Thus the publication in England by the Royal Asiatic Society was an unwelcome development for Baha'i Officials, who were centered in Haifa, Israel and Wilmette, Illinois and developing a carefully crafted image for their religion. It was an image designed to appeal to western intellectuals and social progressives, and an image very different from the impression one received when opening the "Most Holy Book."

An informal English translation by Anton Haddad had circulated among the few early western Baha'is as early as 1900. Why wouldn't it? It is utterly understandable that religious devotees would want to have access to their central scripture! Still it was allowed to fade by Baha'i promoters, and only circulated in the form of a few typewritten copies in the earliest years, and among the few. Though the 1900 translation was written by a Baha'i partisan and translated to put the best face on the spectacular Islamic unction of their mysterious avatar Baha'u'llah --it was still "too much, too soon." 

To get some idea of the vigor with which Baha'i managers have suppressed their own "most holy" text, there is evidence that a repectable translation existed even prior to that of Anton Haddad. In "The Baha'i Faith and It's Claims," Samuel Graham Wilson provides excellent renderings of the Aqdas that are not those of Haddad, but appear to be translations by the English orientalist scholar Edward G. Browne. If true, that no one in modern times ever knew about this scholarly translation is hard to believe. Yet I can find no trace of  its existence except as cites in the Wilson book. Obliterating any trace of an E.G. Browne Aqdas translation from western awareness could have only occurred through strenuous efforts by Baha'i managers and possibly in collusion with Browne himself.

Thus the 1961 Elder-Miller translation was no doubt a crisis to Baha'i image managers. But by ignoring it, and through the constant membership churning characteristic of the Baha'i Faith, and through assiduous book-weeding by Baha'i stalwarts early on -- it soon attained non-existence within the insular culture that is Baha'i life.

I know, I was one of the Baha'is who was continually told this by Baha'i authorities whenever I asked, eagerly and innocently: "When will the Kitab-i-Aqdas be translated?" Then by happenstance, just after another Baha'i "Auxiliary Board Member" answered me "It's not been translated yet," I happened upon the Elder-Miller version hidden away in a very old, messy, and poorly-managed Baha'i lending library. Somebody had not had the heart to destroy it.

Baha'is believe their Most Holy Book was God's guidance to mankind for the next thousand years. This "revelation" by the Baha'i founder Baha'u'llah is believed to have been completed by 1873, thus 139 years have already passed and Baha'is are still not wearing sable or marking thieves on the forehead. 

(In this article terms like "Wilmette version" or "Haifa-Wilmette" will be synonymous with "official" and "authorized." These refer to the dominant sect of Baha'is based in Haifa and Wilmette whose Aqdas suppression and translation is being critiqued.)

Elder and Miller were two English orientalists and Arabic scholars, Elder an author of an Arabic grammar who had spent 50 years in the near east. Miller was living in Persia and exposed to Baha'is, was keenly interested in the them, and interviewed early Baha'is and Babis. I am fortunate to possess an original first edition hardcover copy of the rare 1961 book (shown here). It's old enough to be printed in hot lead type. Why is it rare? Because Baha'is sought to suppress it. Book suppression is common with Baha'is. They even extirpated the writings of their own ostensible prophet-founder, The Bab, so well that no copy of his central scripture, the Bayan, is known to exist. Baha'is even have the habit of confiscating books they deem to be adverse to their growth. I recall going through the estate of a famous early Baha'i Ruth Moffett and finding many "no no" books about the Baha'i Faith that she had removed from libraries over the years. Baha'i book purging is one reason that hardcover copies of Elder & Miller's Aqdas are so rare today.

As with the 1901 Haddad translation, after Elder-Miller's translation was published in 1961 western Baha'is were kept in the dark about its existence. I was an active Baha'i for nearly 15 years and never heard of it. This was deliberate. The Baha'i leadership did not want rank-and-file members to read the Kitab-i-Aqdas and especially not the general public. They considered it a problematic, for good reasons. It wasn't that there were serious faults in the translation, but because the content of the Aqdas itself was something they did not want westerners to see. They were buying time, waiting for the religion to grow enough before it had to receive that blow.

When an official version was finally offered by the Baha'is in 1992, the starkness and directness of the both the earlier translations were softened and obscured. Certain highly controversial verses were effectively controverted or rendered void by verbal sleight-of-hand. A great deal of skillful psychological word tricks comparable to Neuro-Linguistic Programming are brought to bear on the "marriage" verses until two simple sentences that apparently assume polygamy as normative end up feeling as if polygamy is being prohibited. (See extended analysis below.) 

The Elder-Miller translation is an important resource in the continuing saga of Baha'i efforts to both obscure and alter their own original foundations and texts.

 It's a New Day -- The men in Baha'u'llah's New Dawn, when they decide to wander the world, have to tell their wives when they're coming back. 

That is, he has to tell the one that  he's leaving. 

Talk about enlightened. One  fascinating fact about this line from Elder-Miller, regularly missed, is the fact that it says "this spouse."  He was to inform that spouse -- the spouse he' leaving. In the scenario above a fellow is leaving one wife, perhaps to visit another wife in another place. What a life guys had back then! When Baha'is refer to the Elder-Miller version, which they now occasionally must do, they refuse to acknowledge "this spouse" in Elder-Miller's trans. and misquote it "his spouse." The graphic is a scan of the original hardcover publication. Some assume it is a typo in the original hot-lead publication from uber persnickety England.  But I have never seen this line 'corrected ' as errata by the authors or assigns. People carrying forward the verse online by typing HTML stupidly "correct" it because they think it's a typo. It is not a typo. Polygamy was normative to Baha'u'llah and he had at least two wives himself. His "spouse" (singular) would have been confusing to himself and everybody else around him. ('His "spouse," master? Wait. We usually have more than one wife, and so do you!') Based on what he wrote in his Book of Laws, he assumed polygamy would continue in future. The laws and ordinances of the Baha'i New Age were written by polygamists, and all of them married into their own race. The subject of the Baha'i administrations desperate efforts to cover up the male-centric, patriarchal, and polygamy-approving reality of their founders is explored further below.

England's Royal Asiatic Society and Oriental Translation Fund evidently felt that a translation of a "missing Aqdas" was well in order. Elder and Miller's agenda was to make available an important religious work that was, unaccountably, still unavailable in the west. Dr. Elder remarks on this oddity in his preface:

"Anyone who studies Baha'ism learns very soon of the volume sacred to those who profess this religion and known as "The Most Holy Book." Of this book Baha in his Will said, "...reflect upon that which is revealed in my book the Aqdas." And his son and successor 'Abdu'l Baha said in his Will, "unto the Aqdas everyone must turn."  Yet, strange to say, although the teachings of the Baha'is have been widely proclaimed in Great Britain and America, only fragments of al-Kitab al Aqdas have been translated previously into English."

Elder-Miller Kitab-i-Aqdas

Elder and Miller were surprised that the ready market of Baha'is was not interested in their book and Baha'i publishing bodies would not carry it, even though they lacked their own version of their "Most Holy Book." The book I have is very well-made and scholarly, with all the plethora of necessary transliteration punctuation marks and detailed footnotes set in 6 pt-on-9 type and I haven't found one typo in it. 

Baha'is try to discredit the Elder-Miller translation on the basis that William Miller, who spent years in Persia and interviewed Babis and early Baha'is, was a Christian missionary. Over at Wikipedia, in order to discredit their translation, they attribute the entire book to 'William Miller the Christian missionary," suspecting him of bias and the desire to hurt the reputation of the Baha'i religion. 

However, the translator of the text was Dr. Earl Elder of England, not Miller. It was Elder who did the heavy lifting. He was an Arabic scholar. He wrote an Arabic grammar, spent 50 years in the near-East, and had his Arabic translations published by Columbia University Press. William Miller essentially procured the translator Elder for the worthy project. Miller was so peripheral to the book -- mainly writing the introduction -- that he is not even on the copyright. Earl Elder is the sole copyright owner, telling us that it's really Elder's work. (Do a right click to view the umber-colored background graphic on the masthead and you'll see Elder is the sole copyright claimant.) Thus the Baha'is claim that the book somehow lacks scholastic credibility because a Christian was involved with it -- is a red herring. Truly, I'd like to see who produced their "Authorized" Aqdas. I strongly suspect that they were, in fact, more partisan wordsmiths than they were qualified Arabic translators. But then Baha'is never let you see the nameless people who produce their propaganda. The committees behind the Oz curtain in Wilmette.

In any case, Baha'is don't have much point in complaining that the Elder-Miller version exists when they refused to publish one of their own for 120 years after their "Most Holy Book" came out. Baha'is suspect that William Miller was suspicious of them; that he suspected the Baha'is were hiding their Most Holy Book as they proselytized among Americans and the English. If this is what William Miller suspected, it is certain that he was correct. Once seeing the content it's all-too obvious that Baha'is suppressed their own scripture to give their religion a chance to grow before it had to come out in some magically more palatable translation. Miller also had to see that the "Baha'i Faith" being developed and presented by Baha'i teachers, which over-hyped a few  "universalist" statements by "Baha" while ignoring most other facts of the religion, was deceptive.

So you thought the Baha'i Founders taught the equality of men and women?

Baha'is attack the Elder-Miller version as "literalist." As if a translation shouldn't be accurate!  What that means is the Elder-Miller version does not contain all the changes and distortions Baha'i leadership wanted to make to the text. I guess it means Elder-Miller were too "literalist" when reporting that Baha'u'llah directed Baha'is to be buried it coffins made of "beautiful hard woods," "crystal," or "rare stones." The Baha'i admin. thought they knew better, and must have gone through legions of translators before finding the right hired gun. In the religion-cum-utilitarianism so dire in Baha'is, they decided he really meant that Baha'i coffins should simply be "hard, resistant, and durable" -- and they jettisoned what Baha'u'llah actually said. He wasn't omniscient enough, apparently, to know hardwoods would become rare early in his thousand-year Dispensation. And not smart enough (like Baha'i admins and translators-turned-avatar) to simply say: "Get buried in coffins made of durable stuff."  

As if that's not the way people already made coffins before Baha came along.

When Baha'is complain that the Elder-Miller version is too 'literal,' their real complaint is that it lets you see what Baha'u'llah's text actually said. But even when reading Haifa-Wilmette's preprocessed-with-additives-and-emollients version, one sees that the original Baha'i religion was something quite different from the program that later came to be sold as "The Baha'i Faith." 

So the Kitab-i-Aqdas was long considered a problematic book by the Baha'i promoters in the west. Its primitive outlook was noticed in 40 seconds of opening it. Its contents by now bore no resemblance to the religion that American promoters had invented and were selling to socialist-leaning intellectuals. They continued to buy time, hoping to create their own translations that would soften or obscure the content, while letting the Baha'i Faith develop and grow free of the damaging effect they knew the text would have. So they avoided publishing even an "authorized" text of their own for a full 120 years after their founder promulgated it. All other Baha'i works of significance were long available and this was ostensibly their central scripture. It's importance is obvious in its very title: "Book of Laws -- Most Holy Book." Yet both the Haddad and Elder-Miller translations were obviously unwelcome to the Baha'i Administration, who refrained from even making their congregation aware of it.

Thus the first approach the Baha'is took to suppressing the Kitab-i-Aqdas was, indeed, to ignore all translations available.  Even after this Elder-Miller translation was out in 1961, they continued to tell their membership "It has not been translated yet." The versions published by others, lacking the proper filters or spin-doctoring, were both ignored. More than this, the Baha'i leadership warned the Baha'is off them, classifying them as negative; to be avoided. This touches on the whole "forbidden books" and "forbidden people" thing that is a reality in the Baha'i Faith.

It's a feature of the Baha'i culture, if you can call it that, that believers are very susceptible to fear in connection with banned and forbidden books. There is a very strong group-think among Baha'is. Baha'i founders such as 'Adbu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi actually promulgated shunning doctrines early on, explicitly directing Baha'is to have no interaction with various blackballed individuals or read their writings. They created the term "Covenant Breaker" for these. 'Adbu'l-Baha even practiced shunning on his own family, most of whom he excommunicated from the movement as Covenant Breakers. This strong word, now an administrative designation along with "Enemy of the Faith" (an outside critic never enrolled) reinforces the shunning idea to Baha'is. It is a word that sends chills down Baha'i backs.

Baha'is pick up immediately, and with great sensitivity, any scent that a person or book is taboo. A designated "Covenant Breaker" in particular, usually associated with a banned book, is actively shunned by Baha'is. Even an individual who gave years of service to the Baha'i Faith, was sincere and mightily devoted to it, obtains a pariah status that is almost non-human when declared a Covenant Breaker. I recall Baha'is saying to me that Covenant Breakers and their books carry a "spiritual disease." Baha'is take that idea seriously. Working on the Ruth Moffett estate (an old, prominent Baha'i) I and a few other highly sincere Baha'is found a pile of a dozen naughty books mouldering in the darkest basement corner. Although they were curious looking, rare, and spanned decades -- not one of us so much as cracked a page. An older leader only looked at some inside covers, enough to see they'd been taken from public libraries! The small group of Baha'is working on this Baha'i personage's estate behaved as if they literally feared the little pile. They kept a distance from it, making their disinterestedness a demonstration of Baha'i piety. We dutifully shipped off Ruth Moffett's confiscated books (from places all over America as she was a traveling Baha'i teacher) to the Baha'i World Headquarters in Haifa, Israel. I remember we gravely marked the box "Covenant Breaker Books," as in "hazardous materials."  

This also reflects the particular psychological profile of Baha'is: They want to believe in the religion as formulated by their administration, with full faith. This is will-to-faith is a valid element of religion and brings good spiritual results. I am not criticizing it as such. This kind of will-to-faith brings inner fruit from religion. But it is perhaps stronger in the Baha'i movement than even the traditional Christian churches today, in part because agreement on particular dogmas are considered more critical to Baha'is in their nascent state whereas Christians are accustomed to 20 centuries of dogma controversies and are well afloat. I am not using the term "dogma" negatively here, either. (Firmly held beliefs are useful.) But simply explaining how it is that the general Baha'i culture, and especially newer Baha'is, can end up completely unaware of even important translations of their own central scripture.

Because of the strong consensus culture of the Baha'i Faith and the equally strong demonization of any free-thinkers or question-askers, the religion has been able to let unwelcome books slip down the memory hole among the believers. There is a third reason as well, and that is the fact that Baha'i membership is a churning affair.

Baha'i Membership Churning -- the Inflation of Baha'i Membership Numbers

Only a few Baha'is remain active and loyal for life. Largely the Baha'i Faith is a way station for men and women going through a process of religious search and experimentation. Membership numbers reported by the Baha'i administration are, in fact, grossly distorted since most names are people long disaffected from the religion but still carried on their rolls. For Baha'is always seek to point to two things in order to sell their faith: 1) Look at our majestic buildings! and 2) Look at how big our membership is!

However, the Baha'i administration steadily acquires an absurdly inflated membership figure by requiring a formal, rather painful and unnecessary recanting exercise involving a signed repudiation of Baha'u'llah for those who wish to have their names removed. Most are not interested or don't want to be bothered. The constant loss of old members, the arrival of wide-eyed new ones seeking to Be Good, the incessant voice of the Baha'i administration, and overall Baha'i culture-of-conformity -- makes it possible for particular materials to be wholly absent from the bubble of Baha'i life. Already well-shunned in the past by the few old stalwarts in the know, a "bad book" permanently falls off the radar for the newer Baha'is, eager to embrace the piety that avoids all  forbidden materials. As a Baha'i one does not seek to find or read banned books. If he or she rarely stumbles onto one, they pick it up carefully like a loathsome object and dispose of it to the proper authorities. I was an active member of the Baha'i Faith for 13 years. I was astounded to find later, after years where I actually inquired and was told "It's not been translated" -- that there were two English translations of the Aqdas going back as far as 1900! Though deeply involved in Baha'i life I never heard a whisper about either the Haddad or the Elder-Miller publication and all my Baha'i friends believed there were no English translations. The truth is, I wanted to read it. And the truth is: I would not have joined the Baha'i Faith, or worked for it for 13 years, if I had been able to simply read the Kitab-i-Aqdas.

This touches on an item Baha'is list on their "Ten Principles" sales card: "Independent investigation of truth." I can confidently assert that their claim to value this is pure mendacity. Oh, there are so many things Baha'is are avid to cover up and never let you see or know! The Baha'is dominate the Wikipedia page with Soviet level information control, working 24-hours to allow only the Official Baha'i line and deleting facts that don't fit their pretty sales package. This includes history and the contents of their "Holy Book" itself -- even their own translation! How was I able, in my 20's, to do any "independent investigation of truth" when the Baha'is were suppressing their central text and deliberately keeping me (and others) in the dark about it? They are particularly annoyed to see the Elder-Miller translation of their Aqdas cited by anybody. But how can we "independently investigate truth" if we are not allowed to read alternate translations and hear alternate views on Baha'i history and texts?

Amazingly, the internet has seriously downgraded the ability of organizations to suppress information they wish to suppress. It was only through the internet that I was able to learn about the Anton Haddad translation though it was in existence since 1900. Likewise it was by the internet that I was able to finally see a photograph of the Baha'i founder. (Baha'is have have fought a losing battle trying to keep the Mansonesque photo of their guru off of Wikipedia.)

Haifa-Wilmette's second approach to Aqdas-suppression, when obligated to translate the text, was to distort and obfuscate its content with the translation. Examples given here. Thus the priceless value of the Elder-Miller version.

It is my opinion, based on available evidence, that the Elder-Miller translation is a more accurate and direct translation than the one offered by the Baha'i administration 120 years late in 1992. This is natural to expect since the main purpose of western Baha'is, since first encountering the book, has been to hide it because of its problematic contents. When finally obligated to come out with their own translation, their main purpose was, understandably, to translate it in such a way as to soften, obscure, or alter its contents. By looking at the Elder-Miller and Haddad versions, it becomes evident that their offering, "The Kitab-i-Aqdas: The Most Holy Book," contains obfuscations, dressings, and distortions designed to protect the fortunes of the Baha'i Faith. 

Julian Curtis Lee Mickunas

March 2012, The Saint Francis

http://kitab-i-aqdas.info/