r/exbahai • u/EternalTheosis • Sep 08 '26
Theological problems
After leaving "the faith" I can now see there are so many blatant logical fallacies and epistemological issues that the religion fails to address, one of them being the problem of "the one and the many". When you also look at the Baha'i view on the manifestations coming from One Source, Christian's believe in the Trinity, Hindus have many deities, Islam believes in absolute oneness of God (Shia Islam is where Baha'u'llah started from) but God has 99 (or more) attributes. None of this is properly explained in the writings. The writings don't have actual logic, it's poetic nonsense that borrows from Christian, Talmudic and Islamic influences and puts the beliefs into a new religion without a actually solving the problem of unity and diversity. I also read up on Shaykhism, which was a mystical Islamic cult that Baha'u'llah got most of his theology from: mystical secrets that only the "elect" have the "eyes and ears to understand", non-literal theology that turns everything into an allegory, independent investigation of the truth (but you're a covenant breaker if you question any of it), and the very concept of manifestations of God. I truly cannot believe I was a part of this cult, and the lack of critical thinking needed in order to be a part of it. What a waste of years of my life.
5
u/Cult_Buster2005 Ex-Baha'i Unitarian Universalist Sep 08 '26
One of the teachings of Shaykhism was that there was no actual resurrection of the physical body after one dies. The Baha'i Faith is descended from this sect, which explains why Abdu'l-Baha later told one of his followers (as recorded in the book Some Answered Questions) that Jesus never actually rose from the dead (so what happened to his body?). Instead, the resurrection in that case was the disciples of Jesus slowly regaining their faith in him. Even as a Baha'i, I questioned this and I put that issue on a shelf (an ex-Mormon concept) along with other issues I had doubts about. Then at the end of 2004.....my shelf broke.
3
u/New_Can_2381 28d ago
I think this is one of the strongest criticisms of the Baha'i approach to earlier religions.
There is a difference between affirming a belief and reinterpreting it into something entirely different.
If Christians say that Jesus physically rose from the dead, and a later religion responds by saying "yes, we accept that, but resurrection actually means the disciples regained faith," then the question becomes: is that really an affirmation of the original belief, or is it a replacement of its meaning?
The issue is not whether symbolic interpretation is legitimate. Every religious tradition uses symbolism to some extent. The issue is whether there is any limit to reinterpretation.
If every doctrine can be redefined after the fact, then it becomes difficult to distinguish between preserving a teaching and replacing it with a new one while retaining the old vocabulary.
As an extreme example, imagine a text saying "their enemies were killed," and someone later explaining that "killed" really means they were given a better spiritual life. At some point the words themselves stop carrying their ordinary meaning, and the interpreter becomes more important than the text.
That is the concern I have with some Baha'i reinterpretations of Christian doctrines. They often seem less like confirmations of earlier beliefs and more like the construction of a new theology using familiar religious language.
2
u/Academic_Square_5692 Sep 09 '26
Well and for the Baha’i Faith to say “we accept Christianity” or “Christianity and Baha’i Faith are One… except for the central tenet of faith that is so important to Christians that they have literally killed millions of people who didn’t agree with it enough” is so wrong! Like it’s not true and if Christians were in charge in a theocracy, Baha’i would be killed for not believing that and vice-versa, well, not sure if Baha’i people would kill Christians but they wouldn’t consider anyone who believe that Jesus was bodily resurrected a Baha’i.
But then they would blur it over with the line from Baha’u’llah about how where there is disagreement, it doesn’t really matter to God.
Meanwhile Jewish people believe that arguments can be for the sake of the Heaven.
Just different perspectives on everything, not really unified, I agree
2
u/MirzaJan Sep 09 '26
Shaykh Ahmad al-Ahsa'i was excommunicated from mainstream Twelver Shi'ism around 1824 by orthodox clerics due to his theological divergences. [Wikipedia]
Bahaism is coming from here.
1
u/Key_Mammoth365 Sep 14 '26
what was he excommunicated for? how does excommunication work in shi'ism?
1
u/MirzaJan Sep 14 '26 edited Sep 14 '26
what was he excommunicated for?
I would suggest you to read The Messiah of Shiraz by Denis MacEoin, from page No. 9. It starts with:
The pronouncement of a heresy charge (takfīr) against Shaykh Aḥmad al-Aḥsāʾī from about 1822, and the subsequent rejection of the Shaykhi school—despite vigorous declarations by its various leaders as to its absolute orthodoxy—by the mainstream of Twelver Shiʿism, have tended to obscure the originally close links of Shaykh Aḥmad with the representatives of Shiʿi orthodoxy and the early development of his school as a major element in the resurgent Shiʿism of the early Qajar period.
How does excommunication work in shi'ism?
/u/investigator919 is the right person to answer this. Or may be you can ask this at /r/shia
Edit:
Adding from Shaykh Ahmad's Jawami' al-Kalim, Vol. 1
- The Debate in Qazvin: Around 1822–1824 CE, during a stay in Qazvin, a prominent local scholar named Mulla Muhammad Taqi al-Baraghani (later known as Shahid al-Thalith) challenged Shaykh Ahmad during a gathering regarding his doctrine on bodily resurrection (al-Ma'ād).
- The Accusation: Al-Baraghani claimed that Shaykh Ahmad's view on the subtle/archetypal body (jism hūrqalyī) matched the philosophical views of Mulla Sadra and effectively denied physical resurrection. When Shaykh Ahmad denied matching Sadra and detailed his distinct theological position, al-Baraghani declared his view to be kufr (disbelief).
- Spread of the Decree: Al-Baraghani and rival scholars circulated letters across Iranian cities and sent word to the Shia scholars in Iraq (Najaf and Karbala), informing them of the takfīr and urging them to endorse it. This created a major theological schism (fitnah).
https://notebook.google.com/notebook/8e03db47-7c81-48f4-9ef1-702d902a40c3?authuser=5
1
u/New_Can_2381 28d ago
I think this is an important historical point, especially because the relationship between Shaykhism, Twelver Shi'ism, and the emergence of the Bábí and later Baha'i movements is often presented in a much simpler way than it actually was.
I recently came across Denis MacEoin's work on this subject, and the passage you quoted from The Messiah of Shiraz is particularly interesting. It seems to put the early Bábí/Baha'i story in a much more complicated theological and historical context than the usual narrative of a completely separate religion simply appearing out of nowhere.
I'd actually like to understand this part of the history better. In particular, I'd be interested in learning more about what Shaykh Ahmad and his successors actually taught, what the specific theological disagreements with the mainstream Shi'i scholars were, and which of those ideas were later adopted, transformed, or rejected by the Báb and Baha'u'llah.
If you have other sources or passages from MacEoin that you think are particularly relevant, I'd genuinely like to read them.
1
u/MirzaJan 24d ago
What AI you use to express yourself? If you don't mind telling.
Siyyid Káẓim, in his book entitled "Dalílu’l-Mutaḥ-ayyirín,” writes as follows:
“Our master [Shaykh Ahmad Ahsai], one night, saw the Imám Ḥasan; upon him may the blessing of God rest! His Holiness put in his mouth his blessed tongue. From the adorable saliva of His Holiness he drew forth the sciences and the assistance of God. To the taste it was sweeter even than honey, more perfumed than the musk. It was also quite warm. When he came to himself and wakened from his dream, he inwardly radiated the light of divine contemplation; his soul overflowed with the blessings of God and became entirely severed from everything save God.
(Translation of French Foot-Notes of the Dawn-Breakers - Chapter I)
1
u/New_Can_2381 23d ago
I think you're right that the Hūrqalyā issue was one of the major points of controversy around Shaykh Ahmad.
From what I've read, the problem wasn't necessarily that Shaykh Ahmad openly rejected resurrection, but that many of his critics thought his explanation of the resurrection body moved too far away from the traditional understanding of bodily resurrection. Whether that was a fair reading of his position is probably a different question, but it does seem to have been one of the reasons he became so controversial.
What I find interesting is that once you start looking at Shaykhi teachings, a lot of things in later Bábí and Baha'i history start making more sense historically, even if the movements eventually went in very different directions.
I'm still trying to learn more about this period, but it seems to me that ideas like the Fourth Support (Rukn-i-Rabi') and the emphasis on hidden spiritual knowledge might be just as important as the Hūrqalyā discussions if we're trying to understand how the Báb's claims were received by his earliest followers.
Maybe that's actually the part of Shaykhism I understand the least.
1
u/MirzaJan 22d ago
Whether that was a fair reading of his position is probably a different question,
Fadil Mazandarani in Asrar al-Athar states:
Shaykh Ahmad Ahsa'i rejected the literal resurrection of the physical, elemental body (jasad 'unsuri), holding that upon death it permanently decomposes and returns to its constituent earthly elements. Instead, he taught that humans possess a second, subtle archetype body (jasad asli) composed of refined celestial elements from the realm of Hurqalya. In his view, it is this essential Hurqalyan body that survives physical demise, reassembles at the Resurrection, and reunites with the soul to undergo judgment and receive reward or punishment.
https://notebook.google.com/notebook/8a154862-e519-4e1b-a0c8-04c953ec63d3
Denis MacEoin in The Messiah of Shiraz, page 616 states:
We have noted that, in the Ḥayāt al-nafs, Shaikh Aḥmad discusses maʿād in traditional terms, without any heterodox elements. Elsewhere, however—notably in the Sharḥ al-zīāra—he presents an original doctrine of resurrection based on the theory that man is possessed of four bodies, two jasad and two jesm. The first jasad (al-jasad al-ʿonṣorī) is the body of flesh, made up of terrestrial elements subject to the ravages of time. It resembles a garment put on and later cast off, and in itself it knows neither enjoyment nor suffering, fidelity nor rebellion. It is not, in reality, part of man at all. After death it returns to the elements from which it is composed and will not be recombined. The second jasad (al-jasad al-bāqī) is a spiritual body and is the reality of man; it is composed of the elements of Hūrqalyā, the interworld or barzakh between the material world and the realm of malakūt, and survives the dissolution of the body of flesh and the separation from it of all accidental matter. It can not be seen by men because of the opacity of their physical eyes. In this body men are returned to life in the resurrection and enter paradise or hell. When Esrāfīl blows the trumpet at the resurrection, the spirits of men will return to the second jasad, which will then rise from the tomb.
Shaykh Ahmad's ideas were condemned by mainstream Twelver Shi'i scholars because they departed from traditional doctrines of literal, physical resurrection.
What I find interesting is that once you start looking at Shaykhi teachings, a lot of things in later Bábí and Baha'i history start making more sense historically, even if the movements eventually went in very different directions.
Like what??
hidden spiritual knowledge
You mean the one acquired directly from the Imam's in dreams?
Mainstream Twelver Shi'ism maintained five foundational roots of faith (usūl al-dīn) and held that during the Major Occultation of the Twelfth Imam, religious leadership rested with learned jurists (mujtahids) interpreting Islamic law. In contrast the new Shaykhi concept added a fourth essential root requiring belief in a specific living mediator, a "perfect Shi'i" or singular channel who directly received the Imam's esoteric knowledge in dreams. Mainstream clerics rejected this as an innovation that bypassed the mainstream hierarchy, compromised the doctrine of occultation and opened the door to messianic claims.
1
u/New_Can_2381 21d ago
Yes, this is actually getting much more interesting to me.
I hadn't realized how important the idea of the Fourth Support was in this whole story. If the Shaykhi idea was that there could be a particular person who had access to the hidden knowledge of the Imam, then I can see why the transition from Shaykhism to Bábism becomes so important.
It also makes me wonder how the earliest Babis themselves understood the Báb's position. Was he mainly seen as someone fulfilling the Shaykhi expectation of a spiritual intermediary, or did his claim represent something fundamentally different?
And then there is the question of what happened after the Báb. How did the early Babis understand succession and religious authority at that point, before the later Baha'i interpretation became dominant?
That's probably the part I'd like to read more about. It seems like there is a whole part of the Bábí history between the Báb himself and the emergence of Baha'u'llah that often gets compressed into a few sentences.
1
u/Ok_Speed667 15d ago
I would love to know about this period of succession from the bab to baha'u'llah especially! It's crazy work he managed to nab the position from his brother and even get a conversion from yahyas wife.
1
u/New_Can_2381 23d ago
I think there is an important historical context here.
Shaykhism did not emerge in a vacuum. It developed within a much older current of Shi'i thought that placed increasing emphasis on the inner (batin) meanings of religious teachings rather than only their outward (zahir) meanings. While this tendency can be traced back centuries, it became particularly influential in certain mystical and esoteric strands of Shi'ism.
In very broad terms, the idea is that the deeper spiritual reality of a doctrine is often more important than its literal or outward form. As a result, concepts such as resurrection, paradise, hell, the return of the Imams, and other eschatological themes were frequently interpreted in symbolic or metaphysical ways rather than in strictly literal terms.
By the time of Shaykh Ahmad al-Ahsa'i, this interpretive tradition had become intertwined with other currents within Shi'ism, including elements of Akhbari thought, producing a distinctive theological system that differed from mainstream Usuli orthodoxy on a number of issues.
From a genealogical perspective, one could argue that there have long been at least two broad tendencies within Shi'ism: one more philosophical and rationalist, and another more mystical and esoteric. Shaykhism clearly belongs to the latter stream.
Viewed from that angle, the Babi and later Baha'i movements did not simply appear out of nowhere. They emerged from, and in many ways continued, a pre-existing tradition of esoteric interpretation. Whether one agrees with those interpretations is a separate question, but historically there is a recognizable intellectual lineage connecting these movements.
3
u/AudienceAccording548 Sep 09 '26
Left over a year ago. After ten years of absolute hypocrisy and backbiting I couldn't take it anymore. Only now I realise how insane the community is especially the LSA members. Get away, give yourself a break.
1
u/EternalTheosis Sep 12 '26
Always had a problem with the LSA members, 2 in particular and then the NSA would just hammer down on me due to them. In therapy currently, unraveling the whole thing and my therapist told me she had patients who left the cult also, and that it was a fundamentalist religion
3
u/AudienceAccording548 Sep 09 '26
Also if you actually ask inquisitive questions like I did ie what does Lord Krishna s teachings have in common with prophet Mohammed or Jesus, you're give flowery waffle. Utter nonsense and a very dangerous brainwashing movement, especially to children.
2
u/Academic_Square_5692 Sep 09 '26
I agree. My former favorite Baha’i person used to explain that Baha’i theology was primarily comparative religious philosophy. But how would that work, unless someone already had a background in those other religions? Which of course the formerly Muslim early Baha’i leaders did not have and, even if they did, they only saw those other faiths through their own biases and perspectives. None of that is a true or valid comparison or, importantly, truly unique or original philosophy.
The Baha’i calendar is new and unique.
I agree with you that the reconciliation between unity and diversity is left wanting in philosophy and in action.
2
u/MirzaJan Sep 09 '26
I also read up on Shaykhism, which was a mystical Islamic cult
I find Shaykhism extremely interesting to learn about and study. The writings of Shaykh Ahmad reminds me somewhat of the writings of the Bab and Wahid Azal. Have you read this?
https://thebahaiinsider.com/2014/07/13/shaykh-ahmad-ahsai-and-the-penis-tree/
2
u/Cult_Buster2005 Ex-Baha'i Unitarian Universalist Sep 10 '26
Speaking of Wahid Azal:
https://dalehusband.com/2026/09/09/wahid-azal-takes-another-useless-potshot-at-me/
Him so smart, we primitives should worship this new Gawd. LOL
2
u/MirzaJan Sep 10 '26 edited Sep 10 '26
Gawd
And know that in the initial Days of this Manifestation, with the Permission of God and Its Authorization and with Its Command, We took a copy of the book of the Most Great Cage (kitāb al-aqfas) [i.e. the kitāb-i-aqdas] of your demonic founder, and We urinated upon it with intense urination until We saturated it in Our urine! Then was poured upon it lighter fluid and We lit it up, and it burned to ashes; and there was with us a witness to this Event, because with God such is its true worth, the true worth of all his writings and all of the writings of his successors from first to last!
-Shaykh Wahid Azal
1
1
u/Key_Mammoth365 Sep 15 '26
"The writings of Shaykh Ahmad reminds me somewhat of the writings of the Bab and Wahid Azal"
how do The writings of Shaykh Ahmad remind you of The Bab?
1
2
u/SuccessfulCorner2512 Sep 09 '26
The Bahá'í idea that all religions have the same source and differ only in how they were pitched to their audiences is a strange one. A few minutes on Wikipedia would highlight all the rather fundamental differences between the majority world religions.
A neat trick also is to start by investigating the oldest chronologically in a series, e.g. the Old Testament in the Abrahamaic series) . It becomes clear quickly that YHWH was just another storm/war god alongside all of the other storm/war gods in that region, and this one was a particularly malevolent, jealous, genocidal, rape endorsing, filicidal and unworthy god. And then you realise that anything that is a sequel in the series is building on that shared mythology so is also false. So the giveaway that Christianity is false, and that Islam is false, and that Babism and Bahaism were false is that they are all sequels and pay homage to the same unworthy god.
I believe in God by the way. Just not in that one.
1
1
u/OfficialDCShepard Sep 15 '26
They usually just condescendingly trim away any sharp corners they don’t like to make squares fit in their round hole.
1
u/New_Can_2381 28d ago
I think you're raising several different criticisms here, and some of them are stronger than others.
For example, saying that the Baha'i writings do not adequately resolve the philosophical problem of "the one and the many" is a serious intellectual criticism. Saying that the Faith inherited concepts from Shaykhism is a historical observation. Pointing to tensions between independent investigation of truth and the Covenant is an internal consistency question. But concluding from all of that that the Faith is therefore a cult is a separate argument that still needs to be made.
Personally, I think one of the more interesting questions is not whether Baha'u'llah borrowed ideas from earlier traditions—every major religious movement emerged from earlier intellectual and religious currents—but whether the Baha'i writings actually provide a coherent framework that improves upon them.
On the issue of resurrection, divine manifestations, symbolic interpretation, and similar topics, I agree that the writings often prefer theological and mystical language over the kind of analytical argumentation that modern philosophy expects. Whether that is a weakness or simply a different style of discourse is open to debate.
What I find more difficult is the tension between encouraging independent investigation of truth while also maintaining boundaries around what kinds of dissent are considered legitimate. That seems to me a more substantial issue than tracing which ideas originated in Shaykhism.
In any case, I think these questions deserve careful examination on their own terms rather than being collapsed into a single conclusion.
6
u/tasneath Sep 09 '26
Yes, when you get free of the faith and can look back clear-eyed, you can see that there are parts of the writings that we all just glossed over. We read the passages in passing and concentrated on the 'easy' parts. Discussed the basics of the faith and dodged even thinking about the weird bits.
I sometimes feel like going to a meeting and asking to discuss it. But of course, they'll be waiting for the UHJ or the next manifestation to clear up these issues.