Baha'is under the Provisions of the Covenant (BUPC)

Friday 10 March 2017

The Davidic Genealogy of Baha'u'llah

‘Abdu’l-Baha who was Baha'u'llah's son, who was a descendant of King David and sat on the throne of King David, had an only natural son who died in infancy. This would have brought King David's lineage through ‘Abdu’l-Baha to an end, so ‘Abdu’l-Baha adopted Mason Remey to be his son, replacing his natural son. This was necessary as David's lineage seated on the throne was to last forever (Psalms 89:  ), ‘Abdu’l-Baha's Aghsan (Branches) were to be the guardians of the Baha'i faith, seated on the throne of David as presidents of the UHJ. This adoption was a legal adoption according to the laws of two empires that had ruled Palestine (The Ottoman and the British) before it became the state of Israel. This was also according to the laws of the state of Israel.

When 'Abdu'l-Baha adopted Mason Remey to succeed him to the throne of David as his son, this was legal and binding. According to the laws of the Ottoman Empire of the Middle East that ruled over Palestine before it became the State of Israel, the adoption law was that when a man called another person his son, this was a legal adoption. Then the British mandate that succeeded the Ottoman Empire retained the adoption laws of the Ottoman Empire as legal and binding under their rule. Then for the Israeli government the law for adoption has remained the same. If a man calls another his son and leaves him a token to show inheritance (whether it be a stick or a stone or something), then the adoption is legal and binding. When 'Abdu'l-Baha proclaimed that Mason was his son (privately, publicly and in letters published in Star of the West Magazine), these were not "vague terms of affection but expressed the precise legal relationship which had been created between them." Here is cited the law of adoption in the Middle East (from Ottoman times to the present) upheld in the Israeli Supreme Court on June 22, 1960, long after 'Abdu'l-Baha adopted Mason to be his son.

“This idea of equating adopted children with natural children in matters of succession is well expressed in a responsum of Rabbi Jacob Emden which the learned Judge cited in another decision, In re Succession of the late Yoseph Blum deceased (4) (at pp. 161), as follows: “If he rears the child for the glory of God the child is certainly to be regarded as his child and not only in lineage, but even where the child had parents and is being brought up by the stranger as a meritorious act, if the latter has no children ['Abdu'l-Baha had no living natural sons] and is bringing up the child to be his son to succeed him and they address each other as father and son" (response of Yavetz, Part 1, section 168). So also with the deceased in the present case: He reared the child as his daughter to succeed him, and she called him “father” and he called her “daughter.” These were not vague terms of affection but expressed the precise legal relationship which had been created between them--at any rate with respect to the matter of succession.”” (Selected Judgments from the Israeli Supreme Court Vol. III, pp. 426-427).

Shoghi Effendi recognized ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s adoption of Mason as true and legal. Immediately after the death of ‘Abdu’l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi sent Mason Remey a “package of ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s most sacred possession,” which was left to Shoghi to give to Mason Remey as his inheritance: “locks of Baha’u’llah’s hair” (which represents the headship of the IBC/UHJ) and “drops of his coagulated blood” (which represents the bloodline of David and Baha’u’llah). On the outside of the package Shoghi Effendi addressed it to ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s  “dear son” whom he later appointed to the headship of the IBC/UHJ. The hair and blood are the tokens of inheritance. “‘Abdu’l-Baha’s most prized possession” shows the evidence of the “legal adoption passed on from father to son”--’Abdu’l-Baha to Mason. This type of direct evidence of a token is called “institutive evidence:”

“Institutive evidence is that which is created or adopted as a memorial of a fact and for the purpose of being evidence of the fact. The stone set up for a boundary; the giving and receiving of a clod of earth or a twig in livery of seizing as evidence or the transfer of the title [etc]....”(Sagebeer, The Bible in Court, p. 104).

“The master gave Mr. Remey what no one else ever received--relics of the Blood and Hair of Baha’u’llah; in the East this act symbolizes Mr. Remey’s adoption as a Son by ‘Abdu’l-Baha and his becoming a member of the Holy Family.” (Questions and Answers about Charles Mason Remey and the Baha’i Faith by F.C. Spataro).

Thus Shoghi Effendi brought Mason Remey to Haifa and instituted him into the Holy Family. He sat him at the dinner table of the Holy Family, next to himself, the seat of Honor, at his right. He entered the shrines directly behind Shoghi and then the other people followed. At functions of State, such as the funeral of Ben Gurian, with Shoghi leading the procession, Mason walked directly behind him. Then when Shoghi set up the IBC/UHJ he appointed Mason, ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s son, to be its the head--president--for only ‘Abdu’l-Baha son, a male descendant of King David, could sit upon the throne of David, that Baha’u’llah moved from Nur to Mt. Carmel. Baha’u’llah’s father sat upon the throne of David and Baha’u’llah “the Great Prince” inherited that throne:  “At that time shall arise Michael (one like God), the great prince [Davidic] who has charge of your people” (Dan. 12)--that inherited that throne.


Post a Comment


The Return of Christ

As the Bab gave his life so that Baha'u'llah should live, Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha gave their lives that the Davidic lineage should last for ever as the Presidents of the true Universal House of Justice of Baha'u'llah. The line of David has continued safe in America from the days of the Master's visit to that continent in 1912 when he rested for a day in the Rocky Mountains and where God has established his seed for ever.