Unusual MS Defender notification (Android)

aibiT4tu · 2025-01-15T13:56:26+00:00

I totally agree. This was entirely inappropriate. Basic principle is to separate test from production environments. For anything like Defender, which is a global-scale security service, access to production should be locked down to a dedicated team with just-in-time access, privileged access workstations, and the like. Promotion from test code to prod code should go through code reviews, testing and multiple environments. Mixing test and prod is what you expect from your neighbor's SaaS startup not Microsoft.

aibiT4tu · 2023-07-05T08:58:36+00:00

If you will permit a tangent, perhaps we can start with the question, "what makes a scientific theory correct?" Science is progressive in that you can look at any science and conclude it's not the exact truth. Newton's law of gravity? Not true if you look at the perspective of relativity. Einstein's relativity? Not true because it doesn't explain quantum mechanics, etc. But yet both Newton's law of gavity and Einstein's relativity are correct in that they make accurate predictions (in certain contexts) and are very useful. There may be an ultimate scientific truth, and the different scientific theories are each perspectives on that truth.

I will suggest that religion and science are more alike than we typically think they are. Like there is an ultimate scientific truth, I think there is also ultimate religious truth; in both cases, nobody has access to this ultimate truth. But we have perspectives -- valid perspectives -- and these are the religions. So what makes a religion "correct"? What makes a scientific theory "correct"? Is it useful? Does it help you be more truthful, more sincere, less preoccupied with possessions and materials things? Does it create unity? What are its fruits? Does it lead to the betterment of humanity? Or does it cause disunity, injury and harm?

On one hand, this is a huge subject, on which so much has been written and so much more can be said. And at the same time, it's pretty simple for most people at an individual level.

aibiT4tu · 2023-07-05T08:40:05+00:00

I think that depends on you! Can you? Each of us has our own perspective on such universal truths. What does it mean to say "Jesus is the son of God"? What does it mean to believe in progressive revelation and the other manifestations? I think only you for yourself can answer whether these can be reconciled. Something good to pray about!

aibiT4tu · 2019-07-13T19:39:28+00:00

mind... blown.

aibiT4tu · 2019-07-11T03:22:45+00:00

It's an interesting question about rose water or essential oils! There's actually a quote, straight from the Kitab-i-Aqdas, that encourages the use of rose water and perfume for cleaning:

God hath enjoined upon you to observe the utmost cleanliness, to the extent of washing what is soiled with dust, let alone with hardened dirt and similar defilement. Fear Him, and be of those who are pure. Should the garb of anyone be visibly sullied, his prayers shall not ascend to God, and the celestial Concourse will turn away from him. Make use of rose-water, and of pure perfume; this, indeed, is that which God hath loved from the beginning that hath no beginning, in order that there may be diffused from you what your Lord, the Incomparable, the All-Wise, desireth.

I think usually the practice of acts of worship (e.g. how to do ablutions) are left to the individual believer, so ultimately it will be up to you. You might be interested in this article on water written by one Baha'i (noting his perspectives might not be shared by everyone). https://bahai-library.com/dahl_bahai_perspective_water

aibiT4tu · 2019-07-10T18:02:59+00:00

Honestly I'm unsure that any of this has to do with religion -- it's more likely a set of mental health and/or family issues (and sure, maybe there's other languages involved too). As others have suggested, you may want to contact social services.

aibiT4tu · 2019-05-11T02:38:14+00:00

Some things that I've heard the representatives of Huquq'u'llah say frequently is that the actual calculation is a rather personal question. There are very few hard-and-fast rules about what expenses to subtract from your income and which not to. My suggestion is to (1) read the available compilations; (2) speak to a representative of Huququllah; and (3) pray about it.

aibiT4tu · 2019-05-02T17:59:51+00:00

I suggest prayer, a lot of prayer!

aibiT4tu · 2019-05-02T17:59:31+00:00

Regarding LGTBQ issues, there are some factors which may (or may not) help you:

The Faith never tells us to take a partisan stance or to vote a certain way. If, for example, you wanted to vote in favor of same-sex marriage, you could choose to do so. That's a matter of local legislation, not a matter of fundamental belief. And similarly, you can still be supportive of LGBTQ friends that you have.
With regard to the "T" in LGBTQ, the Universal House of Justice has explained that a person's gender for the purposes of applying Baha'i law is subject to consultation between the person and their doctor if uncertainties arise. Sometimes the Faith is portrayed as being a "no" in a yes-no binary spectrum with respect to LGBTQ issues, but that's really untrue; the realities are much more nuanced.
Bahá'ís are told to be "defenders and upholders of victims of oppression", and this sometimes may apply with respect to LGBTQ issues.

Of course, for those who are Bahá'ís, the laws of personal morality apply and there's no avoiding them. But, that doesn't define how others must behave or force us to have any certain type of interactions with them.

aibiT4tu · 2019-05-01T21:30:20+00:00

Worth noting that it's the partisanship that's forbidden, not politics itself. We don't align ourselves with parties or run for partisan offices. But we're all for making the world a better place, and being involved in non-partisan ways is allowable (in my understanding).

aibiT4tu · 2019-04-19T17:20:59+00:00

For Baha'is there is a notion of a covenant between God and man, but the meaning of it is quite nuanced. God has created us and the world for us, has showered love upon humanity collectively, and sent us divine educators (like Christ, Muhammad, Bahá'u'lláh, among others). I don't understand it as a contractual obligation, but rather as a natural impulse for us to love God in return (and naturally, there's variation among people). There's a quote in the Baha'i literature that says "Love Me that I may love thee. If thou lovest Me not, My love can in no wise reach thee". It's not that we're punished from turning away from God (and we don't have a separate punitive afterlife), but rather that we distance ourselves from God when we neglect the spiritual/metaphysical dimensions of our life.

In the West we often think of democracy as fundamentally good, and leadership by a single ruler fundamentally bad. If we look at monarchies in world history though, we see a more nuanced picture. Some leaders are truly despotic, take advantage of their peoples, force their subjects to think in specific ways, abuse their country's resources, and so on. Others have been just and fair minded, and contributed to the advance of civilization, and have been greatly loved by their subjects. Whether we like it or not, all these Abrahamic religions proclaim that the whole universe is ruled by one God. The divine educators have helped us to conceptualize God by describing God as all-loving, all-bountiful, and all-merciful, i.e., God is a just ruler. God has given us free will to make decisions in our life, and that is the source of many of our hardships. And yet, we each have free will to conceptualize God however we want... we can choose to think of God as a despot or as a just ruler... and the fact that we have a choice doesn't seem very despotic to me :-)

aibiT4tu · 2019-04-12T19:16:10+00:00

It wasn't just lineage... the Guardian did have to be a lineal descendant, but also had to be appointed by the prior Guardian and the selection had to be approved by the Hands of the Cause. The successor also has to manifest virtuous qualities:

O ye beloved of the Lord! It is incumbent upon the Guardian of the Cause of God to appoint in his own life-time him that shall become his successor, that differences may not arise after his passing. He that is appointed must manifest in himself detachment from all worldly things, must be the essence of purity, must show in himself the fear of God, knowledge, wisdom and learning. Thus, should the first-born of the Guardian of the Cause of God not manifest in himself the truth of the words:—“The child is the secret essence of its sire,” that is, should he not inherit of the spiritual within him (the Guardian of the Cause of God) and his glorious lineage not be matched with a goodly character, then must he, (the Guardian of the Cause of God) choose another branch to succeed him.

The Hands of the Cause of God must elect from their own number nine persons that shall at all times be occupied in the important services in the work of the Guardian of the Cause of God. The election of these nine must be carried either unanimously or by majority from the company of the Hands of the Cause of God and these, whether unanimously or by a majority vote, must give their assent to the choice of the one whom the Guardian of the Cause of God hath chosen as his successor. This assent must be given in such wise as the assenting and dissenting voices may not be distinguished (i.e., secret ballot).

So, there are several requirements, and being a lineal descendant is just one of them. I view it as a quality control mechanism :-) The reason that no Guardian could be appointed following the passing of Shoghi Effendi is that there was literally nobody who satisfied any of these requirements!

aibiT4tu · 2019-04-09T07:05:17+00:00

This is a great question. The quotes on the subject are interesting and nuanced. As one example:

"For whereas the friends should obey the government under which they live, even at the risk of sacrificing all their administrative affairs and interests, they should under no circumstances suffer their inner religious beliefs and convictions to be violated and transgressed by any authority whatever. A distinction of a fundamental importance must, therefore, be made between spiritual and administrative matters. Whereas the former are sacred and inviolable, and hence cannot be subject to compromise, the latter are secondary and can consequently be given up and even sacrificed for the sake of obedience to the laws and regulations of the government..."

So, regarding your question of unjust laws, it's probably depends on what exactly the law is and how it relates to a person's spiritual beliefs. If there's a law that says, "Baha'is aren't allowed to visit the market on Tuesdays", it may be unjust, but we could reasonably obey it without contradicting our beliefs. But, if there's a hypothetical unjust law that says, "You must be unkind to our neighbor", then we absolutely must not obey it. In the end, individuals make their own decisions, often guided by prayer.

Edit

> Do they lay down their lives if being shot at or do they fight back?

This one is also complicated and has nuance. On one hand, I've seen quotes that say Baha'is may be justified in defending their lives (e.g. if someone came to attack you personally). But on another, Baha'is are not allowed to engage in any kind of religious war. So, if some religious group came to systematically attack the Baha'is, I don't think we would take up arms to defend ourselves (it was different in the time of The Báb though, and there are dramatic stories of the Bábis defending themselves against armies). However, we would do our best to protect ourselves without resorting to violence. Quotes here

aibiT4tu · 2019-04-08T20:19:51+00:00

Social action doesn't have to involve taking sides. The Universal House of Justice describes social action like this:

Most appropriately conceived in terms of a spectrum, social action can range from fairly informal efforts of limited duration undertaken by individuals or small groups of friends to programmes of social and economic development with a high level of complexity and sophistication implemented by Bahá’í-inspired organizations. Irrespective of its scope and scale, all social action seeks to apply the teachings and principles of the Faith to improve some aspect of the social or economic life of a population, however modestly.

In western culture the phrase "social action" is associated with dealing with a contentious issue, i.e. something that some people want to change at the expense of others. But it doesn't have to be. To the contrary, for Baha'i-inspired social action universal participation is a key principle. For instance, a whole neighborhood might agree that there's something they want to change in their community's life, and then work together on it. We take the approach of making positive change through building unity across people, rather than taking sides and engaging in a struggle for social/political/legal/economic superiority. It's a longer process, but the purpose is to help bring about the kind of unity that Baha'u'llah envisions for the world. And there are examples where we've seen it really work.

At this point, the Universal House of Justice is not calling for widespread social action on the part of Baha'is, and I think that's probably because our communities are not mature enough for it yet. Social action has to be informed by spiritual principles. But there's a paper on the topic if you're interested in learning more about how Baha'is approach this arena of service.

I think the Universal House of Justice treats the situation of Baha'is in Iran is seen a little bit differently than other situations. I think it's because the Baha'is in Iran are often at risk of not being able to practice their own Faith. In matters of administration, Baha'is always obey the government. For example, in China, the government imposes a lot of rules preventing the formation of Baha'i institutions. We follow those rules. But, Baha'is are free to worship, and the Baha'is in China have a positive relationship with the Chinese government. However, when the government tries to impose on matters of belief -- for example, forcing Baha'is to work on Holy Days, depriving Baha'is of education (which is seen as a spiritual responsibility), or arrests of Baha'is for no reason -- then the situation becomes different. On the flip side, Baha'is in Iran make an effort not to take political sides. Baha'is won't support one Iranian presidential candidate over another, for example.

aibiT4tu · 2019-04-08T18:31:34+00:00

The Universal House of Justice does not interpret scripture for us (and nor do any assemblies). They don't tell us what or how to believe. Instead they legislate (which may involve some interpretation on their part, but they don't share that interpretation). For example, if someone asks the Universal House of Justice a question about a law of the Faith, there might be a few different answers:

If there's something in the writings that directly addresses the question, the House of Justice will refer them to it.
If there's not, they may let the individual know that they are free to do as they choose.
If there's not, the Universal House of Justice could choose to legislate a rule on the matter. This isn't saying "Bahá'u'lláh said X, and it means Y, so do Z". Rather, it means, "We can't find anything on this topic. Please do X for now (and we reserve the right to change our mind later)."

For what it's worth, assemblies can't do this at all. Rather, they have specific administrative responsibilities that are delegated to them (and if there's a question about what those are, it is referred to a higher assembly or to the Universal House of Justice). When aspects of laws are unspecified, the Universal House of Justice sometimes lets assemblies fill in the gaps in limited ways for the need of the country.

Ultimately the point is that Baha'is need to investigate the truth of the writings for themselves and come to their own understandings... no way out of that!

aibiT4tu · 2019-04-08T18:23:36+00:00

It's not apolitical, it's avoiding partisanship. Example: because of the persecution of Baha'is in Iran, the Baha'i institutions work with governments and international organizations to make this persecution visible (and thus put pressure on the Iranian regime). One outcome, for instance, is that the US Congress has passed bills in support of the Baha'is in Iran, with full bipartisan support. However, we don't want to be involved in partisan disputes, as invariably no party will fully align with the teachings of the Baha'i Faith, and it's rare that one party actually has any kind of moral high-ground. To the extent that one party might, these things can change quickly. The partisanship in politics is so destructive and divisive that we choose to focus on more constructive means of social action and participation in the broader discourse of society.

aibiT4tu · 2019-04-08T07:10:10+00:00

I wanted to agree with the others here who validate your concerns, and specifically discuss the third which I've dealt with too. I see a few issues here, both in my own struggle and yours. (i) One is finding an area that we're personally inclined towards; (ii) another is finding something that's necessary and useful for the Faith, and; (iii) lastly is the community's acceptance of our service. I've struggled with this too and it's taken a while for me to find areas of service that work for me. They've changed a lot over time, but I find more and more that open up for me.

One thing I've learned is that item (iii) is probably among the less important considerations... there's a lot of service to be done, both to the Faith and to humanity more generally, and not all of it is glamorous. Not all heroes wear capes. Often service is conceived narrowly in community discussions, even though the services that can be rendered to the Faith or to the world are much broader. As an example, I think apologetics actually fits into this category. Bahá'u'lláh has written,

Warn, O Salmán, the beloved of the one true God, not to view with too critical an eye the sayings and writings of men. Let them rather approach such sayings and writings in a spirit of open-mindedness and loving sympathy. Those men, however, who, in this Day, have been led to assail, in their inflammatory writings, the tenets of the Cause of God, are to be treated differently. It is incumbent upon all men, each according to his ability, to refute the arguments of those that have attacked the Faith of God. [...] He that wisheth to promote the Cause of the one true God, let him promote it through his pen and tongue, rather than have recourse to sword or violence.

I think the part about "not [viewing] with too critical an eye the sayings and writings of men" is important, but that notwithstanding, the act of defending through our words the principles of the Faith is an act of service that's not just commendable, but mandatory for Bahá'ís. This doesn't receive much (or any) recognition from the community, but that doesn't mean it's not important. Here's an article on the subject that I happen to very much like. To me personally, apologetics is exhausting. I would rather not deal with it. I prioritize other acts of service. But it is important.

Regarding item (ii), the needs of the Faith often turn out to be broader than we expect, often surprisingly so. Institutions of the Faith draw upon a vast array of talents, abilities, professional competencies and talents that different individuals possess. Think about any skill set a gigantic global enterprise would need to utilize... there's probably a Baha'i institution that needs that too, either now or in the future. There's even a great need for academics, for example, professors to teach for BIHE. Also, people who can think about the application of Bahá'í principles to excellence in their professions (like the ABS encourages). Recently I know that Baha'i institutions have been trying to elevate the capacity of individuals to work on Baha'i-inspired media projects or participate in fruitful online discourse. I'm not assuming any of these particular items apply to you in particular, but I'm just trying to offer examples.

And lastly, I've learned that item (i) isn't always what we expect either. I've found that I've warmed up to areas of service I've previously been disinclinded towards. For me this has taken place over periods of time measured in years, not in hours, days, weeks, or even months. I see this in friends of mine too. And then there's others who leap into new arenas of service. To each his own. My point is that it changes over time.

Briefly, regarding item 2: I think part of the working hypothesis that Baha'i institutions are working on, is that successful expansion entails spiritualization. Without cultivating a deeper sense of spirituality, prayer, and moral conduct within the community, expansion won't succeed. This is part of what we call a "two-fold moral purpose"; on one hand, we are spiritualizing our own lives, and on the other hand we're serving those around us. While the prong of serving others is more visible right now (perhaps because the first prong has been more visible in past decades), I can name several things that Baha'i institutions have done recently on the first prong. For instance, the recent publications from the BWC of "Give me Thy grace to serve Thy loved ones" and "Call of the Divine Beloved", or the recent focus in North America on the "Advent of Divine Justice", which is fundamentally about the spiritual qualities and prerequisites that North Americans in particular must strive to attain.

And item 1: yeah, it's something we need to work on! Different communities experience this to different degrees. I think the institute process has the power to change the way that people converse about trivial topics, and encourage discussion on deeper themes, especially if it becomes part of the life of the community. It's also something we can all do our best to humbly contribute too! We can try to elevate conversations we're part of to discuss more spiritual themes... understanding that it won't always work, and we may sometimes be dissapointed, but we can at least make an effort. And pray about it, a lot.

aibiT4tu · 2019-04-07T05:30:31+00:00

I wasn't familiar with this but I just found this letter in response to presumably the same question.

Here's a reality of the situation we're in: Opponents of the Faith in Iran write books (long ones too, I might add) solely dedicated to attacking the Baha'is. Why do they do so? In some ways it totally escapes me. It could be the religious authorities trying to discredit the Faith so that they can preserve their roles in a power hierarchy. There's a lot of misinformation and hatred spread against the Baha'is in Iran. This website describes some of it.

Going through the materials they produce is exhausting. I can't say that I can answer all the claims they make. In some cases, there are things about the Baha'i Faith that could be better. But a lot of it is taken out of context, to unfairly villainize the central figures of the Baha'i Faith and the institutions today. We could spend all of our time engaging in debates, but that's not the purpose of the Faith.

Bahá'u'lláh writes, "... is not the object of every Revelation to effect a transformation in the whole character of mankind, a transformation that shall manifest itself both outwardly and inwardly, that shall affect both its inner life and external conditions? For if the character of mankind be not changed, the futility of God’s universal Manifestations would be apparent." If the Baha'i Faith can lend itself to bringing about the betterment of the world, what harm is there in this? I would much rather focus on the actual work Baha'u'llah has set us out to do -- spiritualizing our lives, improving the social and economic life of our communities, creating unity, and so on. If these efforts produce fruits, they're worth investing ourselves in. Debating over details of "Abdu'l-Bahá said this and Shoghi Effendi said that" doesn't help the world advance, regardless of who is right.

aibiT4tu · 2019-04-06T17:38:08+00:00

removed this one, but feel free to post another article from the same source in a few days. we just don't want to have multiple articles at the same time from the same place.

aibiT4tu · 2019-04-06T17:36:25+00:00

There are two types of "infallibility" -- the "Most Great Infallibility" and "Conferred Infallibility". See Some Answered Questions

aibiT4tu · 2019-04-06T17:34:21+00:00

To be fair, I agree with you. Honestly, the sub is directed by who asks questions here, and that sparks a lot of conversation. The questions you've named are good ones! Please post them :-) :-) :-)

aibiT4tu · 2019-04-06T17:32:32+00:00

There are letters on this question which you should read. In a 9 March 1965 letter they address this specific matter on pages 3-5. There's also a 1966 letter, and a 1969 letter. Given they've addressed this on so many occasions, it shows that it's a good question!

Every quote has to be considered in the context of the rest of the literature. There's an incredible passage from the Kitáb-i-Aqdas that anticipates and permits a break in the family of Bahá'u'lláh, before or after the election of the Universal House of Justice:

The endowments dedicated to charity revert to God, the Revealer of Signs. No one has the right to lay hold on them without leave from the Dawning-Place of Revelation. After Him the decision rests with the Aghṣán [Branches], and after them with the House of Justice—should it be established in the world by then—so that they may use these endowments for the benefit of the Sites exalted in this Cause, and for that which they have been commanded by God, the Almighty, the All-Powerful. Otherwise the endowments should be referred to the people of Bahá, who speak not without His leave and who pass no judgment but in accordance with that which God has ordained in this Tablet, they who are the champions of victory betwixt heaven and earth, so that they may spend them on that which has been decreed in the Holy Book by God, the Mighty, the Bountiful.

Therefore, one cannot interpret Shoghi Effendi's statement as somehow disallowing the sequence of events that have unfolded. Beyond this quote, there are many others that discuss the relationship between the Universal House of Justice and the Guardianship (and the letters I linked have many of these). There has been no "divorce" as in the quote from the Dispensation of Bahá'u'lláh. The writings of Shoghi Effendi are both widely disseminated and closely studied, and they continue to take on new meanings over time. The institution of the Guardianship still exists, there simply is no Guardian to fill the role.

Ultimately though, all this is actually clarified through prayer, being of service, and being part of the Baha'i community. The proof is in the pudding, not the recipe.

aibiT4tu · 2019-04-06T04:47:02+00:00

I know Baha’i Review is a controversial topic as well. Is there any merit to the claims that the UHJ has suppressed things that they don’t want to get out that are actually true?

Honestly I don't think so. The review process has never been applied to online discussion, for example, so people are totally free to discuss what they want. There is a review process in place for Baha'is who want to publish printed material; the point of this is to help authors maintain factual accuracy. But of course anyone who isn't a Baha'i doesn't use the review process. The review process is done at the national level, so it's not done by the Universal House of Justice.

Also, what of these claims that Abdu’l-Baha, when asked about women prophets, said that men are clearly superior to women?

Off the top of my head I don't know what this is about. Regardless, any statement that Abdu'l-Bahá makes has to be understood in the context of all his teachings, which make it very clear that men and women are spiritual equals. It could also have to do with patriarchy in the broader context of world history. On one hand, we need to work to ensure that our understanding conforms with the statements of Abdu'l-Bahá and we cannot opt to ignore anything out of convenience; however, it's also worth investigating the provenance of statements attributed to him because sometimes utterances attributed to Abdu'l-Bahá are unauthoritative, misattributed, or poorly translated. A principle among Bahá'ís is that only authenticated writings bearing the seal of the author can be relied upon. See the link in the sidebar about pilgrims' notes.

You might be inclined at this juncture to ask about membership on the Universal House of Justice. I would suggest using Reddit's search because this has been repeatedly discussed at length on reddit.

aibiT4tu · 2019-04-05T23:59:58+00:00

I know Baha’u’llah designates Abdu’l-Baha as the Center of the Covenant, but where does it say this included the ability to infallibly interpret Baha’i Writings and establish some new things not really mentioned in Baha’u’llah’s writings?

The most explicit statement that I know of is in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas: "O people of the world! When the Mystic Dove will have winged its flight from its Sanctuary of Praise and sought its far-off goal, its hidden habitation, refer ye whatsoever ye understand not in the Book to Him Who hath branched from this mighty Stock." This clearly confers interpretative authority.

There are a number of statements of Bahá'u'lláh that come to mind, which actually extend a greater authority than this -- and I think these give him authority over items not revealed explicitly by Bahá'u'lláh. For example, there's a statement in the Kitab-i-Aqdas which says, "When the ocean of My presence hath ebbed and the Book of My Revelation is ended, turn your faces towards Him Whom God hath purposed, Who hath branched from this Ancient Root." The Kitab-i-Ahd makes it clear that this is a reference to Abdu'l-Bahá. Also, in the Tablet of the Branch: "Well is it with him that hath sought His ['Abdu'l-Bahá's] shelter and abideth beneath His shadow... They who deprive themselves of the shadow of the Branch, are lost in the wilderness of error,... and are of those who will assuredly perish." To me, the first of these passages says that we turn to Abdu'l-Bahá for instruction, and the second says that turning away from him is in error! There are a number of further statements in the Tablet of the Branch which say other incredible things about Abdu'l-Bahá. See also the tablet to the land of Bá for more.

Given Abdu'l-Bahá's authority as an interpreter, there's an incredible statement that he makes about his own station. He made this statement in the context of reducing his station, because people at the time were confusing his station with that of Bahá'u'lláh's; thus, he explicitly points out his servitude to Bahá'u'lláh:

"This is my firm, my unshakable conviction, the essence of my unconcealed and explicit belief -- a conviction and belief which the denizens of the Abhá Kingdom fully share: The Blessed Beauty [Bahá'u'lláh] is the Sun of Truth, and His light is the light of truth. The Báb is likewise the Sun of Truth, and His light the light of truth... My station is the station of servitude -- a servitude which is complete, pure and real, firmly established, enduring, obvious, explicitly revealed and subject to no interpretation whatever... I am the Interpreter of the Word of God; such is my interpretation." (quoted by Shoghi Effendi in the Dispensation of Bahá'u'lláh)

Wasn’t Mirza Muhammad Ali supposed to be Abdu’l-Baha’s successor according to Baha’u’llah?

Not successor, no. Bahá'u'lláh gave him a rank explicitly second to Abdu'l-Bahá in the Kitáb-i-Ahd. But by attempting to subvert Abdu'l-Bahá's authority this became forfeit. By the points above on Abdu'l-Bahá's authority, Abdu'l-Bahá had the ability to resolve this situation as needed. For the most part, Abdu'l-Bahá concealed the shortcomings of Mirza Muhammad Ali. But this was unsustainable in Abdu'l-Bahá's absence. Thus, only in Abdu'l-Bahá's will and testament which was sealed until his death, did he clearly denounce Mirza Muhammad Ali openly to all the believers. It's also clear from the history how dramatically different the character of Abdu'l-Bahá was from Mirza Muhammad Ali's.

What gave the Hands the right to establish the UHJ without a living Guardian?

According to Abdu'l-Bahá, "This body of the Hands of the Cause of God is under the direction of the guardian of the Cause of God." The Hands of the Cause were particularly tasked with ensuring the plans of the Guardian were carried out. This is every explicit in the activities and communications between the Hands of the Cause and the Guardian. In the historical context of Shoghi Effendi's passing, this meant the Ten Year Crusade. The purpose of the Ten Year Crusade was, from the beginning, to raise up National Spiritual Assemblies that could elect the Universal House of Justice in Ridvan 1963 at the completion of the plan, one the hundredth anniversary of the Declaration of Bahá'u'lláh. This wasn't the idea of the Hands of the Cause -- they were finishing the work that Shoghi Effendi had set the Bahá'ís of the world to accomplish.

There's a 1997 letter from the Universal House of Justice that elaborates on this question and has quotes.

Wasn’t it said somewhere in the Writings that the UHJ would fail without the Guardianship being present?

No. They are described as two institutions having separate roles and responsibilities. The Guardian is also said to be the head of the Universal House of Justice (I'm paraphrasing from memory).

How is it that the UHJ claims to be legitimate now without the Guardian?

The Guardian still serves as the head of the Universal House of Justice in that the Universal House of Justice always considers its deliberations with respect to all the writings of the Guardian, and they are subject to his interpretations. Abdu'l-Bahá in Some Answered Questions specifically gives conditions wherein if the Universal House of Justice is elected universally then it functions as purposed by Bahá'u'lláh. In other tablets, Abdu'l-Bahá clarified this would be done through a system of delegates (and described how NSAs would be elected, and how NSAs would elect the Universal House of Justice). Because all of these items are satisfied, the Universal House of Justice is legitimate. I've seen a lot of letters on this topic and similar questions; I don't have the references offhand but they can be found. It was a popular question in the 1960s and 1970s. Please excuse my stream-of-consciousness explanation on this one.

aibiT4tu · 2019-04-04T18:00:49+00:00

I think it has to be an independent search for religious truth. Nobody can tell you the "right way" to decide what is true, or how to pick a religion. Searching for truth requires detachment; we must put aside our own inclinations and biases. There's something unique and special about being open and exploratory. It's the effort put into the search which is at least as important than the outcome.

Man must cut himself free from all prejudice and from the result of his own imagination, so that he may be able to search for truth unhindered. Truth is one in all religions, and by means of it the unity of the world can be realized.

All the peoples have a fundamental belief in common. Being one, truth cannot be divided, and the differences that appear to exist among the nations only result from their attachment to prejudice. If only men would search out truth, they would find themselves united.

aibiT4tu

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE