Talk:Davidic line/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The Complete BUPC View and Explanation

The following is an overview of the views of the Baha'is Under the Provisions of the Covenant concerning Baha'u'llah, the founder of the Baha'i Faith, in relation to the Messiah ben David. This is in no way an attempt to dissuade believers of any faith to the views of the BUPC, nor an attempt to subvert the position of other Baha'is with opposing views. The following is an outline of the BUPC's position on the 1st and 2nd coming of Christ (Messiahs), the lineage of King David, and the contiuation of that line through the Guardians of the Baha'i Faith to the present day.

Messiah ben David (annointed sons of David)

From Jewish eschatology: Mashiach/Messiah: The Hebrew word Mashiach (or Moshiach) means anointed one, and refers to a mortal human being. Within Judaism, the Mashiach is a human being who will be a descendant of King David continuing the Davidic line, and who will usher in a messianic era of peace and prosperity for Israel and all the nations of the world.
Two Messiah's prophesied in the Old Testament:

Then answered I, and said unto him, What are these two olive trees upon the right side of the candlestick and upon the left side thereof? And I answered again, and said unto him, What be these two olive branches [symbol of David] which through the two golden pipes empty the golden oil out of themselves?...Then said he, These are the two anointed ones [Messiahs], that stand by the LORD of the whole earth." (King James Bible, Zechariah 4:11-14); note: vision here of lampstand with 7 candles and olive branches on each side [symbolic of House of David, e.g. 2 Messiahs] is believed by the BUPC to conform with the Baha'is belief that the 9 major world religions are all from the same One-True-Invisible God, and are seen here by Zechariah.

First Messiah

Baha'is Under the Provisions of the Covenant accept that Jesus was the first Christ and that Baha'u'llah was the second. They point to the genealogy of Jesus in the first chapters of Mattew and Luke showing his descendancy from David through his father Joseph. Although he was not seated on the Throne itself, he is believed by them to qualify as a Messiah ben David by definition, in that he's a descendant of the House of David. Daniel foresaw "the Messiah" coming, and gives the exact number of years for the date of his arrival:

"Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks..."(King James Bible, Daniel 9:25); note this equals 490 years from the edict given in 456 B.C. which adds up to 33 A.D. as there is no zero year.

Isaiah sees this Messiah from the House of David:

"And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."(King James Bible, Isaiah 7:13,14); note Immanuel/Jesus is same name in different languages; Isaiah here sees him from the "house of David.

Paul explains that:

:Conerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And, declared to be Son of God with power, according to the spririt of holiness..." (KJB Romans 1:3,4)

Physically he's from the seed of David, according to Paul, thus qualifying Jesus as a Messiah ben David; a "mortal human being" descended from David, fulfilling prophecies from Isaiah and Daniel. And, a clear portrait of him is depicted by Isaiah in chapter 53:

"Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand...Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." (King James Bible, Isaiah 55: 10,12)

Second Messiah A portrait of an entirely different Messiah is also envisioned by the prophet Isaiah earlier in chapter 9:

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this." (King James Bible, Isaiah 9:6,7)

Shoghi Effendi, the first Guardian of the Baha'i Faith, states that this vision of Isaiah applies to Baha'u'llah:

To Him [Baha'u'llah] Isaiah, the greatest of the Jewish prophets, had alluded as the "Glory of the Lord," the "Everlasting Father," the "Prince of Peace," the "Wonderful," the "Counsellor," the "Rod come forth out of the stem of Jesse" and the "Branch grown out of His roots," Who "shall be established upon the throne of David,"(Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By, p. 94)

As the Guardian is the only one granted authority to interpret the Explicit Writings, statements such as this one from Jeff3000 are against the Covenant as the Writings are not open to interpretation; hence Explicit:

"`Abdu'l-Bahá has written in Paris Talks referring to the Throne of David that "The Throne upon which He sat is the Eternal Throne from which Christ reigns for ever, a heavenly throne, not an earthly one." Based upon this passage, my understanding is that the statement of Bahá'u'lláh's in the Proclamation of Bahá'u'lláh refers not to the descendancy of Bahá'u'lláh from David, but rather the spiritual connection between the Manifestations of God" Jeff3000 22:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

This interpolation of the Explicit Texts is out of context. 'Abdu'l-Baha, the son of Baha'u'llah, is explaining the nature of Jesus the Christ's Messiahship, and never makes any reference to his father, Baha'u'llah. Furthermore, the interpolation implies that the Master is unaware that there was in fact a king seated on the throne, the Exilarch Liunan son of Babatun, at the very moment Jesus was crucified. Of course the Master was aware of this Scriptural fact that the throne of David existed and was in fact "an earthly one", but that Jesus wasn't sitting on it. He simply did not fulfill the criteria for the Messiah seated on the throne of David. Another example of The Master's sentiments on this subject are:

":"The Jews were blind to reality. The real Christ came from the city of light in the eternal realms Christ is a king. His shepherd's staff, that is, his tongue, was a sword dividing the true from the false. The throne of David is not a material throne but an eternal kingdom. Christ re-established this kingdom; it has been forgotten. Christ conquered the east and the west. This means a spiritual victory, not a material one." (Abdu'l-Baha, Divine Philosophy, p. 36)

Again, he mentions "the throne of David is not a material throne". Was he not aware that there was a material throne with Liunan sitting on it in Babylon at the time of Jesus? Or, is User:Jeff3000 misiterpolating the Explicit Texts, and drawing conclusions about the reality of the matereal throne from an explanation of the spiritual condition of Jesus? Furthermore, Shoghi Effendi tells us Explicitly in God Passes By that "To Him [Baha'u'llah] Isaiah, the greatest of the Jewish prophets, had alluded as..."Who "shall be established upon the throne of David,".

The BUPC believe it is in error and against the Covenant to extrapolate conclusions based on interpolations of the Explicit Texts. Only the Guardian is given that right, and Shoghi Effendi Explictily says Baha'u'llah is seated on the Throne of David. The Master's explanation of Jesus' spiritual condition has been eroneously used to try and invalidate the legitimacy of Baha'u'llah's material Royal Lineage.

Baha'u'llah's Royal Lineage

Baha'u'llah himself, in his Proclamation of Baha'u'llah, p. 89 state:

I "THE Most Great Law is come, and the Ancient Beauty ruleth upon the throne of David. Thus hath My Pen spoken that which the histories of bygone ages have related."

Therefore, the BUPC believe he is clearly stating that being seated on the throne of David is a matter of historical record. His lineage is traced back in an unbroken father to son relationship to David through the Exilarch Bostanai. Bostanai is acknowledged by all Jewish scholars, according to the Encyclopedia Judaica's "Exilarch" section [exiled monarchs of the house of David], as the last King the Jews accept. It is believed that their departure from the family at this point came when Bostanai accepted Islam after meeting the Caliph Al-Mamoun. Nonetheless, this Royal heritage was not subject to the acceptance of the Jews. God promised David that his throne would never lack and hier:

"I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant, Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations...My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me. It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven." (King James Bible, Psalms 89:3,4...34,35)

For thus saith the LORD; David shall never lack a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel;:(King James Bible, Jeremiah 33:17)

Therefore, whether the Jews continued to turn to the House of David was not a condition set upon it. It "shall be established for ever". Every descendant of Bostanai thru to Baha'u'llah can be found in Malik Khusravi's "Iqlim-i-Nur" (Expanded and Revised edn. after 118 BE, INBA 2041E). Khusravi was a citizen of Tehran, and had access the family's records preserved in the official public records of the city of Tehran. This authoratative text contains the names and offices held of every Exilarch from Bostanai to Baha'u'llah in an unbroked father to son chain, and verifies the statements made by Shoghi Effendi in Baha'i World Volume 5 where he traces Baha'u'llah's lineage backwards six generations to the Exilarch Aqa Fakhr. Khusravi's lineage is more thorough and shows every generation back to Bostanai. It preserves and makes known for all-time the Royal lineage of Baha'u'llah, the Reigning Messiah ben David. Therefore, Baha'u'llah says, "Thus hath My Pen spoken that which the histories of bygone ages have related." This shows that it's a matter of historical record and needn't be explained or elaborated upon: it's a matter of record; look it up.

The BUPC deem the throne of David to be a material one based on both the Bible and the Baha'i Writings. They believe that anyone who is anti Baha'u'llah literally on the material throne of David, are anti his lineage, and are by definition, anti-Christ. This is because the definition of Christ/Messiah is an annointed male descendant of King David.

Continuation of the Lineage

David shall never lack an heir. Therefore it is beleived by the BUPC that this lineage which was inherited by Baha'u'llah continued in his appointed successor and son, 'Abdu'l-Baha. The BUPC believe that since 'Abdu'l-Baha had no biological sons, he adopted one: Charles Mason Remey.

"I have adopted you as my son. You have to appreciate this favor very much indeed. One should see that you are living according to the requirements of this sonship. You should be aware of your responsibilities. My prayers will help you. I always pray for you." ('Abdu'l-Baha to Remey, 1921: Final Visit in Tiberias, Folio 2, "A Pilgrimage to the Holy Land: Reminisces of the Master, 1921", pp.127-129. John Hopkins University, Special collections)

They also accept that Remey was the Second Guardian of the Baha'i Faith, and since it's a condition on the Guardian to appoint one of his son's as his successor, that this lineage of the Throne of David will continue forevermore in the Guardianship of the Baha'i Faith. The BUPC believe that Remey's adopted son Joseph Pepe became his appointed successor after his passing, and that Pepe in turn adopted and appointed Neal Chase.

"My children are destroyed from lack of knowledge." Hosea 4:6 User:Jeffmichaud

Tricky how you tell us to "look it up" and then cite a book that's not available. I'd love to — but Iqlim-i-Nur is in Farsi. It took me the better part of an hour just to find a passing reference to its publication — in Iran. Are you seriously citing a book in Farsi as informative of this discussion? How can you say that the author "had access [to] the family's records" and reaches specific conclusions that categorically support your thesis when it's in a language you don't speak nor an alphabet you understand?

This is the best historical record available — and with that the question is closed? Amazing.

Your asserting that all the records going back to the death of Yazdigird III, who was murdered in 651 AD, are available in some archive in Tehran? That's over 1300 years of birth records. Eighteen separate dynasties rose and fell in the interegnum. The family supposedly kept these current for all that time? And they just happend to fall into the laps of the city of Tehran — where they kept them? It strains credulity.

Wish I felt free to cite sources that nobody can check, in languages I can't even read. Must be liberating. "I speak without fear of contradiction ..."

Points of fact:

Shoghi Effendi does not refer to Aqa Fakhr as an Exilarch.
There is still no documented evidence of a line of descent through Bostanai, much less a patrilineal one.
I'm not exaggerating the number of Persian dynasties after the fall of the Sassanids (From: List of kings of Persia).

Umayyad Caliphs, 661-750; Abbasid Caliphs, 750-867; Taherids, 821-872; Alavids, 864-928; Ziyarids, 928-1043; Buyyids, 932-1056; Saffarids in Seistan and beyond, 861-1002; Samanids, 892-998; Ghaznavids, 997-1186; Seljuk Turks, 1029-1194; Khwarazmids, 1096-1230; Ilkhans, 1256-1380; Muzaffarid Dynasty, 1314-1393; Timurid dynasty, 1380-1507; Safavid dynasty, 1502-1736; Afsharid dynasty, 1736-1749; Zand dynasty, 1750-1794; and Qajar dynasty, 1796-1925. (Overlaps in the timeline are due to the fact that the Persian empire broke up after the Sassanids until the Safavids united the old empire again.)

How is it that the "Davidic line" is supposed to pass literally father-to-son across 2800 years and then magically jumps through three ersatz adoptions making Neal Chase an Exilarch? MARussellPESE 20:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

~Is that all you gleened from that? I put a lot of thought and energy into laying out a thorough and sourced overview. It'd be nice to be afforded the courtesy of a Haifan Baha'is view on all those points, intstead of focusing narrowly on one, and diverging the discussion from the macro-view proposed, if one is going to comment at all. Let's summarize the BUPC's belief's on the subject of Messiah ben David. Again, not to subvert or convert the position of other Baha'is with opposing views, but to establish an understanding why the BUPC stands apart from the majority of believers on the subject:

Two Messiah's were expected (Zech 4:14). One would suffer and die (Ishaiah 53) believed fulfilled in Jesus, and one, the "Glory of the Lord", who would "establish the house of the Lord", and be "established on the throne of David" (Isaiah 9) believed fulfilled in Baha'u'llah.
Shoghi Effendi states that the verses from Isaiah "the Glory of the Lord" [Baha'u'llah's name in english] and "shall be established upon the throne of David" are specifically about Baha'u'llah (GPB p.94). Established: adj 1:settled securely and unconditionally.
'Abdu'l-Baha states "the throne of David is not a material throne". Was he not aware that there was a material throne with Liunan sitting on it in Babylon at the time of Jesus? Or, are the majority of Baha'is misiterpolating the Explicit Texts, and drawing conclusions about the reality of the matereal throne from an explanation of the spiritual condition of Jesus? note: admittedly a crossroads of interpretation. we're right and you're wrong. kidding:) but that's the BUPC understanding on the matter.
Regarding the throne, "David shall never lack a man to sit upon the throne" (Jer. 33:17), so we know it is to endure through and beyond today. Jewish eschatology, Isaiah, and this Davidic line page assert and agree that the promised Messiah would be seated on that throne. The Messiah depicted by Isaiah 9, which Shoghi Effendi affirms is about Baha'u'llah, is called the "Glory of the Lord", and is "established on the throne of David". Furthermore, the Glory of the Lord is refered to throughout the O.T. seated on the throne in virtually every reference. The BUPC believe this one could only be Baha'u'llah (for this is his name in English), as Jesus was never depicted on the throne, and the other Prophets have never been refered to anywhere in any way as Messiahs.
Messiah ben David only refers to male descendants of the house of David by definition. It is academically irresponsible to assert that somehow Messiah is an appropriate title for other Prophets. Or, more specifically, that Baha'u'llah could claim to be the Messiah called "Glory of the Lord" and not be seated on the throne; for several dozen references are made throughout the Bible stating he would be.
According to the historical records ("Thus hath My Pen spoken that which the histories of bygone ages have related"), and confirmed and revealed in the Iqlim-i-Nur, Baha'u'llah is in fact seated on the Throne as a descendant of Bostanai.

Bostanai is established as an Exilarch by Encylcopedia Judaica, The Jewish Encylcopedia, and others like the WikipageExilarchs.
Malik Khusravi's "Iqlim-i-Nur" (Expanded and Revised edn. after 118 BE, INBA 2041E) is not the only known source for the evidence of the Holy family's direct patrilineal descent from Bostanai, it's simply the most authoritative. It is even recognized as a valid resource in the Baha'i Academics Resource Library (you should have started your search there and saved yourself an hour). BTW, for future reference, how many references does one deem neccessary? (I'm not making the two hour road trip to the Baha'i Center again to dig up more for this discussion, I'm just saying/ you asked for one, and I provided the most authoratative one possible)
Misunderstanding 1): I wasn't the one "telling [you] to 'look it up', I was inferring Baha'u'llah was by stating that He declared it's a matter of historical record in His Proclamation. It can be argued that this is the reason he never went into more detail about it since it's simply a matter of record and if you want to know more about it "look it up". See?
Misunderstanding 2): I was the one stating Aqa Fakhr was an Exilarch by virtue of his own connection to Bostanai. I know SE didn't mention that title. My bad, should be more specific.
Questioning it's original language is in this writer's opinion a trite argument. All the original Writings are in Farsi. So what? I never claimed to have interpreted it myself. BTW, I do in fact understand the alphabet, and believe all Baha'is should. I can read names if I apply myself, although the texts are all Greek to me ;)
My statements could have been more elaborate on how Khusravi obtained these records, but it wasn't meet nor seemly. It's all explained in detail in the book. Didn't mean to set anyone off in my brevity.
THE REAL CRUX OF THE ISSUE (note the following is my own explanation and will not be sourced). Why is it a stretch and so violently opposed that a distinguished Royal Family would keep birth and death records for all it's generations. The Bible records the lineages of families in Genesis for 900 years, and those families didn't even have titles. The Bible records the lineage of David to Jesus. More specifically, the Jews kept track of the family line for over a thousand years. They widely publish every father to son relationship from Jesse to Bostanai. Why is it any stretch of the imagination that the family wouldn't continue to maintain the same records they had been all along? Although the average family may not bother, this is a royal family, and one written into the Covenant of God. Khusravi simply copied down existing records. What's the problem?
Lastly, why would anyone consider adoptions artificial? I didn't understand the inference. Abdu'l-Baha had no male children to appoint to succeed him on the throne. He adoped one. Same with Mason, and same with Pepe. What's the question?

"My children are destroyed from lack of knowledge" Hosea 4:6 User:Jeffmichaud 02:46 21 December 2005

I don't know a way to emphasize this more — the Iqlim-i-Nur is categorically not authoritative, revealed text.

Finally an organized argument.

Responding in detail:

1. Non-sequitor as a relationship to Bostanai isn't established.

2. "[H]ow many references does one deem neccessary?" At least one reliable and verifiable one. Untranslated works of unknown origin are neither.

3. Most would read "Look it up." as imperative — and argumentative. You're inferring that Bahá'u'lláh is stating this as established fact? Don't you have anything where he says it is? (See 2 above.)

4. Correct. In fact, the term "Exilarch" is used only once in the entire body Bahá'í texts. This single reference is on p. 35 of 'Abdul-Bahá's The Secret of Divine Civilization where he tells the believers that they should be familiar with all the world's religions and uses the example of the Eighth Imam Rida who discussed Islam with the then Exilarch[1].

5. I'm not questioning its original language. I'm questioning the fact that it's not available for inspection in English to confirm or deny your argument. (See 2 above.) A tremendous amount of the original Farsi and Arabic sacred writings are translated. It's not too much to ask that a document that purports to support this foundational BUPC belief be as well.

6. How do you know how Khusravi obtained these records, much less their condition or composition, if the document isn't in English? (See 2 above.)

7. The "problem" here is that we don't even have Khusravi's book much less an account of the records to determine if they are genuine. The historical accuracy of the Gospels is by no means taken for granted even by believing scholars. You are missing the entire argument.

The family would have had to keep 1300 years of birth records, and,
At 25 years per generation, making for 52 generation, each and every generation had at least one boy, and,
Those records would have had to land, in their entirety, in the public records of Teheran, and,
The Teheran authorities would have had to keep them — despite the fact that the Bábís and Bahá'ís have been a suppressed minority for its entire history.

This is like asking us to believe that one could find complete genealogical records for the last Jewish priests in a vault in Rome.

8. The question of whether the patrimony, especially the Exilarchy, passes through adoptions is for Jewish scholars to answer. My question is to ask you to produce evidence of these ersatz adoptions. The logic supporting 'Abdul-Bahá's so-called secret adoption of Mason Remey is fishy. If 'Abdul-Bahá "needed" a male heir, and adopted Mason Remey to fill that gap, why did he then appoint a grandson through a daughter to be his successor. If this so-called adoption were real, why didn't he appoint Mason Remey Guardian as the "son". He would have, at least, recorded the "adoption".

Lastly, I can't keep it straight, was Mason Remey "adopted" by 'Abdul-Bahá, Shoghi Effendi, or both? If both, wouldn't that make him his own adoptive great-uncle?

MARussellPESE 16:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

~I think we're at a terminal crossroad. But, just for the record I'll share my thoughts:

You claim: "the Iqlim-i-Nur is categorically not authoritative, revealed text". I never claimed it was "revealed text". BUT, 2nd ed. was published under Shoghi Effendi. You claim it's not authoratative, so I guess you've categorically closed your mind and this discussion to reality. note: I'm not here to validate the book. If you don't know about or are being deprived accessed to it, that's an issue you should take up with the appropriate Assembly. I'm sure if you present yourself as a sincere seeker they'll be happy to produce the names and offices of each male descendent from Bostania, validating Baha'u'llah's an Exilarch as well.
"Untranslated works of unknown origin are neither": niether sentiments are true. This discussion has reached a stand still. This book is out there and referred to regularly by academics like Dr. Juan Cole and others. His relationship to Bostanai has been sourced to this authoratative history book. Sorry if you've been kept in the dark as to what it contains by your clergy-class. You should ask someone higher up for the list of names and see what they tell you. They know, as does anyone who looks at it what it reveals. Look for yourself. We've had both editions of it for almost twenty years. Everybody with any interest in his genealogy comes accross the Iqulim-i-Nur at some point. You keep implying that because I can't read Farsi that it disqualifies me referencing it. We have several dozen believers in the BUPC who can read Arabic and Persian. Don't you all?

I'm finding it hard to determine if the rest of the above questions are sincere or sardonic. This discussion is starting to look like an arguement for arguing sake. I've been attempting to be as concise, to the point, and forthcoming as I can. I'll admit that I'm not the most skilled at doing this sort of debating, but I'm losing interest by the second for presenting facts that will either go ignored and unacknowledged, or be attacked with rhetoric on how they're presented.

I've presented the BUPC's views on Jesus and Baha'u'llah's Messiahship, the Writings that support these views, why they're believed to be Messiah's, and much much more. All has been cast aside and we've devolved to rhetorical questions about a book that can be found and accessed through the Baha'i Academics Resource Library. I didn't write the Iqlim-i-Nur, so I can't speak to every detail about it's origins. I have mistakenly added my own statements regarding the records in Tehran, and should have forseen the consequenses of adding too brief a summary to an extensively researched book. It can stand alone on it's own merits, and doesn't need my input to validate it. I have nothing further to add, for it most definitely has every single solitary name of every Exilarch from Bostanai to Baha'u'llah, with an extensive bibliography. Any sincere seeker can see it in plain Farsi for himself, as I have. This family kept records for 1500 years from David to Bostanai which are widely published. Why would they not continue to do so for another 1500, or into infinity? "David shall never lack an hier." It's an enormous presumption that they'd neglect their duties for even one generation. Kuhsravi's Iqulim-i-Nur is simply the most concise source. I have nothing further to say about the matter.

I'm not trying to "win" an arguement here. Nor am I being "imperative", or "arguementative" which I'm now being accused of. FTR, 1)I attempted to explain the misunderstanding, so badgering me about your misunderstanding seems to me to be 'argumentative! My only purpose here it to defend the BUPC's right to express our beliefs, which I believe I've shown to be based on accurate, well-based conculsions. Anyone who disagrees with those stated beliefs has that right, and can choose to reject them.

As it appears that the sans-Guardian Baha'is are void of the knowledge I've put forth regarding Messiah ben David, the lineage of David, and it's continuation through the Guardianship, instead of attacking this messanger I would suggest interested parties undertake thier own Independant Investigation of the Truth. It's not my intention to convert anyone, but rather to defend what I believe to be the truth and the BUPC's right to express it here. Any sincere seeker can find all this information with extensive explanations on BUPC.org, or can question the Guardian himself through the Official Website of the Universal House of Justice. Regarding the adoptions of the Guardians Mason Remey, Pepe Remey, and Neal Chase, the BUPC stance is clearly stated on each of thier respective pages. I don't feel it neccessary to repeat those extensively sourced views in this discussion. Curious parties can access the information on those pages.

I don't wish to participate any longer in anything resonating as argumentative. I've stepped back from being defensive about our beliefs being attacked, and tried to simply put forward a comprehensive and concise overview of the information given in 3 separate Fireside classes. It can be presumed as a given that obviously sans-Guardian Baha'is and BUPC don't agree on these matters. This section of the discussion page was created with the intent of explaining in specific detail the summary created on the article page. Thus far nothing besides the authenticity of the Iqlim-i-Nur has been questioned. I'll acknowledge that the questions about the book were valid as a source for our findings about Baha'u'llah's lineage are the keystone, and I addressed them in my previous post and have nothing further to add.

The BUPC's intentions are as sincere as I believe other Baha'i groups must assuredly be in thier resolve to defend thier respective views regarding the Covenant. My hat's off to anyone willing to lift the mantle of defending the Covenant regardless of whether I agree with the views expressed. I have presented to the best of my ability the BUPC view on these matters, and wish to avoid repetition. I believe my work is done here, and have put to rest the questions about the statements expressed by the BUPC on this Davidic line article. If I'm wrong (which has never ever ever happened) and something I've presented above is inaccurate, inconsistent, or glaringly false, I would happily look into the matter and thank the one who takes the time to point it out <:0) User:Jeffmichaud 23:23 21 December 2005

Where to begin?

You used the terms "revealed" and "authoritative" in reference to Iqlim-i-Nur. As these terms have specific meanings to Bahá'ís it needed to be clarified that this text is not, and to let that stand would to be to give assent.

I haven't discussed your literal reading of the texts because I read Bahá'u'lláh's and 'Abdul-Bahá's references to the "Throne of David" as purely figurative — as do most Bahá'ís, including those whose native language is Farsi. 'Abdul-Bahá couldn't be more specific frankly. When Jeff3000 raised this with you, you dismissed it out of hand. There's nothing to argue logically when it comes to beliefs. Most of what you present are snatches of Old Testament prophecies and two passages from Bahá'í texts. Christians alone have too much blood spilt over the "correct" readings of OT prophecies for that to be a useful discussion.

But to assert that Bahá'u'lláh is an Exilarch is to assert a fact — and that can be argued logically.

The reason I've questioned the veracity of this assertion is two-fold:

If it can not be determined that he is one then the assertion must be clarified clearly as "belief" for it to be honest — which you do in the Article, but not so much here, and not in the BUPC literature
If it can be determined that he is not one then entire thesis collapses

I raised questions about the availability, authenticity and verifiability of Iqlim-i-Nur because it is the only published document you presented in support. You acknowledge, I believe, that this text is the "keystone" of this belief. How can questioning it's authenticity have the discussion "devolved to rhetorical questions" — it's the centerpiece of your thesis.

You assert that Iqlim-i-Nur is "widely available" and on the Bahá'í Academics Resource Library. This just isn't true. I did "look it up" when you cited it the first time. I can find only a few bibliographic references to it. (Perhaps you meant references are "widely available?) One article cites it as a reference for Mirza Yahya's wives. That's why I could assert so strongly that this document is not available. (And that citation raises questions as to what the book is really about.)

How can one assert that it is not true that untranslated works of unknown origin are not reliable and verifiable? How can one rely on, or verify, something one can not read?

You say that you "can't read Farsi" but that you've seen it in "plain Farsi ... as I have." So we are to take your word for it? I'd rather see the book — ahh, but where to find it. If I had it, I could take it to someone and have them read it to me.

If you're going to tell me to "go learn Farsi" then, why do the tens-of-thousands of native speaking Bahá'ís not make anything of this? (I've spoken to several to confirm this.) A bit more than "several dozen".

Suggesting repeatedly that the Bahá'í administration is somehow keeping this from me, or anybody for that matter, is a cheap shot and does not stand up to examination under your own assertions that Iqlim-i-Nur is "widely available" and on Bahá'í academic research sites, and that the documentation is widely available to anyone who can read Farsi, like you have.

That's not the only thing I've questioned. I've also asked for docuemtation on the validity of the various "adoptions" that along the line of descent, Davidic or not, to Remey or his various successors. All you've presented are your own wikipedia articles. Adoption is a legal proceeding. Where are these recorded? (Your reference "A Pilgrimage to the Holy Land: Reminisces of the Master, 1921" isn't available in their online catalog — making me suspicious. I've got a call in to check with a librarian to see if it is there. See, I do read your stuff and check your sources.)

What's interesting here is that Jensen's "Law of Adoption" makes consistent references to someone as "my son" a legal document in the eyes of the BUPC. This makes discussion of these "adoptions" circular and moves it from fact to belief. That brings this subject back to the basic form of the Exilarch argument:

If it can not be determined that these adoptions are legally recognized then the "adoptions" must be clarified clearly as "beliefs" for that to be honest — which you don't in any of the articles you wrote
If it can be determined that these are not legally recognized then entire thesis collapses

I haven't been arguing for argument's sake. I've been arguing because you haven't answered the questions but insist that you have "put to rest the questions about the statements expressed by the BUPC on this Davidic line article.

No, you've never been argumentative. You've just flung that excerpt from Hosea around for kicks.

MARussellPESE 22:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

~This really is going to go on into infinity, isn't it? No, we'll die, and in the next world we'll be like, remember earth? Then we'll laugh and laugh. But for now:

I explained my "out-of-hand" dismissal of Jeff3000's interpolation, so it wasn't out-of-hand at all, but rather based on what I believe a logical conclusion. Again: Abdu'l-Baha states "the throne of David is not a material throne". Your interpolation of this has the Master as a fool who didn't know there was actually a material earthly throne existing for the last 2800 years. Was he not aware that there was a material throne with Liunan sitting on it in Babylon at the time of Jesus, which existed for dozens of generations before and after Jesus? Or, are the majority of Baha'is misiterpolating the Explicit Texts, and drawing conclusions about the reality of the material throne from an explanation of the spiritual condition of Jesus?
If Baha'is assume the throne reference is purely figurative, then Baha'u'llah couldn't be the Messiah ben David He claimed to be. The title itself refers only to a physical male descendent of David's. He'd be a fraud if he wasn't seated on the throne. Was his title "Glory of the Lord" figurative? No!, it was literally his name. The "Glory of the Lord" would be "established on the throne of David". Shoghi Effendi affirms this is the case (GPB p. 94).
I never ever wrote that the Iqulim-i-Nur is "widely available" in BARL. In your speed reading you're missing everything. I did say it "can be found and accessed through" BARL. And it can. Anyone can write to them and ask them, hence "accessed", for the list of names. If they won't give it to you, for whatever reasons I can't imagine, that's not the issue here. The information is out there and available.
I have seen it "in plain Farsi". And with the help of another was able to write down in English (translate) each and every name. RHETORIC!
Don't take my word for it. See for yourself if you're sincerely seeking the truth. BARL has this book. They should be happy to accomodate you, unless of course you're just argueing to argue.
I never ever said or implied "that Iqlim-i-Nur is "widely available" and on Bahá'í academic research sites". You're adding words and assumptions that aren't there. I know it's a hard book to find. This is the rhetoric I was talking about. Where is it in Tehran, what conditions are the records in, ALL RHETORIC!
The adoptions are adoptions. Period. Again, I think when you speed read the sections I already created you missed some details. Oh well. User:Jeffmichaud 02:32 27 December 2005

Improbability of BUPC view

To date, I've been asking for Jeffmichaud to produce verifiable evidence of this thesis and, for the sake of brevity, have not presented a view in-detail counter to this. As we have not seen this presented so that others can review it for authenticity, I would like to present the following that has informed my reasoning here.

Probabilistic considerations

For Bahá'u'lláh to be the Exilarch, He would have to be the heir to David. (Please note that I'm not at all certain that He's descended from Bostanai.) This would mean that He is the heir, of the heir, of the heir, going back 2800 years. This can be analyzed statistically, making some reasonable assumptions, to determine the probability that this is possible in the absence of verifiable evidence.

If each generation had eight children, on average, the probability that a given generation would have no boys is 99.61% = 1 - (1/2)⁸.
The probability that a particular child is the child of the heir in a generation is 12.50% = 1/8.
The probability that a particular child is the child of the heir in a generation given the probability of an all-girl generation is 12.45% = 12.50% x 99.61%.

Looking at Bahá'u'lláh to David

Across the 2800± years between Bahá'u'lláh and David, assuming 35 years per generation (It takes a fair amount of time to have eight children.), there are 80 generations to consider.

The probability that a given person, Bahá'u'lláh, is the heir to a specific person, David, is 4.138*10^-73 ( = 12.45%⁸⁰) or 1 in 2.416*10⁷². Long odds to say the least.

Looking at Bahá'u'lláh to Bostanai

Assuming that Bahá'u'lláh is descended from Bostanai, then across the 1300± years between Bahá'u'lláh and Bostanai, again assuming 35 years per generation, there are a mere 37 generations to consider.

The probability that a given person, Bahá'u'lláh, is the heir to a specific person, Bostanai, is 3.333*10^-34 ( = 12.45%³⁷) or 1 in 3.001*10⁺³³. (That's: 1 in 3,001,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000)

Observations

The likelihood that Bahá'u'lláh is an Exilarch is vanishingly small by independent analysis. That Bahá'u'lláh makes no claim to be the Exilarch, and all the references to the "Throne of David" Bahá'í are arguably figurative, (Clearly Bahá'ís and the BUPC so argue.), the most probable conclusion is that Bahá'u'lláh is not Exilarch (On the order of 1 in 10⁸⁰) and His references to the "Throne of David" are figurative.

Additional difficulties

If one accepts the descent of Bahá'u'lláh to Bostanai as depicted on the Gonzales genealogy which indicates that this line is through Dara, a daughter of Yazdigird III (As shown on the BUPC genealogy as well.), then there is a very real problem that any descendants of this union would be considered Exilarchs. This is from wikipedia's article on Bostanai which is a mirror of the Jewish Encyclopedia: "Nevertheless, the descendants of the princess [Dara] were not recognized as legitimate 300 years afterward." The article goes on to say: "for the post-Bostanaite house of exilarchs was not descended from the princess [Dara]."

Now, I'm not in a position to argue the intricacies of the historical conflicts over the Exilarchy, but it is interesting to observe that the subject is/was a controversial one and resolving that would seem to require documentation at least as thorough as a genealogy going back 1300 years.

MARussellPESE 02:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Revised, corrected and expanded. MARussellPESE 01:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

~Nice try, but there are seemingly fatal flaws in this "independent analysis". The only thing this diatribe proves is that you have an admittedly impressive calculator.

1)Failure to account for the fact that every Exilarch is accounted for by Jewish historians for 1500 of the 2800 years which reduces the need to assume anything regarding those 57 generations (no assumption here, there are 57 documented Kings from David to Bostanai). Their lineage is a historical fact.

2)Abdu'l-Baha, as you've pointed out, mentions the Exilarch, whose name btw was Abu'l-Muluk, who was in contact with the 8th Imam Rida. This was another 8 generations beyond Bostanai. Proof that the family was continuing beyond their excommunication by the Jews; beyond their financial support from Israel.

3)There is an enormous assumption that the family would ever neglect continuing their legacy. They maintained it for almost 2,000 years up to the Exilarch Abu'l-Muluk. When and why would they ever cease to maintain this father to son Exilarchy that had been preserved for over 65 generations? Answer: They never did. "I have sworn unto David my servant, Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations..." (Psalms 89:3).

Furthermore, the world was waiting for one of these kings, Messiah ben David's, to rise up "upon the throne of David", and establish the "House of the Lord" and usher in the Kingdom on Earth as it is in Heaven, who would be called the "Glory of the Lord". Shoghi Effendi clearly states that Baha'u'llah was this one on p. 94 of GPB. "Assumption" is right. It takes a huge "assumption" to leap to your conculsions. User:Jeffmichaud 01:36 27 December 2005

Actually it's what critical, quantitative, thinking looks like. (And it's only a TI-36X Solar. Good enough for high-school trig.)

For the casual reader, the [www.bahai-library.com/ Bahá'í Library Online], what Jeff refers to as the "Bahá'í Academic Resource Library" is a robust on-line repository of an array of documents of interest to Bahá'ís. It isn't a brick-and-mortar library where one could call up a librarian and ask them to put a text on hold, or hide it in a "Restricted Section". If one can't find a document by doing a search, they don't have it lying around someplace else. The Iqlim-i-Nur can not be found and accessed through through this site.

What one can find there is this bibliographical reference: "30. Malik Khusravi , Muhammad 'Ali . Iqli m-i Nur [The region of Nur]. Tehran: 118 badi '/1962. An account of Babi and Baha'i history relating to the region of Nur in Mazandaran, the ancestral home of Baha' Allah. [sic]" (Available here.) What's interesting here is that this description says that it's about Babí and Bahá'í history in a particular region in Iran. It does not say that it includes genealogical data on Bahá'u'lláh going back to the seventh century Babylonia or beyond.

I'd thought that this was based on considered evaluation of available data — which was why I was so insistent upon seeing exactly what that was. I've resisted coming to a conclusion that appears to becoming rather clear. This thesis appears to be based upon a priori reasoning. Several things point in this direction.

The first is that only two documents were cited, and then quite separately from each other. The first document lacks any background on the author or research. The second is conveniently inaccessibile. Now, we're assured that these docuements are genuine and that they have been the subject of research, but we can't verify either the research, or the documents themselves.

Rather than produce even a scan of Iqlim-i-Nur, it's asserted very stronly that the Iqlim-i-Nur is available (Even in their possession.) all we have to do is ask (But don't ask them?). And then there's the innuendo that it's being kept from us. The inconsistency here is troubling.

If this has been researched, why produce one document, and only when it's authenticity is questioned, present another. Either the research is complete, or perhaps Jeff's grasping at documents that he thinks might make the case. (Here the bibliographic entry that Iqlim-i-Nur is about Babí and Bahá'í history in Núr is especially troubling.)

It's presumed that "65 generations" of the family kept accurate, complete records when the succession of just one generation, Bostanai's, was controversial 300 years later. No mention is made explaining how, or when, these Exilarchs became Shi'a. Nor are the implications considered.

Then there are the cut-and-paste sections where repeating the same argument is presented as definitive.

Then there is the vehement assertion that 'Abdul-Bahá must have known that he was sitting on the "Throne of David" despite the fact that over the course of the 29 years of his ministry, he never mentioned this. In fact, he consistently used these Messianic prophecies to warn against reading prophecies literally. There are eleven specific references to the "Throne of David" in his talks and writings. This is typical:

They also expected that the Messiah would sit upon the throne of David whereas His Holiness the Christ had neither throne nor semblance of sovereignty; nay, rather, he was a poor man, apparently abject and vanquished; therefore how could he be the veritable Christ?

(Abdu'l-Bahá, Foundations of World Unity, p. 74)

As is this:

The throne of David is not a material throne but an eternal kingdom. Christ re-established this kingdom; it has been forgotten. Christ conquered the east and the west. This means a spiritual victory, not a material one.

(Abdu'l-Bahá, Divine Philosophy, p. 35)

Ah, but pointing this out generates a response dismissing them all ("Or, are the majority of Baha'is misiterpolating [sic] the Explicit Texts ... ?") and inserting something non sequitur ("Surely the Master must have known he was the 'Prince of the House of David' ...") and providing no citation where he'd actually said that.

And that's where this seems evident to me that this argument is circular. That Bahá'u'lláh is literally the long-lost Exilarch, seated literally on the "Throne of David", and that "the Master must have known he was the "Prince of the House of David", are all assumed a priori. Only then are documents produced that point towards the conclusion (If we could actually put our hand on them.), but do not so demonstrate. Excerpts that plainly disagree, and the absence of direct statements by anyone to a claim to the Exilarchy, are conveniently ignored, or attacked as misinterpretation when presented.

The presentation of this thesis seems to clearly beg the question, and as such would be fallacious. There is no arguing a fallacy other than to identify it as such and walk away.

MARussellPESE 03:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Further Documentation of Proofs for Baha'u'llah's Exilarchy

Baha’u’llah has stated that He rules from the throne of David as “the histories of by-gone ages have related”(Proc. P. 89). The only ones that ruled upon the throne of David “as the histories of bygone ages have related” are the Kings of Israel, and after them the exilarchs. It is futile to deny this! Baha’u’llah Himself tells us that it is documented in history, which Mirza Abu Fadl researched in the Baduspanid and Bawandid male-lines (Sipahbudan) that Baha’u’llah Himself confirmed in a Tablet concerning the patrelineal and documented historical truth of His Own Genealogy: “O Abu’l-Fadl! Verily thou hast spoken the truth and hast brought to light that which was enshrined in his words…” And again, Baha’u’llah wrote concerning His own Genealogy: “You had enquired about the pure natured ancestors; Abu’l-Fadl-i-Gulpaygani, upon whom be My Glory, has written of heavenly works on this theme that would impart information and increase perception.” (Baha’u’llah, cf. Eminent Baha’is, by Balyuzi, p. 315).

In history it is Known that exilarch Bostanai married Dara the Persian princess and daughter of Yazdigird III, even giving the names of their three sons: “Shahriyar, Gurdanshah and Mardanshah” (Moshe Gil, “The Exilarchate” cf. “The Jews if Medieval Islam”, p. 51). Gil goes on to explain, that it states in the Jewish literature that the sons of the Jewish wife tried to enslave the sons of Dara, his Persian wife, and that “the descendants [of Bostanai] of the Persian [wife Dara daughter of Yazdigird III] ‘had royal backing since they were related to royalty their mother’s brother being a Marzuban” (Moshe Gil, p. 54). The Cambridge History of Iran: Volume 4, the Period from the Arab Invasion to the Saljuqs, p. 115, cites “Marzuban” as being the “Marzuban of Tabaristan” (the ancient name of Mazandaran the home of Baha’u’llah: “the ‘Marzban of Tabaristan’ (One of the Bavandids or Baduspanids)” (CHI. Vol. 4, p. 115) thus relating as did Fadl which Baha’u’llah confirmed the transmission of the throne of David and the Exilarchate through the royal throne lines fully documented in secular history of the Bawandid and Baduspanid male lines. Thus this comes down from Bostanai through the male throne line to the last rulers of the Kings of Nur to Mirza Buzurg the Father of Baha’u’llah.

Again this is what the “histories of bygone ages have related” as Baha’u’llah says. He confirms the research of Fadl in the male line of the Isphabuds (Sipahbudan) of these two dynasties (Bawsnd and Baduspanid) both of which, history tells us, have the exilarch Bostanai through the daughter of Yazdigird III as their common male ancestor.

The Baha’is under the provisions of the Covenant adhere to this, as this was the original Baha’i belief pre-1957 hijacking by the “Hands”, and consider those who don’t except this, yet call themselves “Baha’i”, as outside the Covenant; being anti- (that is in intellectual opposition) the genealogy of Baha’u’llah in the male line back to King David, that is anti the genealogy of Baha’u’llah being the Christ, or anti-Christ. This is the BUPC belief, and we can accept those who reject this as members of a religion different from our own, friends and fellow creatures of God who have been fooled by the “Hands” and as a result who are not under the provisions of the Covenant.

The historical fact is published in English on the BUPC sites and is confirmed by non Baha’i sources of history, as well as from Baha’is sources such as Fadl cited in Balyuzi for example which I gave here. Deny it all you want. This same information is contained in the Iqlim-i Nur the first edition as well as the second expanded edition. Those who possess both editions of the book such as Ahang Rabbani of Texas won’t release their copies in order to keep people like you in the dark apparently! He has even stated that Baha’u’llah’s father Mirza Buzurg put this same historical information upon a rug that is contained within he Iqlim-i Nur.

“I've been told by a reliable eyewitness that a fine Persian rug was discovered some years ago (the type that is hang on the wall, not the type that goes on the floor), apparently commissioned by Mirza Buzurg-i Nuri (Baha'u'llah's father), which has a complete and detailed genealogy tracing the family back to Yazd-Kird III, the last Sasaniad king, without a break… the same information is captured by Malik-Khusravi in his revised "Iqlim-i Nur".

Again He is through Yazdigird III through his daughter the Zoroastrian princess, as ‘Abdu’l-Baha has explained: “Baha’u’llah was NOT a descendant of the prophet Zoroaster.” (Star of the West, Vol. 1 #12, p. 3)

Dr. Gonzales on his chart, also gives Baha’u’llah from Exilarch Bostanai in the male line, and has stated that this information comes directly from Baha’u’llah Himself. Why don’t you write him about it? Though some would deny or ignore, it is a FACT of reality.

In briefly surfing the web for more information I find that David Hughes in his article on the “Davidic Dynasty” (see below attached) has also published Baha’u’llah’s Genealogy back to exilarch Bostanai in the unbroken male line as well giving all the ancestors each and everyone by the Baduspanid reckoning that Fadl wrote about and Baha’u’llah Himself confirmed in His Tablets. See this url:

Why you are unaware or unwilling to see this or accept it is your own problem. But it is a historical fact from Baha’u’llah himself that his pure-natured ancestors that Fadl researched are the male-line dynasty of David from Exilarch Bostanai that settled in Tabaristan and eventually ruled over Nur which Baha’u’llah is from.

Your interpretations that are anti this point are just that: “your interpretations”. The fact that Bostanai married Dara, and that the Marzuban of the Bawandid and Baduspanids Ispahbuds continued this in the male line to Baha’u’llah is just as Baha’u’llah said, “that which the histories of bygone ages have related.” Because we are talking about a male throne line, all the male ancestors seated upon that throne of that throne line are documented, and well known, even to the extent of being mentioned in many history books, and have archeology of coins to back up their reality.

“Baha’u’llah was NOT a descendant of the prophet Zoroaster.” (‘Abdu’l-Baha, Star of the West, Vol. 1 #12, p. 3). Baha’u’llah is a male sperm descent of King David seated upon the throne of David through the exilarch Bostanai. It was Jesus who said his Kingdom was not of this world (i.e. spiritual not material reality in Jesus’ case) but Baha’u’llah’s Kingdom – “The World Order of Baha’u’llah” - is of this world as it says in the Lord’s Prayer: “Father [Baha’u’llah is the ‘glory of the father’] who art in heaven. Thy Kingdom come it will be done on EARTH as it is in heaven” That heaven being the heaven of prophecy 2000 years ago but which Baha’u’llah seated upon throne of King David has now brought to the earth with the Aghsan guardianship in the male line (Shoghi Effendi was of the female-line with no issue) as the continuation of that throne and lineage of David in the person of Neal Chase ben Joseph Aghsan, great great grandson of Baha’u’llah and current Guardian of the Baha’i Faith.

“Divorced from the institution of the Guardianship [the continuation of the Davidic throne in the male line] the World Order of Baha'u'llah would be mutilated and permanently deprived of that hereditary principle which, as Abdu'l-Baha has written, has been invariably upheld by the Law of God. Without such an institution [of the living Davidic King, the president of our true (UHJ)] the integrity of the Faith would be imperiled, and the stability of the entire fabric would be gravely endangered. Its prestige would suffer, the means required to enable it to take a long, and uninterrupted view over a series of generations would be completely lacking, and the necessary guidance to define the sphere of the legislative action of its elected representatives would be totally withdrawn. (Shoghi Effendi, World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 148)

That is BUPC belief, and is it backed up with real documentable facts. Anyone can do this research. Apparently David Hughes did it on his own as did Malik Khusravi, a relative of Baha’u’llah’s as well. It is simply a publicly known and easy to document truth of what happened to the family of Bostanai through Dara after they moved to Tabaristan-Mazindaran. See E.G. Browns History of Tabaristan in English for more.

Just because this fact of the genealogy of Baha’u’llah contradicts your first indoctrination into the Faith doesn’t negate the fact that He is the King of Kings prophesied in the Bible come establishing the Kingdom of God on Earth (Davidic). If Baha'is assume the throne is purely figurative, then Baha'u'llah couldn't be the Messiah He claimed to be. The title itself refers only to a physical male descendent of David's. Was his title "Glory of the Lord" figurative? No, it was literally his name. The "Glory of the Lord" would be "established on the throne of David". Shoghi Effendi affirms this is the case (GPB p. 94), as do "the histories of by-gone ages".

From David Hughes, “Davidic Dynasty”:

PART 16: rulers of Mazandaran, ancestry of Baha'u'llah [claimant 1868]

(63) Bostanai [1], Exilarch (above), of his 2nd wife, begot (64) Shahrijar (Shahari), ancestor of the Shaharite Line, the father of (65) Yomtov Ruzbihan [a.k.a. Ahunai], the father of (66) Babawai Moses, Exilarch [13], the father of (67) Isaac Iskoi II, Exilarch [16], deposed 817 upon his conversion to Islam, & took the name "Husayn", ancestor of the Iskoiate Line the son of (67) Isaac Iskoi II [Husayn] [16] (above) was: (68) Qarim (Karen) (d856) = [name], the Badusepanide heiress, daughter of Surkhab (d856), son of Nemawar, son of Baduspan II, Prince of Mazandaran the son of (68) Qarim (above), by the Badusepanide heiress was: (69) Farrikhan (Faridun), Prince of Mazandaran 856-? the sons of (69) Farrikhan (above) were: (70A) Baduspan III, Prince ?-872, the father of (71) Shahriyar II, Prince 872-888 (70B) Shirzad the sons of (70B) Shirzad (above) were: (71A) Tida, father of (72) Hazar-Sindan, Prince 888-899 (71B) Diwbend the son of (71B) Diwbend (above) was: (72) Djemshad, the father of (73) Shahriyar III, Prince 899-939 the sons of (73) Shahriyar III (above) were: (74A) Mohammed I, Prince 939-952, the father of (75) Ustundar Abul-Fadl, Prince 952-965 (74B) Feramurz the son of (74B) Feramurz (above) was: (75) Zarin-Kemer I, Prince 965-996, the father of (76) Baharb, Prince 996-1023 the sons of (76) Baharb (above) were: (77A) Ardashir I, Prince 1023-1047 (77B) Nazir-ed-Dawla the son of (77B) Nazir-ed-Dawla (above) was: (78) Namwar I, Prince 1047-8, the father of (79) Hazarasp I, Prince 1078-1116; = sister of Kiya Buzurg Bin Al-Hadi, Prince of Daylam the sons of (79) Hazarasp I (above) were: (80A) Shahrivash, Prince 1116-1129, the father of (81) Hazarasp II, Prince 1165-1210 (80B) Kai-Ka'us I, Prince 1129-1165 the descendants of (80B) Kai-Ka'us I (above) were: (81) Djestan, the father of (82) Zarin-Kemer II, Prince 1210-1214, the father of (83) Bistun, Prince 1214-1223, the father of (84) Namwar II, Prince 1223-? the sons of (84) Namwar II (above) were: (85A) Ardashir II, Prince ?-1236 (85B) Rakin Gaubara, Prince 1236-1272 (85C) Iskender, the father of (86) [name] (daughter), wife of ... the sons of (85B) Rakin Gaubara (above) were: (86A) Namwar III, Prince 1272-1302, the father of (87) Iskender, the father of (88) [name] (daughter), wife of ... (86B) Kai-Khusrau, Prince 1302-1312 (86C) Arghush the sons of (86B) Kai-Khusrau (above) were: (87A) Mohammed II, Prince 1312-1318 (87B) Shahriyar IV, Prince 1318-1325 (87C) Ziyar, Prince 1325-1334 the sons of (87C) Ziyar (above) were: (88A) Iskandar I, Prince 1334-1360, the father of (89) [name] (daughter) (88B) Ghazi, Prince 1360-1379, the father of (89) Qubad, Prince 1379-1399 (88C) Tus, Prince 1399-1404 (88D) Gustahem the son of (88D) Gustahem (above) was: (89) Bistun (d1358), the father of (90) Kayumarth, Prince 1404-1453 the sons of (90) Kayumarth (above) were: (91A) Kai-Ka'us II, co-ruler 1453-1476 (91B) Islandar II, co-ruler 1453-1475 the son of (91A) Kai-Ka'us II (above) was: (92) Jahangir, Prince 1476-1508 the sons of (92) Jahangir (above) were: (93A) Behem I, Prince of Nur (93B) Bistun the son of (93B) Bistun (above) was: (94) Behmen II the sons of (94) Behmen II were: (95A) Behem III (95B) Kayomart, father of (96) Mohammed, father of (97) Jahangir of Takur (below) (95C) Oweis,the son of (91B) Islandar II (above) was: (92) Tadj-ed-Daula, Sultan of Kujur (d1492), the father of (93) Ashraf, Sultan of Kujur (d1509), the father of (94) Kais, Sultan of Kujur (d1543) the sons of (94) Kais (above) were: (95A) Kayomart, Sultan of Kujur (95B) Jahangir I, Sultan of Kujur (d1567) the son of (95B) Jahangir I (above) was: (96) Mohammed, Sultan of Kujur (d1590), the father of (97) Jahangir II, Sultan of Kujur (ex 1598) the son of (97) Jahangir of Takur (above) was: (98) Faridun, the father of (99) Aga Fakhr Beg, the father of (100) Hajji Mohammed Rida, the father of (101) Karbilai Abbas Khan, the father of (102) Mirza Rida-Quli Beg, the father of (103) Mirza Abbas Buzurg, the father of (104) Husayn Ali, a.k.a. Baha'u'llah, proclaimed self king 1868 (d1892), the father of (105) Abdu'l-Baha (d1921), the father of (106) Diya'iyyah (daughter) (d1951), wife of Mirza Hadi Afnan (d1955) [descendant of "The Prophet" Mohammed], &, mother of (107) Shoghi Effendi (d1957), who, by wife, Mary Maxwell (d2000), had no issue (To which I, Jeff, continue): (108) Mason Remey Aghsan (d 1974), son of ‘Abdu’l-Baha, (109) Joseph Pepe Remey Aghsan (d 1994), son of Mason, grandson of ‘Abdu’l-Baha, and his son (110) Neal Chase ben Joeph Aghsan (1994-current) great-grandson of ‘Abdu’l-Baha, current president of the true UHJ. User:Jeffmichaud 21:04 28 December 2005

Jeffmichaud has finally presented a source (Hughes, "Davidic Dynasty", 2001, rev. 2005, [2]) that can be examined and discussed. That site also refers to useful charts (Hughes, "Charts", 2005, [3]).

As we now have a source that can be reviewed, I took the trouble to print it out (All 155 pages of it.) and review it carefully. At the outset, I should point out that this genealogy and these charts are not published, and therefore subject to the same criticisms as the Gonzales chart discussed at length previously. However, the Hughes works do cite a variety of sources for the various lines it catalogs lending it a greater claim to academic credibility than the Gonzales work. Further, as Jeffmichaud has cited it as a source, I'll examine it as if is, in fact, accurate for the sake of argument.

One thing to observe is that this information is not exhaustive. It does not include descendants that are not of interest, but does indicate when a line of interest ends. Specifically it identifies that Bahá'u'lláh's line ends with "(107) Shoghi Effendi (d1957), who, by wife, Mary Maxwell (d2000), had no issue" (Hughes, "Davidic Dynasty", p. 103±, and "Page 38", Hughes, "Charts".) So, the absence of data on descendants of a particular entry there can not be taken as evidence that there weren't any.

There are several problems that examination of Hughes' works create for the thesis that Bahá'u'lláh is the heir of David.

1. Considering Bostanai as the Exilarch, Hughes clearly states that "1. Bostonai (Bustanai) (d665), a Davidic prince of the "2nd" dynasty of exilarchs (above), was appointed by the Arabic Caliph as the new exilarch in 642, which began a new [3rd] dynasty of exilarchs," [Emphasis added.] (Hughes, "Davidic Dynasty", p. 40±) because his predecessor in office, "36(A) Abdullah, 640-642 dep, d660; was opposed for his conversion to Islam; was the "Arab Sheik" who was deposed in favor of Bostanai, who founded a new dynasty of exilarchs." (Hughes, "Davidic Dynasty", p. 24±). Clearly and specifically, Bostanai's elevation to office was political, and not by right of inheritance.

Supporting this understanding that the Exilarchy is political, is the fact that there are several lines senior to Bostanai in the 2^nd Dynasty. (Page 6, Hughes, "Charts".)

2. Considerig the history of Bostanai's heirs, it is striking how the Exilarchy passes back and forth among his various sons' lines. It isn't until Zakkai-Yehuda (d771), the 9^th Exilarch of this dynasty, that Sharhrijar's line sees one of its own in office, and even then his, Zakkai-Yehuda's descendants do not inherit the office. This jibes quite well with the discussion in the wikipedia article on Bostanai. (Compare the section "PART 6: medieval Jewish exilarchs" to the section "genealogy [the exilarchs, from Year 642 to 1401]" in Hughes, "Davidic Dynasty", p. 40± and p. 43±, and see Page 12 in Hughes, "Charts".) As illustrated here, and discused in the Bostanai article, it would be completely incorrect to assume that the office of "Exilarch" passed down father-to-son as an inheritance.

As an aside, it's well known that medieval Arab and Persian politics was fierce indeed. It was not uncommon at all for an older uncle to assume office in the place of an underage son, even though that son may be the heir. Consider that Abu Bakr was made the first Caliph, Umar the second, and Uthman the third, instead of the Imam Ali, despite the indications that Muhammad wanted Ali to succeed Him. These [Succession_to_Muhammad|tumultuous years] marred the inception of this faith. (This issue is still hotly contested in Islám, but Bahá'ís accept the Shía position that Ali was the intended succesor.) Ali did not become Caliph for years, and his son Hasan did not succeed him.

There isn't a tradition of regencies in the East, as we understand them from European history. And frankly, European regencies were no guarantees that the inheritance would pass on uninterupted. Consider the aftermath of Henry V's untimely death leaving his, infant son, on the throne.

3. Bostanai had sons who were older than Shahrijar. (Page 12, Hughes, "Charts") The lines of both Hisdai I and Haninai-Baradai are senior to Shahrijar's, from whom Bahá'u'lláh is descended. (Hughes, "Davidic Dynasty", p. 43± and Hughes, "Charts", Page 12.) As illustrated on "Page 12", Hisdai I's line ended immediately with a daughter. But Haninai-Baradai's line continued and is documented as far as Luis Diaz in 1542. If there are any descendants of this line, Haninai-Baradai's, they would all have senior claims to any inheritance from Bostanai.

4. The line of Exilarchs passed out of Bahá'u'lláh ancestry with "(67) Isaac Iskoi II, 16th Exilarch (817), deposed upon his conversion to Islam, father of (68) Qarim, ancestor of Baha'u'llah, of whom later" (Hughes, "Davidic Dynasty", p. 45±.) Bahá'u'lláh could make no literal claim to the Exilarchy that any Jew would recognize as legitimate.

5. Along the line of descent from Shahrijar to Bahá'u'lláh, ("PART 16: rulers of Mazandaran, ancestry of Baha'u'llah [claimant 1868]", Hughes, "Davidic Dynasty", pp. 99-103±, and Hughes, "Charts", Pages 36, 37, and 38.) there are several generations where the line of descent passes through younger sons. I count eleven separate generations where this happened. Going backwards these "younger sons" are: Jahangir I (d1567) [2^nd son], Islandir II (d1475) [2^nd son], Gustahem (d????) [4^th son], Ziyar (d1334) [3^rd son], Kai-Khusrau (d1312) [2^nd son], Rakin Gaubara (d1272) [2^nd son], Kai Ka'us I (d1165) [2^nd son], Nazir-ed-Dawla (d????) [2^nd son], Feramurz (d????) [2^nd son], Diwbend (d????) [2^nd son], and Shirzad (d????) [2^nd son]. Just like the issue surrounding the lines of Bostanai's sons, if there are any descendants of any of these lines, they would all have senior claims to any inheritance of Shahrijar's.

Jeffmichaud appears to have merely cut-and-pasted Part 16 of Hughes' "Davidic Dynasty". If he'd read it, or the Charts, he'd have noted these.

That the BUPC published genealogy does not match these Hughes charts (cited above), and does not mention instances where the line passes through younger sons raises legitimate questions of the organization's honesty and/or clarity on this subject. For example: Why are there two instances of "Dara" (a feminine name) on the line from Bostanai to Bahá'u'lláh on the BUPC geneaology?

6. The absence of death dates for so many of Bahá'u'lláh's ancestors clearly should call into question the validity of this data. In fact, Hughes specificically identifies problems with "those families which claim royal Davidic descent as a part of their family's tradition and can produce spotty evidence to support their claims, however, their genealogies have gaps and they can not fully document their claims". (Hughes, "Davidic Dynasty", Post-Script, p. 145±.)

Examining these documents, which Jeffmichaud has presented as authoritative, leads one to these conclusions:

Bahá'u'lláh could claim to be a "Prince of the House of David", but the evidence of that would be "spotty" and "have gaps and they can not fully document [the] claims" as Hughes concluded.
Bahá'u'lláh could not claim to be the Exilarch. The office passed out of his line in 817 AD — one thousand years before he was born.
Bahá'u'lláh could not claim to be Bostanai's heir. There are far too many lines of descent, some well-documented for several hundred years, that would have senior claims. Asserting that each and every one of these have died out strains credulity.
The BUPC appear to confuse the Exilarchy with David's heir. The Exilarchy is a political office. The heir is the first-born son. These separated repeatedly over the course of the history of the Exilarchy. One example is that Bostanai "was appointed by the Arabic Caliph as the new exilarch" and did not ascend by right of inheritance. Claiming that Bostanai, as Exilarch, is also David's heir is false. Further, any heir, or even descendant of, Bostanai can not be the heir of David.

I can only conclude, based upon the above observations of the data available from Hughes, and presented by Jeffmichaud as authoritative, the the BUPC thesis is false and begs the question. The Hughes "Davidic Dynasty" paper directly contradicts a direct line showing Bahá'u'lláh to be the heir of Bostanai, much less David.

If the BUPC is only concerned that Bahá'u'lláh be a patrilineal descendant of David (An assertion Hughes would still call "spotty".), and that that alone qualifies him to be the Messiah, then that is an unbelievably weak justification for Bahá'u'lláh's claims. (Could that be why he never discussed it?) There have to be literally thousands of men from the Mediterranean to the Hindu Kush who could claim that descent.

MARussellPESE 03:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

~These last comments are ridiculous and irrelevant. The point of this discussion is not to refute the “Baha’is Under the Provisions of the Covenant perspective”, but rather to clarify what should be written in that section, including the note.

I have already posted that ‘Abdu’l-Baha has stated that: “Baha’u’llah was NOT a descendant of the prophet Zoroaster.” (‘Abdu’l-Baha, Star of the West, Vol. 1 #12, p. 3). Furthermore MARussell has NOT provided any proof or sources, as to what the OFFICIAL position of the "UHJ" is, but rather asserts his personal beliefs speak for his whole sect. MARussell is not an authoritative figure of the Baha’i Faith in any degree at all. Until he produces a document clarifying this point from his sect's current “UHJ”, which he accepts to be the head of his sect in Haifa, the wikipedia standards for what his sect of the “The Baha’i Faith” believes have not been met at all. I contend that everything he posts about the dispute of Baha’u’llah in the male line from Bostanai the Exilarch is therefore unverified, unofficial, speculative, and irrelevant!

The belief that Baha'u'llah is on the throne of David is the official documentable belief of the BUPC. This is not the forum for refutations of belief, but simply to state facts that are documentable and true. To state that the BUPC believes this is a fact belief that is documentable and true. Neither MARussell, nor any other wiki-editor, has pointed to any evidence whatsoever that anything he has stated is actually the position of his sect.

Furthermore I have already produced sources, such as the Genealogy of Baha’u’llah by Dr. Gonzales, that affirm the same thing as the BUPC belief: namely that Baha’u’llah is descended in the male line from the Exilarch Bostanai through Issac Iskoi ben Moses that converted to accepting Jesus and Muhammad in 817 AD. This is the same fact attested to by David Hughes, a Christian, as well in his chart, of which he, like Gonzales, has no affiliate with the BUPC.

The fact that Dr. Gonzales is not a member of the BUPC, but is affiliated with the same sect that MARussel belongs to, shows that among their own followers there is NO UNIFORMITY of belief concerning the genealogy of Baha’u’llah from Exilarch Bostanai among members of their own sect. Therefore for MARussel to assert that this is a uniform belief, is not substantiated, and therefore should not be included in the "NOTE:" under the Perspective of the BUPC on this point.

Furthermore Dr. Gonzales is a Baha’i historian. The statement in the note that “Baha’i historians have done research” which deliberately discounts the research of Baha’i Historian Dr. Gonzales, is therefore again NOT a uniform statment of truth, and therefore must be removed from wikipedia.

Until MARussell produces an OFFICIAL document from his sects’ headless “UHJ” in Haifa, which they recognize as the authority, we cannot say for certain what that sect’s belief is concerning Baha’u’llah’s patrilineal descent from Exilarch Bostanai through Issac Iskoi ben Moses, let alone the beliefs of each of its individual members, such as Dr. Gonzales, Malik Khusravi, and others that I have cited here as sources.

Therefore, given that ‘Abdu’l-Baha himself has stated that “Baha’u’llah is not descended from Zoroaster” which is written to his own son Mason Remey Aghsan, as well as published in Star of the West; and given the ABSENCE of any official statement from MARussll's sects headless “UHJ”; I therefore contend that the NOTE should be amended to reflect the truth of the facts:

“Note: These views of the Baha’is Under the Provisions of the Covenant do not necessarily reflect the views of all members of other Baha’i sects or divisions.”

With that said, there are still other issues raised which should be addressed:

In the first place, I posted Hughes chart, not as a final authority on the subject. His research has in no way been used as a "source" by the BUPC for anything concerning our beliefs as has been suggested. I shared the link to show that not only does Dr. Gonzales, a Baha’i historian, and Khusravi in his Iqlim-i-Nur, but also Hughes, who has a Christian background, are aware of the fact of Baha’u’llah’s patrilineal descent from King David through the Exilarch Bostanai. Of all the actual sources stated, MARussell has chosen to focus entirely on the one reference that was specifically NOT a source, missing the point, once again, entirely.
I would also like to point out, that the truth of the father to son lineage of Baha’u’llah is ultimately unassailable in the sources from history because all of the ancestors were seated on the throne as Kings over Mazandaran from the time of Bostanai circa 660 AD until 1596 AD at the time of Shah Abbas the Great. All of their names, professions, and entitlements, as well as terms of office and successions as well as death dates, are all easily and readably attainable from history books; several of which are stated in this and my previous post. Therefore I will not cite every single one of them here, as it would too lengthy and cumbersome. As previously stated, the Babi/Baha'i historian Kusravi's Iqlim-i-Nur contains all this information in it's most concise form, whereas piecing it together from the various sources is quite cumbersome a task, but since this has been called to task, I will keep these explanations as to-the-point as possible, citing widely published, verifiable English sources along the way.

The fact remains, as this is a history of the THRONE-LINE of KINGS, all of them are of great fame and renown. Frankly, criticism of this truth of Baha’u’llah being descended from David and seated upon the throne from Bostanai forward only helps to further establish this truth, and therefore the criticisms are welcomed.

Again I posted Hughes chart for the sake of discussion and not as the final authority; nor even a source for BUPC publications. This same information of the Davidic origin of Baha’u’llah's patrilineal line is again recorded on the chart by Gonzales, and is also given in the Iqlim-i-Nur. I posted Hughes chart not as a final authority on the genealogy and throne-line of Baha’u’llah, but to further stimulate this discussion, which I am glad that it has.

Hughes chart has obvious glitches in it that are of his own making, and not that of the lineage of Baha’u’llah.

For example in listing the immediately ancestors of Baha’u’llah of the House of Nur, Hughes sites that Jahangir is the son of Muhammad, where as that Jahangir is the son of Aziz (Jesse), who is the ninth ancestor of Baha’u’llah.

The fact that Hughes gives his name as Muhammad instead of Aziz in no way detracts from the fact that Baha’u’llah’s line goes back to through the house of Nur to the common ancestor of both Nur and Kujur who is named Adam, that is Gaoyumarth (Kayumarth), in Persian.

Many of these ancestors of Baha’u’llah are known by several names. Those who are not familiar with the history of that time and place may not be aware of this common fact.

For one example MARussell points to the name “Dara” on the chart published by the BUPC, and ASSUMES this is female, whereas it is the Persian familiar name of Darius, as in “Darius the King of Persia” mentioned in the Bible for who these ones were named after.

Another problem for MARussell is what he calls the “political” office of the Exilarchate vs. the right of the father to appoint his own son to the throne. The idea he presents that Bostanai was appointed by the Caliph is contrary to the source Jewish histories which state that his father Hananiah was killed in the programs of 590 AD (See Neusner), and that Mar Phada, the regent turned usurper, was deposed by the people in favour of Bostanai, as the people knew he was the heir of his father Hananiah.

Later the Caliph confirmed the head of the Diaspora community into a political, that is, governmental office. These Exilarchs, from, Bostanai forward to Isaac Iskoi II ben Moses, that is those seated upon David’s throne, held real governmental power from the time of Bostanai until 820 AD when Isaac Iskoi converted to accepted Jesus and Muhammad. This is documented by the seal ring of Isaac ben Moses which Harun al-Rashid and his successor al-Muman allowed the Exilarch to posses (see Jewish Encyclopedia article "Babylonia"), as it is also stated that Bostanai was given a personal seal ring (see "seals", Jewish Encyclopedia) showing the real power of state these descendants of Bostanai held under Muslim power from circa 640 AD until 820 AD.

Thus from Bostanai to Isaac Iskoi II ben Moses, those who were seated upon the throne of David had real authority within the prevailing government of the time where they lived.

The sons of Bostanai through his Jewish wives were usurpers, for Bostanai had appointed his son Shahriyar to inherit the throne. This fact was later upheld by the halackic Jewish courts, which reinstated the sons of his Persian wife in 750 AD, and further clarified in the ruling how the throne was passed down amongst them in the ruling that Sehmiah the son of Issac the Exilarch” (that same Isaac the son of Ruzbihan the son of Shahriyar); was the chair inheritor and not Nathan the son of Shahriyar. These Jewish legal rulings still exist to this day, and show the right of the father to appoint his son, irregardless of the meddling of external powers such as the Ummayyads that had sided with the sons of Bostanai, usurpers, from the Jewish wives.

Thus MARussell is all wet on stating that from Hananiah to Bostanai, to Shahriyar to Ruzbihan and finally to Isaac and his son Shemiah that this wasn’t a matter of inheritance and appointment, for it WAS EXACTLY THAT: a matter of inheritance and appointment which the originally Jewish halakic rulings of that exact time show, and document, as preserved down to this day.

MARussell again shows, in high relief, more ignorance on this subject by objecting to the fact that sometimes the father would choose the youngest son. This objection is overruled by the Bible itself in which the older sons (such as Reuben) of Israel were often passed over for the younger sons, such as Judah who received the blessing of the kingship of the throne-line, and Joseph, for the birthright (1 Chron. 5:2 KJV). David himself was the youngest of eight brothers, yet was chosen as king. As a matter of fact choosing a younger son is one of the the themes in the Bible, such as Solomon, who was much younger than Absolam! Furthermore, 'Abdu'l-Baha provides for this in his Will and Testament, stating that if the first-born son of the guardian does not possess the attributes required of a successor, that the guardian may "choose another branch". This shows that MARussell only wants to refute the BUPC perspective, not help enhance this page with FACTS as to what the BUPC perspective is, and WHY they have that perspective.

FACT: the sons of the Jewish wife of Bostanai were deposed in 750 AD when Marwan the last Ummayad Caliph beheaded them (al-Tabari, Vol. 28, p. 113). The heir of the line was Anan b. David, and he was opposed to the acceptance of Zakkai ben Aknunai and his father as the current Exilarchs.

The genealogy tree for the Persian sons in the unbroken male line is given in the different Jewish resposum of that time, and can be found cited in such articles as Tychocinsky’s article on Bostanai as well as referenced in Zuckerman’s book. It is as follows:

Bostanai, Shahriyar his son, Ruzbihan his son, Nathan ben Sjharyar his brother and regent, then Isaac the son of Ruzbihan, the son of Shahriyar, and then Shemiah, the son of Isaac.

Shemiah on becoming head of the schools which he was appointed to while his father was still alive is also called, Solomon the King, and in Arabic, Zakkai ben Akhunai. He was succeeded as head of the schools by his representative while he was still alive, by his first born son Isaac Iskoi I who died before he did, and then by his next son Judah ben Zakkai, who also died before he did, and then by Isaac’s son Moses (his grandson) (this is the Exilarch in the court of Harun al-Rashid) and then finally Moses was succeed by his son Isaac Iskoi II. Tychocinsky’s analysis of The Damascus Manuscript (published in his paper on Boastani the Exialarch) as well as the seal inscription of Isaac ben Moses (Isaac Iskoi II) published by Lazarus, and Goode’s ananalysis of this period documents clearly altoghter with the halakic and other responsum the full tree of the Persian throne-line by lineage and by appointment and by inheritiance to the throne from Bostanai to Isaac Iskoi II 820 AD. Thus the Jewish documentation confirms the same history and lineage of the throne line in this early period as does the Persian and Arabic sources.

Thus, when the Exilarch Solomon of the Jewish wife was beheaded in 750 AD, Isaac ben Ruzbihan ben Shahriyar of the Persian line and throne inheritor was accepted as the true line by the people and Court Ruling, while Issac was still alive, his son Shemiah, entitled Solomon the King, was installed by his father as the head of the academies in 750 AD, and together with the righteous Gaonate Caliph formed the Zugot of the Courts. This is why the appointment as the head of the schools - the gaons - were disrupted in favour of the sons of the Jewish wives that wrongly dismissed them and placed their cronies in there before 750 AD; and then after the switch back to those of the rightful Persian line after 750 AD the appointments were put back as they should be; for example in the appointment of Natronai Kahana bar Mar Rav Akhunai, scion of the Persian house , and ancestor of Sherira Gaon, as well for example. Moshe Gil points our that “Sherira” is Jewish form of “Shahriyar”, and the comment of Sherira in his famous Epistle is that he is not “descended from the sons of Bostanai that were cruel and repressive”; thus stating he is not of those sons of the Jewish wives that disrupted the teachers of the schools (see Graetz for more).

This is all well documented. But, Hughes chart does not get into this type of depth and therefore is not a final authority on this matter, nor a "source" for the BUPC's publications.

The fact that MARussell, without knowledge of these things, simply turns his attack to refute Hughes research is untenable and unfounded. For it is known and well established in the Jewish Responsum and law rulings that Isaac is the chair inheritor from Bostanai through Shahriyar in the male line. Why would MARussell wish to refute and muddle the lineage from Bostanai to Isacc in 817 AD? He tells us why. He is against the lineage of Baha'u'llah in the male line from King David and Bostanai, and is against Baha’u’llah being actually seated upon the throne of David of which this lineage has as a right of its inheritance. Therefore instead of contributing to the BUPC perspective, or trying to enhance the "Note:", he simply refutes the succession of the father to son throne line from Bostanai to Isaac Iskoi II, without using any reliable sources, but simply misquoting and misapplying names he has read on Hughes chart to confuse the issue of the throne line, which he now attacks.

And, this is a good thing – for it again shows the BUPC perspective is NOT held by all people who claim they are “Baha’i”; whereas other members of MARUssell's “Baha’i” sect, such as Dr. Gonzales do accept the truth of the genealogy of Baha'u'llah patrilineally seated upon the throne line back to Bostanai through Isaac Iskoi ben Moses, 817 AD.

My point in citing Hughes is that it is known in more than one circle that Baha'u'llah is descended from the Exilarch Bostanai through Isaac Iskoi II of that time period, and not to get into a pointless debate on this page with MARussell, who is not acquainted with any of the facts of the ancestors of Baha’u’llah; but, finds it somehow useful to attack and argue with those who do.

Hughes rightly gives, as does Dr. Gonzales, that Isaac Iskoi ben Moses accepted Jesus and Muhammad in 817 AD. This was from the 8th Imam Ali ar-Rida, and is documented by ‘Abdu’l-Baha himself in the “Secret of Divine Civilization”. For the purpose of the BUPC perspective on this, there is no wikipedia requirement to present any other documentation OTHER than the BUPC beliefs. But, as I have provided other sources, from MARussell's sect (such as Gonzales and Khusravi) which I am not required to do, and now from a third party Christian source interested in the Davidic Dynasty in general, this has obviously caused an uproar from the sect of MARussell, who have, since their usurption, tried to keep this information either refuted or suppressed.

The idea that in so accepting Jesus and Muhammad the Exilarch Isaac Iskoi II was deposed from the throne of David is ludicrous. The everlasting Covenant of God vouchsafes the throne of David as a father to son inheritance. It even states that if the sons violate the law themselves or break the Covenant themselves (see Psalms 89), that God still will not lie to David, That the throne and lineage will continue "for all generations".

Even if someone were to assume that by accepting Jesus and Muhammad this was some sort of violation of the Covenant (I would call it firmness in the Covenant; that is firmness in accepting the true successor!), God states explicitly that the throne and lineage and inheritance continue forever. As Isaac had inherited the throne as appointed by his father Moses, it was his for life to give to whomsosoever which one of his sons he so would choose, and this went on to his son Hisdai and then to his son David, to use their Hebrew names, and continued in Tabaristan down to Baha’u’llah in the direct male throne line, all of whose ancestors are known, and whose rules and death dates are given in the books of the history of that period and place, right up to Jahangir the son of Jesse (Aziz) of Nur at the time of Shah Abbas the Great, and from there to Mirza Buzurg of Nur; everyone being of great renown.

After Shoghi Effendi, the head of the Baha’i faith, those of great renown are of course, Mason the son of ‘Abdu’l-Baha and then Pepe and then Neal Chase. If they were not of even some renown or notice, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Thus the Hughes chart , the Gonzales chart, and the BUPC chart all agree in this matter that Baha’u’llah is from the Persian line through Bostanai and the Exilarch Isaac that converted to Islam.

On the BUPC chart, again their personal names in Persian are given, and not their Hebrew names. The death dates for everyone of the ancestors as given on the BUPC chart is known as well, as they were all famous and renown.

In 820 a.d. after the conversion of Isaac, who took the throne of David with him into Mazandaran, Caliph al-Mamun stripped the “exilarchate” as an office from all governmental function stating that any 10 people could elect anyone to be their leader. This effectively killed the exilarchate in the Sunni world as anything with any governmental power. The office entitled “Exilarch” continued all the way down to Daniel the son of Solomon the son of Hisdai who is recorded to be a descendant of David through Hillel (see Jewish Encyclopedia), and therefore of the female line. This shows that while Jews still had nominal heads, these were not entitled to be seated upon the throne of David which is patrilineal inheritance only, and furthermore, those in the male line, were not of the descendants of Isaac who was seated upon throne, and took it with him into Persia into Tabaristan, now called Mazandaran. Either you respect the right of the father to give the throne as his personal inheritance to any son he so chooses to be his successor, or you don’t. You're either under the provisions of the Covenant, or not.

It is the official and WIDELY published BUPC belief that they do accept this, (the father has the right to appoint which of any of his sons he so chooses in any manner and style he so chooses and - now since Baha’u’llah and ‘Abdu’l-Baha as the Shiloh prophecy of Genesis 49:10 is fulfilled - even through adoption), and they have published the genealogy of Baha’u’llah back to David through Bostanai the Exilarch, and that is documentation enough for the BUPC belief.

To state that other Baha’is do not accept this as a matter of DOGMA or DOCTRINE without documentation from the headless “UHJ” in Haifa is unfounded, unsourced, unverified, and without any merit.

It is without any merit at all, especially since there is considerable debate among the followers of the other Baha’is sects, including MARussell’s, concerning their acceptance and rejection of the truth of the genealogy of Baha’u’llah. Until MARussell or someone else produces a document from that headless “UHJ”, that heads their sect in Haifa, we cannot say on wikipedia what their official belief is concerning Baha’u’llah in the male line from Bostanai the Exilarch. Which is why I stand by the note so corrected.

Furthermore even if they do produce an official statement from their headless or bogus “UHJ” against the lineage of Baha’u’llah, that only again shows that they do not accept the BUPC perspective, but then it would be a major tenet of their faith to so reject it, and the note on this page would still stands as amended. Because the idea that they reject it does not invalidate the fact that it is the BUPC perspective that it is true, and the fact that they might reject it does not invalidate that it is in fact what Baha'u'llah, ‘Abdu’l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi accepted as well. My guess is that they would uphold that it is true as the research of Gonzales and Khusravi shows, but still remain in denial of it continuing in Mason the son of ‘Abdu’l-Baha.

Basically the denial of that sect in Haifa, means nothing to the truth that Baha'u'llah is descended from Bostanai in the male line and seated upon the throne of David. If not for the BUPC, who would preserve the provisions of this covenant from God in the Baha’i faith? No one. Therefore they do.

The final point I would like to make here is that on Hughes chart he uses the Badustaniyan sources for his chart, whereas the BUPC has used the Bawandid sources for the same ancestors of whom Bostanai is the common ancestor of both of these well known families, the Badustaniyan and Bawandid houses. The publication of Rehatsek has identified this more clearly in his comparisons of the “Baw and Gaobara Siphabuds” in which he shows that the unusual death and circumstances of the same member in 144 AH is one and the same ancestor of both the Gaobara (Badustaniyan) and Bawandid history and lineages.

Anyone who reads the original source material from that time period, such as Isfandiyar’s “History of Tabaristan” and Marahsi’s “History of Mazandaran, Ruyan, etc.” can see that the line of those seated upon the throne in these dynasties is all extemrely well documented in the male line from the time Bostanai right up until the last King seated upon the throne who ruled in Nur Jahangir the son of Jesse-Aziz from which Mirza Buzurg the father of Baha’u’llah is descended. Rehatsek attributes this to duplicate histories from different sources that Marahsi simple compiled into his work without trying to combine them. This shows the common ancestry of the Bawandid and the Badustaniyan (Gaobara) houses, from which the Badustaniyan sources continue their own accounts up to the time of Gayumarth (1454 AD) the chair inheritor of Kaus (c.1400 AD) the son of Hasan Bawand (d. 1439AD), who is also the common anscestor of the Lords of Nur and Kujor. All being, "that which the histories of by-gone ages have related."

MARRussel argues that those who are from Baradai have a superior claim because Shahriyar is the younger son, wehereas Baradia was an older son of Bostanai. In fact, Hisadia is even older than Baradai and from Hisadia comes the Kariate lines of Nesi’im. Again this ignores that Bostanai gave the throne inheritance to Shahriyar.

It is the perspective of the Baha’is under the provisions of the Covenant to accept all the lines of the Nesi’im from Bostanai that are still in the world today. The fact that they are male descendants of Bostanai as is Baha’u’llah, is a fact we can accept. The BUPC claim, which is in support of Baha’u’llah’s claim to be seated upon the throne of David, is that Baha’u’llah is of the throne-line and fulfills prophecy for the King-Messiah as well. The BUPC also accept that Neal Chase ben Joseph Aghsan again is also a male-line descendant of Bostanai through his Persian wife, and has been grafted back into the throne line by the adoption of Joseph Pepe Aghsan, son of Mason Remey Aghsan, son of ‘Abdu’l-Bah aghsan.

Looking at MARussels stance – here is someone who claims to be “Baha’i” yet is against the lineage of Baha’u’llah! Claims to support Baha’u’llah is the Messiah, yet states that even if he were to accept the lineage of Baha’u’llah as “spotty” he still argues for the other lineages of Baradai to be the throne inheritor? Why would a person who claims they are “Baha’i” and claims Baha'u'llah to be the Messiah, that is claims to promote Baha’u’llah, be in such strong opposition of Baha’u’llah being seated upon the throne as a male line descendant? And that without clear statment from the head of his sect, the so-called “UHJ” in Haifa, that would state Baha'u'llah is not from Bostanai in the male line? Wouldn’t we expect a Baha’i, or what ever persuasion, to be proud of Baha’u’llah’s Jewish ancestry and the fact that it is of the throne line? Dr. Gonzeles published it as so. Why would Shoghi Effendi allow Gonzales to do that if it was not true? Baha’u’llah Himself states he was seated upon this throne. Why promote Baha’u’llah as a Persian – instead of the Jew he is? Answers to these questions get into why these people broke away (in 1960) from the lineage continuing in Mason Remey Aghsan, the son of ‘Abdu’l-Baha, in the first place.

The point of all this is that I wished to post that Baha'u'llah Himself claims to be seated upon the throne of David on this page and give the BUPC perspective.

I was asked for sources that Baha’u’llah was a descent of Bostanai the Exilarch. I produced them. 1) Gonzales; 2) Iqlim-i-Nur, and 3) Hughes research, and of course 4) all the BUPC publications to this point. The fact that it is the BUPC perspective, and that others share parts of that perspective, is AGAIN overdocumented by me here in this discussion.

I never said Hughes or Gonzales was the final, or only, authority on the subject, but just that it was known that Baha’u’llah was from Bostanai through Issac Iskoi ben Moses. This fact is on both the Gonzales chart and the Hughes charts. My sources for stating that these are BUPC beliefs are the BUPC documents and charts, available at all of their websights, and that alone is enough sources for this article’s comment of the BUPC perspective.

Exilarch means Davidic “monarch in Exile”. Since the violation of 1957, Mason, Pepe and Neal function as the head of the faith, yet are in exile from the physical location of Haifa that was usurped by the ‘Hands”; similar to the sons of the Jewish wives that usurped from Bostanai’s son Shahriyar, who were later reinstated by the Courts. But, these guardians seated upon David's throne today are not in exile from the Faith, and neither are the BUPC – the faith is a belief, a belief in something that means something. This belief is the belief that Baha’u’llah is the King-Messiah seated upon the throne of David, and it is a belief that is a fact of reality, and that He fulfills prophecy therefore for the second coming of Christ seated upon David’s throne. If the so-called "Baha'is" that MARussell represents here assume the throne is purely figurative, then source verifiable evidence that this is the case; stating "personal interpretations" as instituitive evidence will not work here, and is quite "un-wikipedia". Especially since the title Messiah refers only to a physical male descendent of David's. Was his title "Glory of the Lord" figurative? No, it was literally his name. The "Glory of the Lord" would be "established on the throne of David". Shoghi Effendi affirms this is the case (GPB p. 94), as do "the histories of by-gone ages".

With many claiming to be “Baha’i” in opposition to throne-line continuing in Mason, this opposition only serves to strengthen the BUPC perspective and determination, in the same way Galileo was strengthened that the earth was a globe when many other said it was flat, or when people used to think that vitamins didn’t exist, and other silly wrong things such as that. It is only a matter of time for all people to understand that the BUPC perspective is not only their perspective, but it's the very belief of Baha'u'llah Himself as documented in his own writings and published in his own proclamation and it is the truth in general.

I feel that this is enough for this response and again reiterate that NPOV language will be used on the note on this article:

““Note: These views of the Baha’is Under the Provisions of the Covenant do not necessarily reflect the views of all members of other Baha’i sects or divisions.”

Wiki-editors like MARussell and Jeff3000 have concocted statements for this article's "Note:" such as: "Bahá'í historians have traced his ancestry to the last Sassanian king Yazdigird III — an item of Zoroastrian interest." Whereas ‘Abdu’l-Baha has said: “Baha’u’llah is not descended from Zoroaster”. This is because his matrilineal descent is of no consequence; he is patrilineally descended from David. Yet these and many other facts on the subject are being maligned and misrepresented by these so-called "good faith" editors. I will assume for the moment that they are acting in "good faith" and are just simply ignorant and misguided. I have amended the note to be free of the specific points of this controversy, but simply state that there is a controversy on this point. I have used the phrase “all” members, because obviously Gonzales, who is a member of that sect, shares the same view as the BUPC at least on the point of Baha’u’llah being from Bostanai and Issac Iskoi ben Moses; which both he and Hughes,a non Baha’i researcher, also agree.

Until MARussell produces a specific statement of DOCTRINE from his sects headless “UHJ” in Haifa, there will be no reason to put exactly what they officially believe; for neither MARussell, nor any other wiki-editor, are the authority of their sect. Whereas the BUPC perspective is officially announced on all their media, websites and published literature on this point, as it is a featured tenet and source of pride for all BUPC as they alone have preserved and documented these facts to there most finite details. See their Welcome Page for more. User:Jeffmichaud 21:55 04 January 2006

Categories: Talk archives

Talk:Davidic line/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Complete BUPC View and Explanation

Improbability of BUPC view

Further Documentation of Proofs for Baha'u'llah's Exilarchy

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search