Universal House of Justice without a Guardian as "mutilated". The institution was maintained by Shoghi Effendi understanding the separate jurisdictions of the two and not overstepping his authority. The best example of this separation of powers was on the question of what to do if there are no possible candidates to appoint as Guardian. Only the Universal House of Justice had the authority to decide, and it was not elected yet, so he remained silent on the question. In the same way, without a living Guardian, the Universal House of Justice avoids any kind of authoritative interpretations of scripture, and defers to the body of interpretations left by Shoghi Effendi and Abdu'l-Baha. If you want to expand on the issue, great, just don't do what Asad did. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 02:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Cuñado Shoghi Effendi went his whole life without UHJ because he was in process of setting up the same. And he being the head of the faith had authority unlike UHJ which is functioning and enjoying the Huququllah which is actually the right of Guardian. What I have put is factually correct and with proper reference. If you wish to make any addition to that feel free to do so however do not revert the edit unless you have a valid reason to do so. As I have mentioned before also just because you belong to a different sect it doesn't mean that you have ownership of this article. If I am complying with the policies of Wiki then you should also assume good faith. Asad29591 (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Cuñado, thanks for the explanation. I think if there is a good source that covers the Baha'i interpretation of that quote, it is fine to include after the quote if the opinion is properly attributed. Could be Sen McGlinn. In the meantime, I don't see any issue with including the quote despite what somebody might conclude from it. Asad29591, I think it may fit better at the end of that section than the beginning. I will try to get to it soon if you don't. Gazelle55 (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Gazelle55 I have added the same at the end of the section. The way our friends like Cunado revert to my edit, it seems they first click on revert and then read what I have mentioned in the article. Asad29591 (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately I did have the feeling that Cuñado's reason for removing the material kept changing. Anyway most recently he said the quote should be contextualized so he's free to do that. I added another source so there are four now (though as I wrote above I don't think Palabra Publications should be considered reliable). Gazelle55 (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Guardianship as the head of UHJ

Hello Cuñado,

Why are you removing this point "The Guardian of the Cause of God is its sacred Head and a distinguished member for life of that body (UHJ)." Is it that this point is not mentioned in the W&T or is it that it does not match with your personal beliefs which you are assuming to be correct. Asad29591 (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shoghi_Effendi/Archive_1&oldid=1106511097"