Abstract
Hermann Zimmer, a Bahá’í teacher, writer, researcher, and theologian, was born in 1904 in Stuttgart, Germany. As one of the early pioneers of the Bahá’í Faith in Germany, he joined the army in 1940 and remained a career military officer until 1948, when he applied for early retirement. The Zimmer family was actively involved in the Bahá’í community. Following the death of his father in World War I, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá expressed his condolences to the family in a Tablet dated July 3, 1917. Hermann Zimmer’s mother, Mrs. Nee Pfud, was a well-known Bahá’í and related by marriage to Wilhelm Herrigel, a prominent German Bahá’í who later voiced criticisms of the Bahá’í administration and, after escalating disputes, ultimately left the Bahá’í Faith. After the passing of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and the publication of portions of his Will and Testament designating Shoghi Effendi as his successor, Hermann Zimmer rejected Shoghi Effendi’s leadership in the Bahá’í Faith, declaring the Will to be inauthentic. He leveled sharp criticisms against the Bahá’í administrative system and against Shoghi Effendi personally. Zimmer argued that with the beginning of Shoghi Effendi’s leadership in the Bahá’í Faith and the consolidation of the Bahá’í administrative order, the Bahá’í Faith had deviated from its original path and transformed from a spiritual and religious movement into a political organization.
In 1964, as a result of his continued objections to the leadership in the Bahá’í Faith, Zimmer was labeled a Covenant-breaker by the Bahá’í authorities. After twenty-four years of activity within the German Bahá’í community, he was forced to withdraw from the community.
The Response of the Bahá’í and Administration to Zimmer
Shoghi Effendi and leadership of the Bahá’í Faith accused Hermann Zimmer and his associate Wilhelm Herrigel of having fallen under the influence of Mrs. Ruth White [1] and of being “misled” by her. Zimmer rejected this claim, maintaining that his belief in the inauthenticity of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s Tablets and Will was the result of an independent and conscious investigation of the evidence and available documents, rather than external influence.
Wilhelm Herrigel, a close friend and relative of Hermann Zimmer, had founded a group in 1930 known as the “World Union of Religions and World Peace,” of which Zimmer was also a member. Following Herrigel’s death in 1932 and the end of the war, Hermann Zimmer continued his activities under the name “World Bahá’í Union and Free Bahá’ís,” headquartered in Waiblingen [2], near Stuttgart.
After the Bahá’í Faith was banned during the Third Reich in 1937, this group was dissolved, but it resumed its activities after the war. Zimmer’s group consisted of a number of Bahá’í intellectuals who opposed Shoghi Effendi, the institution of the Guardianship, and the administrative structures and order of the Bahá’í Faith. Hermann Zimmer openly opposed what he described as the “iron administrative system” and the “Bahá’í dictatorship,” and he wrote extensively in criticism of these structures.
The Reasons for Hermann Zimmer’s Departure from the Bahá’í Community
One of the labels used by the Bahá’í administration to expel its critics and dissenters is that of “Covenant-breaker.” A person designated as a Covenant-breaker is no longer regarded as a believer in the Bahá’í Faith and is not permitted to identify as a Bahá’í; in effect, such an individual is ostracized and expelled from the Bahá’í community. Excommunication in the Bahá’í Faith is presented as a far harsher and more severe punishment than excommunication from the Catholic Church.
In the Catholic Church, an excommunicated individual is barred from active participation in church affairs, yet passive presence is still permitted. In contrast, within the Bahá’í system, a Covenant-breaker is not only excluded from membership in the Bahá’í community but is also deprived of all familial and social rights. Even the individual’s ties with immediate family members are severed, and close relatives are forbidden from greeting, speaking to, or maintaining any form of contact with them. All official positions are revoked, and participation in communal gatherings is prohibited. Only through an explicit declaration of repentance, a formal confession, and the acceptance of that repentance by the Universal House of Justice can such a person regain basic religious and civil rights. The resemblance of these practices to the punitive methods of medieval inquisitorial courts is difficult to deny.
The Bahá’í administration formally designated Hermann Zimmer as a Covenant-breaker. Zimmer himself wrote the following regarding this matter:
“… In 1964, I was explicitly identified as a ‘Covenant-breaker and violator of the Covenant’ in the internal publication Bahá’í Nachrichten, no. 12, dated October 16 [3], because I had independently spoken, in small and large cities across southern and northern Germany, about the ‘return of Christ’ in the person of Bahá’u’lláh.
At that time, I considered myself a qualified and exemplary Bahá’í, until this label was imposed on me. They could not expel or administratively excommunicate me, because I had not yet become an official member of the German Bahá’í community. I was a member of the World Bahá’í Union and associated with Wilhelm Herrigel; nevertheless, I found myself, in their view, in the most favorable position—namely, in association with Ahmad Sohrab [4] and Mrs. Ruth White.”
Ahmad Sohrab, even before me, had been condemned to death as a “rebellious enemy of the administration.” Nearly twenty years earlier, Mrs. White had likewise been denounced as a “selfish and narcissistic individual,” despite the fact that both of them had devoted considerable effort to introducing Bahá’u’lláh and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá to the wider public.
Afterward, I carefully studied Broken Silence by Ahmad Sohrab [5], The Forged Will of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá by Mrs. Ruth White [6], the books published by Shoghi Effendi, and all subsequent Bahá’í writings. As I was already advancing in age, with little free time due to my teaching responsibilities, and since pursuing these complex materials was by no means easy, I took the opportunity to retire at the earliest possible time.
During this period, I came across a German scholarly book entitled No One Had the Last Laugh over Columbus [7], published in 1966 by J. Prause. This work presented extensive research on historical forgeries, falsifications, and myths. One section of the book was devoted to the so-called “Donation of Constantine,” which further motivated me to study that historical forgery in greater depth.
Overall, I arrived at a not entirely surprising conclusion regarding the similarity between these two acts of falsification. Through a comprehensive reading of the text known as the “Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá,” as well as God Passes By Shoghi Effendi, I identified numerous passages containing similar expressions and formulations. When I systematically categorized and listed them, an intriguing compilation of nearly identical linguistic phrases emerged.
The booklet I published in 1950, entitled The Return of Christ: What the Prophecies Say, demonstrates that I am not an enemy of the Bahá’í Faith. In that work, I made considerable efforts to show that historical connections existed between Christianity and the Bahá’í Faith in the nineteenth century. After eight years of military service, I returned home in 1948 and concluded my book with the death of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in 1921. The time gap was short, and another point—still significant and decisive today—was that at that time the necessary sources, books, and materials were not available to me.
To those who still insist that I am an enemy of the Bahá’í Faith, I would like to ask: what efforts have you made to advance the Bahá’í cause? I am not addressing here the salaried employees of the Bahá’í administration, the Hands of the Cause, secretaries, or editors and publishers of Bahá’í periodicals. They merely sing the tune whispered by their masters. Mrs. Ruth White published her book at her own expense. Mr. Ahmad Sohrab personally paid the costs of publishing his critical work Broken Silence on the Bahá’í Faith, following that distressing court case against himself and his employer, Mrs. Julie Chanler, who had devoted her entire life to promoting the Bahá’í Faith in America. I am not certain that this scholarly effort can rescue the Bahá’í Faith from the dead end into which it has fallen. Large organizations operate according to their own rules and regulations.
(A Forged Will Degrades the Bahá’í Faith to Political Shoghism, final chapter, concluding remarks.)
Zimmer’s subsequent studies, his observations of the conduct of the Bahá’í administration, and, above all, the authoritarian actions of Shoghi Effendi in his role as leader of the Bahá’í Faith, ultimately transformed Zimmer into a serious and outspoken critic. Although the Bahá’í administration attempted to silence him by expelling and isolating him, Zimmer’s writings and statements, together with the dissemination of Ruth White’s views, played a significant role in raising awareness—particularly within Bahá’í communities in Europe and the United States.
Hermann Zimmer’s Critical Perspectives on Leadership in the Bahá’í Faith
Hermann Zimmer is among those Bahá’í intellectuals whose focus is directed primarily toward the structure of the Leadership in the Baha’i Faith. His criticisms are not generally aimed at Bahá’í teachings or practices as such; rather, they are fundamentally concerned with the leadership in the Bahá’í Faith and, in particular, with Shoghi Effendi himself. At a foundational level, Zimmer seriously questions the legitimacy, conduct, directives, and institutional system designed and implemented by Shoghi Effendi.
Below are some of Zimmer’s key views:
1.Hermann Zimmer’s View on the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá
One of the core beliefs of the Bahá’í Faith is acceptance of, and adherence to, the provisions of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s Will and Testament (commonly referred to as the Tablets of the Will).
Bahá’ís believe that ‘Abbás Effendi (known as ‘Abdu’l-Bahá), the eldest son and successor of Bahá’u’lláh (the prophet of the Bahá’í Faith), having no surviving sons of his own, designated his maternal grandson, Shoghi Effendi, as his successor prior to his death through a will known as the Will and Testament. In this document, unconditional obedience to Shoghi Effendi is explicitly enjoined. Within the Bahá’í Faith, Shoghi Effendi is presented as the Guardian of the Faith, the permanent head of the Universal House of Justice, and the authoritative interpreter and expounder of Bahá’í laws and teachings. Obedience to him is considered obligatory for all believers. He is regarded as infallible, and all future leaders of the Bahá’í Faith are required to be chosen from among his direct male descendants.
In ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s Will, those who support Shoghi Effendi are described as friends of God, while his opponents are portrayed as enemies of God.
Belief in Shoghi Effendi and obedience to him are therefore treated as fundamental principles of the Bahá’í Faith. Consequently, even if a Bahá’í fully believes in Bahá’u’lláh as the divine manifestation of the Bahá’í Faith, accepts ‘Abdu’l-Bahá as his appointed successor, and adheres to Bahá’í laws and scriptures, rejection of Shoghi Effendi as the leader and Guardian of the Faith—or open criticism of his conduct and the institutions operating under his authority—places that individual outside the bounds of faith. Such a person is no longer permitted to identify as a Bahá’í or maintain relations with other members of the Bahá’í community.
Although Bahá’u’lláh’s sacred book—the Kitáb-i-Aqdas—is regarded as the most important doctrinal text within the Bahá’í Faith and would naturally be expected to serve as the primary standard for evaluating Bahá’í teachings, Bahá’ís consider ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s Will and Testament to be a necessary supplement to the Kitáb-i-Aqdas. Acceptance and implementation of the laws of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas alone are thus not deemed sufficient to qualify one as a Bahá’í.
In Islam, a person is recognized as a Muslim simply by professing belief in the fundamental principles of the faith—namely, monotheism, prophethood, and the Day of Resurrection—and is thereby entitled to all Islamic rights. In contrast, within the Bahá’í Faith, belief in the successors of Bahá’u’lláh, adherence to the Bahá’í administrative system, and unconditional acceptance of the directives and views of its leaders are also treated as foundational principles. The expulsion of Bahá’í intellectuals has therefore typically occurred not because of doctrinal disagreement as such, but due to their refusal to obey the successors and leadership institutions, their criticism of those authorities, or their rejection of the claim that these figures possess a broad and unquestionable infallibility, raising important question about leadership in the Bahá’í Faith.
Hermann Zimmer declared the will attributed to ‘Abdu’l-Bahá to be a forgery and regarded it as a construction devised by Shoghi Effendi himself. He writes:
“…The so-called Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá is a forged document. Shoghi Effendi altered it in order to secure his own personal interests and to create for himself the position of the Guardianship. Shoghi Effendi transformed the originally non-political Bahá’í Faith into a political religion. He designed for the Bahá’í Faith an administrative system that is entirely devoid of spirituality and inner meaning. He himself became a power-hungry, authoritarian dictator who expelled all members of the families of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and Bahá’u’lláh from the Bahá’í community—even his own parents (!). …The entire text of the alleged will attributed to ‘Abdu’l-Bahá was not written in a single handwriting. None of its sections displays the graphological characteristics, cultural style, or linguistic expressions of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá as found in authentic and comparable samples of his writings and handwriting…”
According to Zimmer, based on Bahá’í teachings [8], only the Manifestation of God (the Prophet) is authorized to supplement or add to religious laws and teachings. Even ‘Abdu’l-Bahá never claimed to be a Manifestation of God or to possess the authority to legislate; rather, he consistently described himself as a servant and interpreter of Bahá’u’lláh’s teachings. Consequently, he could not have altered or completed those teachings through his will. From this perspective, the claim attributed to Shoghi Effendi contradicts Bahá’í doctrine, since it was not within ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s mandate to introduce changes to Bahá’u’lláh’s laws and ordinances through the alleged Tablets of the Will. According to the explicit text of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, responsibility for issuing new rulings not expressly stated in that book rests with the Universal House of Justice (Tablets of the Will, p. 19).
The Kitáb-i-Aqdas contains no reference to the Guardian of the Faith, the institution of the Guardianship, a hereditary line of Guardians, the Hands of the Cause of God, the guardians and protectors of the Guardian, or the idea that the Guardian should preside over a parliament and have his livelihood financed by the believers. Nor does the Kitáb-i-Aqdas mention the Hands of the Cause of God as a newly defined clerical class under a different name or title. Neither ‘Abdu’l-Bahá nor anyone else was authorized to append such concepts to the Kitáb-i-Aqdas. From these assertions, one would be forced to conclude that Bahá’u’lláh—regarded as the divine manifestation of God in this age—simply forgot to include these matters in his book, as casually as a schoolchild forgets a lesson or an elderly person loses their memory. Yet Bahá’u’lláh was not even sixty years old at the time of writing the Kitáb-i-Aqdas and was fully capable of precise and comprehensive expression.
Bahá’u’lláh himself states on this matter:
“…Praise be to God that Bahá’u’lláh left nothing unsaid. He explained everything. He left no room for excuses that people might say… If you see that some teachings are described as harmful by certain individuals—whoever that person may be, even if he were my own son—know that I am entirely independent of him… Those who speak falsehoods pursue worldly matters and seek wealth and accumulation. …On the other hand, if you see someone committing wrongful acts, acting contrary to true felicity and against the spirit of the Hidden Words, let those actions be the criterion by which you judge him. Know that I detest such a person, whoever he may be. This is the absolute truth.”
(‘Abdu’l-Bahá, World Peace, 1925, vol. 2, p. 452)
Accordingly, the only evidence cited to support the claim that the Guardian of the Faith is the authoritative interpreter of divine scripture is the will attributed to ‘Abdu’l-Bahá—a document Zimmer considers to be forged, as he argues he has demonstrated. Therefore, Shoghi Effendi’s claim to be the authoritative interpreter of the words of Bahá’u’lláh and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá is, in this view, neither valid nor substantiated; only ‘Abdu’l-Bahá could legitimately serve as the interpreter of Bahá’u’lláh’s teachings.
Furthermore, Bahá’u’lláh wrote during his imprisonment in ‘Akká:
“We have truly… not fallen short in our duty of guiding mankind, and we have been forbidden by the Almighty God to transfer this mission to another.” (God Passes By, p. 220)
If a divine Manifestation makes such a statement, it implies that he has conveyed to humanity all teachings and directives necessary for his era. It is well known that ‘Abdu’l-Bahá consistently presented himself solely as the interpreter of his father’s words. If a later relative of the Manifestation—whether a son or a grandson—claims that “Bahá’u’lláh left certain matters unaddressed or ambiguous in his Book of Laws,” such a claim stands in direct contradiction to the explicit statements of the Manifestation himself and to the words of his authorized interpreter, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá.
(A Forged Will Degrades the Bahá’í Faith to Political Shoghism, Chapter 4)
2.Hermann Zimmer’s View on Leadership in the Bahá’í Faith
During the time of Bahá’u’lláh and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, there was no discussion of establishing an organized Bahá’í administrative system. Neither the Kitáb-i-Aqdas nor the later Tablets contain explicit references to institutional organization or formal administrative structures. It was during Shoghi Effendi’s leadership in the Bahá’í Faith that concepts such as a “world order,” statistical growth, and hierarchical administration were emphasized, and the idea of an organized institutional framework became central.
Hermann Zimmer maintained that the pursuit of formal organization was first advanced by Ibrahim Khayrulláh[9] and Mírzá Muḥammad-‘Alí Effendi, the brother of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, and he regarded the establishment of the first Spiritual Assemblies in the United States as the result of movements opposing ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. Zimmer argued that whenever a religion seeks to establish a regulated and legalistic organizational structure, it effectively undermines itself. He viewed all forms of religious organization and the expansion of Bahá’í institutions as an act of human disobedience toward God—a form of spiritual “fall” (Right Is Made Crooked, p. 591).
Zimmer believed that through reliance on the will attributed to ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, the institution of the Guardianship, and the Bahá’í administrative order, profound changes were introduced into the structure and objectives of the Bahá’í Faith—changes that are difficult to accept, yet which, in his view, have ultimately transformed the Faith into an instrument for the pursuit of political power. On this matter, he writes:
“In reality, what is today presented as the Bahá’í Faith is nothing more than the worldview and ideology of Shoghi Effendi himself. It may rightly be described as ‘Shoghism’ (the Party of Shoghi), whose defining features are the dictatorship of the Bahá’í administration, censorship, the suppression of free thought, the prohibition of political engagement by Bahá’ís, and the use of excommunication and denunciation as instruments of control. It is evident that such a system cannot claim legitimacy as the foundation of a new world order.”
Zimmer and his supporters argued for a clear separation between the Bahá’í Faith and the Bahá’í administrative structure, which they regarded as functioning like a powerful and authoritarian governing body. Their reasoning was that if such an organization were truly intended to exist within the Bahá’í Faith, it should have been established during the time of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, when the foundations of the community were being laid.
By the late 1920s, Bahá’ís who opposed the administrative structure had declared that the Bahá’í administration constituted “a government within a government.” In Western countries, governments have generally not been deeply concerned about the existence of such small organizations and have not regarded them as a threat to democratic systems; in people’s democratic republics, however, the situation has been markedly different. As a result, Hermann Zimmer firmly opposed what he termed the “iron administration,” the “Bahá’í administrative order,” and the “Bahá’í dictatorship,” and he wrote extensively against these structures and their founder, Shoghi Effendi.
3.Hermann Zimmer’s Views on Shoghi Effendi Founder of Modern Leadership in the Bahá’í Faith
Zimmer articulated a wide range of views regarding Shoghi Effendi, the full discussion of which lies beyond the scope of this article. He was among those who believed that with the passing of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, the era of centralized leadership and personal authority and leadership in the Bahá’í Faith came to an end. In his view, the concept of Covenant and Covenant-breaking as it is practiced today was never intended or envisioned by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá; rather, it was developed by an individual who fabricated a document and subsequently elaborated this doctrine upon it.
According to Zimmer, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá never spoke of appointing a successor, and leadership in the Bahá’í Faith after his death was meant to pass to the Universal House of Justice. He writes:
“The Promised One of Bahá’u’lláh will appear one thousand years—or thousands of years—after him; this is the Covenant of Bahá’u’lláh… In cases of disagreement, consultation with ‘Abdu’l-Bahá should be sought… After ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, whenever the Universal House of Justice is established, it will be the remover of differences.”
(Najm-i-Bákhtar, November 23, 1913, p. 4, cited by Ruth White from the book of Ahmad Sohrab, grandson of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, 1943, p. 238)
On this basis, Zimmer rejected Shoghi Effendi’s claim to leadership in the Bahá’í Faith altogether. Moreover, he held a distinctly negative view of Shoghi Effendi, whom he regarded as responsible for diverting the Bahá’í Faith from its original course. In the sections that follow, several of Zimmer’s specific assessments and criticisms of Shoghi Effendi are examined.
Personal Characteristics of Shoghi Effendi
In Zimmer’s portrayal, Shoghi Effendi’s life was, in effect, the life of an absolute ruler—one who remained distant and largely inaccessible. He referred to himself as Effendi (“Sir”) and preferred to be addressed as His Excellency, a title that ‘Abdu’l-Bahá had never claimed for himself. According to Zimmer, before assuming authority Shoghi Effendi appeared thoroughly democratic and modest. In the early period of his leadership, he was perceived as kind, but over time he became increasingly self-centered. He never appeared before a camera, and although he traveled to many countries around the world, he lacked the willingness—or the courage, in Zimmer’s assessment—to engage directly with his fellow believers or to explain Bahá’í teachings to them in person.
Zimmer writes elsewhere in his book:
“Although Shoghi frequently traveled to Europe, his followers learned only once that he was in Bern, the capital of Switzerland. Did Shoghi speak there about the universal teachings of Bahá’u’lláh and their various dimensions? Did he lecture on the oneness of humanity, racial barriers, or the unity of the world’s religions? No. This so-called Guardian of the Bahá’í Faith, and this so-called interpreter of the teachings of Bahá’u’lláh and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, left such activities to the ‘laborers in God’s vineyard’—to salaried employees, artists, workers, housewives, clerks, and the self-employed—expecting them to promote the Bahá’í Faith in their scarce free time. The Guardian of the Faith never established personal contact with these individuals; instead, he seemed far more concerned with acquiring a building of elegant architecture overlooking the snowy and icy landscapes of Switzerland, intended as the site of a future temple!”
Zimmer further notes that reports remain silent regarding Shoghi Effendi’s contact with Bahá’ís or potential adherents, while numerous meetings with land and real-estate brokers are recorded. The journal Bahá’í Nachrichten, he argues, failed to present a clearer picture of this elusive figure within the Bahá’í Faith: “In reports of the Guardian’s achievements, emphasis is placed primarily on land acquisitions. Shoghi Effendi never honored the international Bahá’í conferences with his presence.”
(A Forged Will Degrades the Bahá’í Faith to Political Shoghism, Chapter Seven).
Shoghi Effendi’s Political Outlook and Pursuit of Power
According to Zimmer, the Guardian of the Faith was consistently interested in political affairs and followed them closely. In his view, Shoghi Effendi possessed many of the defining traits of a politician. He believed that the Bahá’í Faith would eventually transform into a governing religion and that, in the end, a Bahá’í state would emerge and be established. This outlook stands in contrast to Bahá’u’lláh’s own statement: “I have entrusted the government of the world to kings and rulers, but I have directed the hearts of humanity toward Myself” (Kitáb-i-‘Ahd, cited in The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh, 1971, p. 209).
Shoghi Effendi’s favorite book was The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by the English historian Edward Gibbon [10]. When Shoghi Effendi died, a pocket edition of this book was reportedly found beside his bed. Even today, Zimmer argues, the political trajectory of the Guardian remains visible years after his death. At his grave in the large cemetery of North London stands a marble column topped by a globe, upon which rests a sharp-eyed golden eagle. Although only the African continent is clearly depicted on the globe, this imagery evokes numerous military symbols associated with Roman emperors and their legions. The young Bahá’í narrator—Shoghi Effendi—appears, in Zimmer’s interpretation, to have strongly identified in his imagination with Roman Caesars and their conquests.
Power, Zimmer contends, captivated and enthralled Shoghi Effendi. It is therefore not surprising, in his view, that Shoghi Effendi employed Machiavellian methods to advance his objectives. From an individual known for mild manners and religious devotion, one would not ordinarily expect an assertive drive for domination and control—yet Zimmer argues that this was precisely the case with the leadership in the Bahá’í Faith. This characteristic, he suggests, helps explain the spiritual excommunication and denunciation of more than half of the extended family of Bahá’u’lláh and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá within the span of just a few weeks in 1941.
Through calculated psychological strategies, Shoghi Effendi, according to Zimmer, succeeded in silencing all critical and dissenting voices. During the first twenty-five years of his leadership in the Bahá’í Faith, a strict regime of censorship and repression prevailed. Among his measures was the excommunication and expulsion of long-standing and early members of the Bahá’í community who sought to raise awareness among their co-religionists through the publication of critical journals—activities that, ironically, were carried out in accordance with a well-known Bahá’í principle: the independent investigation of truth.
Although the writings and statements of these Bahá’ís were, in Zimmer’s assessment, coherent and rational, Shoghi Effendi and the institutions under his control labeled them as “harmful and dangerous elements,” “enemies,” or “madmen.” Over time, the administrative system systematically removed and destroyed these materials. Today, all of these publications—which contained valuable information concerning the will attributed to ‘Abdu’l-Bahá—have been withdrawn from bookshops and libraries throughout the United States, whether new or second-hand. According to Zimmer, the Bahá’í administration purchased these works in order to remove them from public access altogether (A Forged Will Degrades the Bahá’í Faith to Political Shoghism, Introduction).
Zimmer writes on this matter:
“Shoghi Effendi referred to the followers of the Bahá’í Faith as ‘harmful elements,’ ‘adversaries and enemies,’ and ‘stubborn and insane.’ In practice, he transformed the followers of the Bahá’í Faith into a blind and unquestioning group of his own adherents—a phenomenon that may rightly be called ‘Shoghism.’ In reality, what is presented today under the name of the Bahá’í Faith is nothing other than Shoghism. Shoghism, or the form of the Bahá’í Faith prevalent in our time, is contaminated by censorship, restrictions, the prohibition of political activity by its followers, and spiritual excommunication and denunciation—features that are wholly unsuitable as the foundation of an acceptable world order in our era.”
Strict regulations, censorship, the prohibition of free expression of opinion, the requirement to obtain permission for travel from one country to another, the ban on residence in Palestine for Bahá’ís, and, above all, the severe sanctions imposed on those he labeled Covenant-breakers—together with a rigid style of leadership in the Bahá’í Faith that Zimmer described as an “Iron Age”—manifested themselves in an intimidating and deeply consequential manner.
While Bahá’ís portray Shoghi Effendi as a sign of God on earth and as a “Great Guardian,” his contemporaries, according to Zimmer, observed no such qualities in him. In the allegedly forged Will and Testament, Shoghi Effendi is quoted as writing:
“No one has the right to act according to his own opinion or to express a personal belief.” [11]
This, Zimmer suggests, evokes a return to the dark era of the Inquisition, ecclesiastical courts, and forced confessions of medieval Christianity—a reversion to inquisitorial methods. Zimmer concludes his assessment of Shoghi Effendi with a rhetorical question:
“Was it not God’s will that Shoghi’s final resting place should be far removed from the Báb, Bahá’u’lláh, and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá? His eternal resting place lies instead beside Mr. So-and-so and Mrs. So-and-so in one of London’s cemeteries, in one of the world’s largest cities. Whether Shoghi was fleeing the Asian influenza or searching for furniture for his new library and archive is of no concern to us. Machiavelli [12]—who may rightly be regarded as Shoghi’s guide in his pursuit of power—states: ‘Among all worthy men, the founders and leaders of religions deserve the greatest honor and reverence, while, conversely, the worst and most contemptible are those who destroy and corrupt religions.’”
Zimmer adds that the task at hand is not judgment, but clarification and the presentation of plain facts. He concludes:
“In the memory of future generations, Shoghi Effendi will remain within the Bahá’í Faith as Judas Iscariot [13] did in Christianity—one who betrayed the religion of Bahá’u’lláh for the sake of power and material gain.”
(A Forged Will Degrades the Bahá’í Faith to Political Shoghism, Chapter Two).
4.Zimmer’s View on the Reasons for the Prohibition of the Bahá’í Faith in the Soviet Union and Iran
The Bahá’í Faith claims that it does not interfere in politics and that, in every country, it is obedient to the government in power. Zimmer argues, however, that this claim stands in sharp contrast to observable realities. One of the Bahá’í Faith’s most prominently promoted slogans, for example, is the “oneness of humanity.” Upon hearing this phrase, listeners are inclined to assume that the Bahá’í Faith is actively striving to promote unity among states, nations, religions, and members of society, and they may therefore view the movement with respect. Host governments likewise may believe that the presence of the Bahá’í Faith within their borders could contribute to peace and harmony. Yet, according to Zimmer, the public understanding of the principle of the oneness of humanity differs fundamentally from the Bahá’í leadership’s intended meaning and use of this concept.
Zimmer contends that what the Bahá’í Faith specifically means by promoting the oneness of humanity is not genuine interreligious reconciliation or coexistence among nations, but rather the gradual conversion of individuals to the Bahá’í Faith and the establishment of equality and unity exclusively under the banner of Bahá’í belief. In this interpretation, the Bahá’í Faith does not seek rapprochement among religions, nor does it aim to accommodate diverse political systems. Instead, it pursues the systematic transformation of humanity into adherents of the Bahá’í Faith and the eventual establishment of a Bahá’í form of governance, based on the conviction that the Bahá’í Faith is the sole legitimate religion for the present age.
From Zimmer’s perspective, the Bahá’í administrative system regards itself as the only infallible organization, one to which the entire world must ultimately submit. In this framework, humanity is seen as requiring a single religion and a single global government—both identified with the Bahá’í Faith. Consequently, the sovereignty of nation-states is expected to yield to the authority and will of Bahá’í global leadership. Given such far-reaching and absolutist ambitions, Zimmer argues, it is hardly surprising that in certain countries—particularly those that have recognized the ultimate objectives of the Bahá’í movement—restrictions have been imposed on Bahá’í activities in order to prevent the institutional expansion and consolidation of its administrative structures.
Hermann Zimmer examined this issue in detail and attributed the prohibition of the Bahá’í Faith in various countries to the teachings, policies, and practices introduced under Shoghi Effendi’s leadership in the Bahá’í Faith. He argued that Shoghi Effendi reduced the religion of Bahá’u’lláh and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá to a political organization, thereby intensifying governmental opposition to the Bahá’í Faith. In the preface to his book, Zimmer writes:
“…Why was Bahá’í activity suspended in the Soviet Union in 1928 and ultimately banned altogether in 1936, when in the mid-1920s there had been a relatively positive attitude toward the Bahá’í Faith there? Why was the presence and activity of Bahá’ís prohibited in the 1960s across the League of Arab States (including countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, and others)? …Likewise, resistance and opposition by the Iranian government to the Bahá’í administrative order and institutions must be understood as stemming from their recognition of the efforts of Bahá’ís and their organizations to acquire power and authority. In my view, in Iran—as in the Soviet Union or the Arab League—the ‘state within a state’ structure of the Bahá’í administration is unacceptable. I do not believe that Bahá’u’lláh or ‘Abdu’l-Bahá ever envisaged such an organization or such extensive powers for the Bahá’í Faith.
On the other hand, any informed observer will realize that since all Christian denominations and sects are present and active in the Soviet Union and in the Arab republics without facing similar restrictions, there must be specific reasons for banning the presence and activities of the Bahá’ís. As the stated position of the ‘Free Bahá’ís,’ I declare that the forged will attributed to ‘Abdu’l-Bahá—by which the ‘most non-political religion in the world’ was transformed into a thoroughly political and power-seeking movement—is the root cause of this situation.”
Ahmad Sohrab, the former assistant and secretary of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, offered a similar assessment:
“The present Bahá’í administrative system considers it to be in its own interest to elevate the will attributed to ‘Abdu’l-Bahá above and beyond all the writings and statements of the founders of the Bahá’í Faith. …Everything else is of little importance! Only the Will, the Will…! Nothing but the Will! That is the entirety of Bahá’ísm!”
Through reliance on the will attributed to ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, the institution of the Guardianship, and the Bahá’í administrative order, fundamental changes were introduced into the structure and objectives of the Bahá’í Faith. Difficult as it may be to accept, Zimmer concludes that this system has, in practice, been transformed into an instrument for the pursuit of political power (A Forged Will Degrades the Bahá’í Faith to Political Shoghism, Preface).
Shoghi Effendi writes in God Passes By that following the prohibition of the Bahá’í Faith in 1928, more than 500 Bahá’ís were imprisoned in the regions of Turkmenistan and the Caucasus. Many died, while others were exiled to Siberia and forested regions. Their property was confiscated, and the Bahá’í temple was closed and converted into an art gallery. What, then, was the reason for this ban?
On January 1, 1929, a letter announced the confiscation of the Bahá’í temple in ‘Ishqábád. It is likely that the Soviet authorities appointed a committee to reexamine the Bahá’í case and, through a review of available writings, identified Shoghi Effendi’s political inclinations and interests. What were the underlying reasons? Was the publication of Shoghi Effendi’s book The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh in New York in 1928 not influential in this decision? In the preface to that book, Horace Holley, secretary of the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States and Canada, speaks of the unprecedented realization of Bahá’u’lláh’s ultimate purpose through Shoghi Effendi, and implicitly suggests that the principle of non-involvement in politics—explicitly taught by Bahá’u’lláh—had effectively been abandoned with Shoghi Effendi’s establishment of the institution of the Guardianship. This alone could have provided sufficient grounds for concern on the part of the Soviet government (A Forged Will Degrades the Bahá’í Faith to Political Shoghism, end of Chapter 8).
In the writings of Bahá’u’lláh, there is no mention of a “liberating world system,” nor of global administrative institutions or a worldwide government. These concepts were later introduced and proclaimed by Shoghi Effendi through the Tablets of the Will. According to Ruth White, Shoghi Effendi—by deviating from the teachings of the founder of the Bahá’í Faith and by taking actions detrimental to the religion—inflicted greater harm on the Bahá’í community than did its declared and sworn enemies.
The writings and actions of Shoghi Effendi’s administrative order and of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís stand as historical evidence against them. They represent the Bahá’í Faith to the same extent that the judges of the medieval Inquisition represented Christianity.
Conclusion
Hermann Zimmer was among the critics of the Bahá’í Faith who, after twenty-four years of adherence, was censured by the Bahá’í administrative authorities because of his critical positions. He was labeled a dissenter and opponent of leadership in the Bahá’í Faith and was consequently removed from the Bahá’í community, effectively being cast out of the faith.
As a Bahá’í intellectual who lived during the eras of both ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi, Zimmer maintained that the Bahá’í Faith underwent a profound deviation after the death of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and entered a serious crisis of leadership in the Bahá’í Faith. He portrayed Shoghi Effendi, the successor to ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, as a forger who, in the pursuit of power and material gain, transformed the Bahá’í Faith from a spiritual religion into a dangerous political party.
Zimmer attributed the opposition of certain governments to the Bahá’í Faith to the political orientation and power-driven ambitions of Shoghi Effendi. He specifically cited Iran, the former Soviet Union, and several Arab countries as examples of states that, having observed the political teachings and practices of Bahá’í leaders, adopted an adversarial stance toward the Bahá’í Faith and regarded it with suspicion.
Zimmer’s studies and observations of the conduct of the Bahá’í administrative system—and, above all, what he viewed as the authoritarian actions of Shoghi Effendi in his role as leader of the Bahá’í Faith—ultimately transformed him into a serious and outspoken critic of the religion. Although the Bahá’í administration sought to silence him by expelling and isolating him, Zimmer’s writings, together with his efforts to disseminate the views of Ruth White, played a significant role in raising awareness, particularly within Bahá’í communities in Europe and the United States.
References
- Ruth White – A wealthy American author who met ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in 1912 and embraced the Bahá’í Faith. She subsequently engaged in promotional activities on behalf of the Bahá’í Faith and became favored by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. After ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s death and upon learning of the will designating Shoghi Effendi as successor, she grew suspicious of the document attributed to ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, based on her prior knowledge of Shoghi Effendi’s deceptive conduct. She therefore undertook an investigation to verify its authenticity. Ultimately, following extensive inquiries—including a forensic handwriting analysis—she concluded that the will published as the Tablets of the Will was forged and invalid. Her research was later utilized by Bahá’í intellectuals such as Wilhelm Herrigel, Hermann Zimmer, Francesco Ficicchia, and others, and became a source of major challenges to the Bahá’í administrative establishment.
- Waiblingen (Germany).
- Bahá’í Nachrichten, 1964, Vol. 12.
- Ahmad Sohrab (1893–1958) – Secretary and translator of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá between 1912 and 1919, a well-known writer, and a prominent member of the Bahá’í organization in the United States. He was expelled from the Bahá’í community in 1939 by decision of Shoghi Effendi.
- Ahmad Sohrab, Broken Silence (The Story of a Present-Day Struggle for Religious Freedom), New History Society, published by Universal Publishing Company, 1942.
- Ruth White, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s Questioned Will and Testament, 1946, California, USA.
- Prause, Niemand hat Kolumbus ausgelacht (“No One Had the Last Laugh over Columbus”), 1966.
- The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, paragraph 37:
“Whoso layeth claim to a Revelation direct from God, ere the expiration of a full thousand years, such a man is assuredly a lying impostor. We pray God that He may graciously assist him to retract and repudiate such claim. Should he repent, God will, no doubt, forgive him. If, however, he persisteth in his error, God will assuredly send down one who will deal mercilessly with him. Terrible indeed is God in punishing! Whoso interpreteth this verse otherwise than its obvious meaning is deprived of the Spirit of God and of His mercy which encompasseth all created things.” - For further information, see: Eric Stetson, The Hidden History of the Bahá’ís, translated and researched by Hamid Farnagh, Guy Publishing, Tehran, 2018, p. 313.
- Edward Gibbon – English historian and author of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
- Tablets of the Will, p. 26.
- Niccolò Bernardo Machiavelli (1469–1527) – Italian political philosopher, poet, historian, and playwright. He held that the pursuit of political objectives need not be constrained by morality, religion, humanity, or international law. From Machiavelli’s perspective, human beings are by nature corrupt, self-interested, and acquisitive, and only strong states can restrain such tendencies through law and force.
- Judas Iscariot – One of the disciples of Jesus Christ who betrayed him for money.
