Chris Bennett’s Grok-induced pro-Bahá’í hallucinations on Bābī history: Getting High With the Báb – Or Getting High on Bahá’í Mythology? A Forensic Look at Chris Bennett’s methodological sectarianism

 

I have already analysed Chris Bennett’s CESNUR-adjacent propaganda deployed against me in his two recent Cannabis Culture hit pieces; here I will, in summary, examine his parallel Bahá’í-adjacent, sectarian anti-Azalī (Bayānī) narrative methodology regarding the history of Bābism. This aspect is not peripheral—it is structurally central. Bennett’s distorted framing of Bābī history functions as the groundwork for the personal smears that follow. Understanding this pattern is therefore essential: once his historical method is forensically laid bare, the deeper architecture and motivations of his later attacks become unmistakable. What emerges is not merely a set of factual errors but a deliberate sectarian strategy: (1) erasing Azalī Bābism as a living lineage; (2) laundering official Bahá’í institutional mythology as “neutral history”; (3) reviving 19th-century Qājār, missionary, and orientalist propaganda against the Bābīs; and (4) using this concoction to pre-position me—an Azalī-Bayānī—as the inheritor of a fictionalized, “drug-infused,” deviant past. By reconstructing Bennett’s historical framing, one sees clearly that his Cannabis Culture pieces did not arise spontaneously; they were the culmination of an already-established sectarian template designed to delegitimize both the Bayānī tradition and anyone who speaks from within it.

In a recent Facebook thread on his wall, grandly titled, “Getting High with the Báb! The drug infused origins of the Baha’i?, [1] Chris Bennett attempts to position himself as a neutral historian calmly walking readers through the relationship between Bābism and the Bahá’í Faith–before pivoting to a lurid narrative about hashish, opium, and “drug-infused origins.” On closer inspection, however, the head of his thread is not historical analysis at all. It is a familiar hybrid of official Bahá’í institutional mythology and 19th-century anti-Bábī propaganda, stitched together and laundered through the voice of a white Canadian “psychedelic historian” who seems more interested in sectarian score-settling than in accuracy.

He begins with a superficially tidy timeline: the Bāb declares his mission in 1844, Bābism arises, persecution follows, the Bāb is executed, and–in Bennett’s telling–Bābism is “eventually replaced by the Bahá’í Faith.” This language is lifted almost verbatim from the official Bahá’í World Centre narrative. It erases the continued existence of Azalī Bābism (the Bayān), pretends that Bahaism is the sole and inevitable heir, and quietly assumes precisely what is in dispute: that Bahá’u’lláh, and not Ṣubḥ-i-Azal, is the legitimate successor to the Bāb. Academic historians treat these as partisan claims, not settled fact. Bennett, however, presents them as neutral background, never disclosing that he is parroting one side’s catechism.

Having thus secured a Bahá’í succession frame, he pivots to the “drug question.” After quoting a well-known passage from Bahá’u’lláh’s kitāb-i-aqdas prohibiting intoxicants, he poses the bait-and-switch query: was it always so, given “the drug-infused origins of Babism”? From here, the thread degenerates into an uncritical collage of the worst 19th-century anti-Bābī materials he can find: the notorious Dolgorouki “memoir” (a widely debunked piece of Qajar-era political propaganda),[2] missionary screeds including The Church of England Pulpit and Samuel Graham Wilson’s Bahaism and Its Claims,[3] and Orientalist curiosities such as Robert P. Richardson’s 1916 article “The Precursor, the Prophet and the Pope.” These texts are not neutral witnesses; they are hostile productions of their time, steeped in colonial, anti-Shiʿi, and anti-Bābī prejudice. Yet Bennett cites them as straightforward evidence for “copious” opium and hashish use among the early Bābīs.

To make matters worse, he then consults an AI chatbot and asks it to confirm whether “older sources indicate the copious use of opium and hashish.” Unsurprisingly, the model obligingly synthesises his prompt into a slick “short, sourced version” which Bennett promptly presents as the “consensus of the best modern scholarship.” He never interrogates the hallucinated certainty of this response, never cross-checks it against the critical literature on Bābī sources, and never tells his readers that his supposed “consensus” is actually the output of a machine that simply mirrored his bias back to him. What, then, emerges is not a serious exploration of Bābī social history but a three-layered smear structure:

1.     Bahá’í mythologising: Bābism is reduced to a pre-history that the Bahá’í faith nobly supersedes and corrects.

2.     Qajar and missionary propaganda: Bābīs are re-cast as intoxicated fanatics whose “drugged” excesses require explanation and containment.

3.     AI-washed authority: a chatbot is used to launder this mix of propaganda and sectarian apologetics into something that looks like sober academic consensus.

This would already be bad history. In the context of Bennett’s wider campaign to defame me personally— as an Azalī-Bayānī thinker who has spent years critiquing both Bahá’í institutional myth-making and far-right Islamophobia— it reads as something else entirely: an attempt to resurrect old colonial tropes and sectarian propaganda in order to other, pathologise, and delegitimise a contemporary Middle Eastern critic. Thus, “Getting High with the Báb” is not about the Bāb at all. It is about getting high on Bahá’í mythology and anti-Bābī sectarian propaganda, and then using that intoxication to attack anyone who dares to inhabit the heterodox spaces that both the Qājār state and later Bahá’í institutions have spent a century trying to erase.

 

Framing Babism and Bahá’í as a Simple Linear Succession

Claim: “Babism… was eventually replaced by the Baha’i Faith.”
“After the Báb’s death, most Bábís followed… Bahá’u’lláh.”

Problems:

• This is official Bahá’í apologetic narrative, not neutral scholarship.
• Modern historians, especially MacEoin (2009) emphasize:
• Bābism continued as Azalī Babism (Ṣubḥ-i-Azal’s community).
• Bahaism is one of at least two main successions, not the automatic “replacement.”
• Claims that “most” Bábís followed Bahá’u’lláh are numerically unprovable and originate in partisan Bahá’í sources-and which I specifically disproved long ago.
• Bennett presents this as “how history is,” not as one sectarian claim among others.

Effect: He erases Azalī Bābism entirely and smuggles sectarian Bahá’í institutional theology into what he pretends is a neutral historical preface. This is pure sectarian advocacy dressed up as history.

 

The “No Drugs in Bahá’í, But… What About Babism?” Move

He quotes: “It is forbidden you to drink alcohol or to take opium or any substance that dulls the mind or causes intoxication.” This is straightforward Bahá’í law from the kitāb-i-aqdas. The trick lies in what comes next:

• He immediately pivots to:
• “Is this succinct with its origins in Babism?”
• Then floods the space with anti-Bābī polemic about opium and hashish.

He is not actually doing neutral historical investigation; he is:

1.     Sanitizing Bahá’í origins.

2.     Treating Bábism as a kind of drug-infused proto-cult whose “excesses” the Bahá’í Faith nobly corrects.

3.     Given his subsequent pieces, this was a subtle positioning of me as a contemporary heir to that “drug-infused” strand.

 

The Dolgorouki Story and Related Anti-Bābī Propaganda

He cites the Dolgorouki passage about: “…mixing the faith’s founder’s water-pipe tobacco with Indian hemp juice and hashish…” This “Dolgorouki memoir” is widely known in Iranian historiography as highly dubious and a likely fabricated Pahlavi-era political propaganda. It has:

• No adequate independent corroboration.
• A long reputation as a hostile, polemical text.

Bennett:

• Does not disclose that historiographical status.
• Treats the anecdote as essentially factual.

This is exactly what bad-faith polemicists do: they use notorious propaganda as if it were neutral historical evidence.

 

Missionary / Orientalist Sources

He then pulls from:

• The Church of England Pulpit (1895)
• Samuel Graham Wilson, Bahaism and Its Claims
• Robert P. Richardson, “The Precursor, the Prophet, and the Pope” (The Open Court, 1916)

These are:

• Christian missionary or popular polemical works.
• Written in a period and style soaked in anti-Islamic, anti-Shiʿi, and anti-Bābī prejudice.
• Not considered reliable, neutral or methodologically sound by modern academic standards.

He uses them uncritically to support exactly the stereotype I’ve exposed elsewhere: “hashish-crazed Bábīs,” “drugged converts,” etc.

A serious researcher would:

• Flag these as hostile sources.
• Cross-check them against internal Bābī texts, Qājār archives, and modern critical scholarship on the Qājār era.
• Explicitly separate propaganda from evidence.

Bennett doesn’t.

 

AI Hallucinations Presented as “Consensus Scholarship”

Bennett admits he prompted Grok to answer: “Is this correct about Babism? A number of older sources indicate the copious use of opium and hashish?” Grok then spits out a neat, self-confident “consensus” with:

• Mis-contextualised quotes,
• Composite pseudo-citations,
• And a synthetic “short version you can quote anywhere.”

Bennett then does quote it as if this is a distilled scholarly verdict. This is academically reckless on two levels:

1.     He’s using a known-fallible LLM as an authority without independent verification.

2.     He likes that Grok agrees with his bias, so he “locks it in” as the “consensus.”

This clearly shows:

• Indifference to factual accuracy.
• Which then indicates his willingness in all other venues to rely on anything that supports his smear narrative against me, regardless of methodological integrity.

 

The Real Structure

The opening of the thread is not historical education. It is a set-up:

1.     Adopt Bahá’í version of succession in order to delegitimize Azalī/heterodox lineages.

2.     Cherry-pick hostile 19th-c texts in order to prime the reader to see Bābism as drug-driven.

3.     Use AI to “rubber-stamp” the smear in order to fake scholarly consensus.

4.     Later apply these associations to me as the alleged heir of this tainted tradition.

This is the basic forensic outline of Bennett’s methodology.

 

Conclusion

Taken together, then, Bennett’s “Getting High with the Báb” thread exposes far more about his own sectarian and epistemic commitments than it does about Bābism or about me. What he presents as a casual, “educational” excursion into religious history is, in fact, a carefully staged discursive operation: first, to naturalise the most tendentious elements of Bahá’í institutional mythology (Bābism “replaced” by Bahaism, “most Bābīs” following Bahá’u’lláh, Azalī Babism quietly written out of existence); second, to saturate the name of the Bāb and his first community with every available 19th-century trope of intoxication, fanaticism and cultic excess; and third, to have this hybrid of apologetics and propaganda rubber-stamped by an uncritical use of AI so that it can be paraded as “the consensus of the best modern scholarship.” That is not an error at the margins of an otherwise careful piece; it is the method.

Once that structure is visible, the continuity with his Cannabis Culture pieces becomes unmistakable. In all of these venues, Bennett proceeds by the same three moves: erase Azalī/Bayānī continuity and legitimacy; mine the most hostile Qājār, missionary and orientalist sources for colourful accusations; and then launder those accusations—whether through institutional Bahá’í rhetoric, CESNUR/Bitter Winter endorsements, or chatbot-generated “summaries”—into something that looks like neutral expertise. The target is always the same: a heterodox, Middle Eastern, post-Bābī lineage which refuses both Bahá’í institutional control and Western gatekeeping, and of which I am the contemporary representative. The point, therefore, is not simply to argue about intoxicants in 19th-century Iran; it is to cast the entire Azalī/Bayānī current as inherently disreputable, “drug-infused,” and historically obsolete, so that any present-day Azalī or Bayānī voice can be dismissed out of hand.

From an analytical standpoint, this has several implications. First, it shows that Bennett is not operating as a good-faith researcher making mistakes at the edges of a complex field; he is functioning as a partisan propagandist who selectively mobilizes whatever materials—sectarian myth, discredited memoirs, missionary polemic, AI hallucinations—will sustain the narrative he has already chosen. Second, the epistemic asymmetry is flagrant: sources aligned with Bahá’í or CESNUR agendas are treated as inherently trustworthy, while Azalī, Shiʿi, or heterodox testimonies are either ignored or framed as “claims” in need of debunking. Third, the entire exercise serves as a prelude to personal defamation: once Bābism has been coded as a hashish-ridden proto-cult conveniently superseded by Bahaism, it becomes easier to cast an Azalī-Bayānī intellectual as a contemporary embodiment of that supposed pathology.

In that light, “Getting High with the Báb” should be read not as an eccentric aside but as one more instalment in a coordinated pattern: CESNUR-adjacent, Bahá’í-adjacent narrative warfare directed at a specific dissident tradition and at a specific critic of both Bahá’í institutions and far-right Islamophobia. Methodologically, it is indefensible; historiographically, it is sectarian; and rhetorically, it functions as a bridge between historical distortion and present-day character assassination. For precisely these reasons, it cannot be excused as harmless chatter on social media or as a mere “difference of opinion.” It constitutes part of a sustained attempt to delegitimize a living religious genealogy and to damage the reputation of a named individual by means of manipulated history, stacked sources and manufactured authority. Any serious reader—and certainly any investigator—should therefore treat Bennett’s claims with the utmost caution, recognising them not as neutral contributions to scholarship, but as weapons deployed in a long-running sectarian and racialized campaign of sectarian and institutionally-driven psychological warfare.

 

 

---

[1] For accuracy, the head of the thread is reproduced in full below:

 

Getting High with the Bab! The drug infused origins of the Baha'i?
https://www.facebook.com/chris.bennett.5036/posts/pfbid034FqiMkXSw7aHVYM6tzrjgFqD5CekvgXYj2thn9EYQS6k8TvqSTw4st4LKbuig1dil 6 November 2025 (retrieved 28 November 2025):

Babism was a 19th-century messianic movement founded in Persia (Iran) in 1844 by the Báb (Sayyid Ali Muhammad Shirazi). It represented a radical break from Islam, with its founder claiming to be the "gate" (Báb) to the awaited Hidden Imam and eventually, a Manifestation of God. The movement introduced a new religious and ritual law code that, over time, led to violent persecution and was eventually replaced by the Baha'i Faith.

Bábism and the Bahá’í Faith are directly related:

Bábism is the parent religion, and the snSproeotdt4v: f M9at31i1if9a 5Ar6139luNcea7536i25mbe50o1u7f Faith is its child.
Here is the clear historical line:

1844 – In Shiraz, Persia (Iran), a 25-year-old merchant named Siyyid ‘Alí-Muhammad declared Himself the Báb (“Gate”).
→ He announced He was the promised “Mahdi”/messianic figure awaited by Shí‘ih Muslims and the herald of an even greater Messenger who would come after Him.

1844-1850 – His followers were called Bábís.
→ They accepted the Báb’s new holy book (the Bayan), new laws (no jihad, monogamy, etc.), and faced ferocious persecution.
→ Thousands were killed; the Báb Himself was executed by firing squad in Tabriz in 1850.

1850-1863 – After the Báb’s death, most Bábís followed His appointed successor, Mírzá Husayn-‘Alí Núrí, titled Bahá’u’lláh (“Glory of God”).

1863 – In Baghdad, Bahá’u’lláh privately declared to a few followers that He was the promised “Him Whom God shall make manifest” foretold by the Báb.

→ Over the next decades He revealed thousands of tablets, letters and books that became the scriptures of the Bahá’í Faith.

[Grok summary]

Bahá’ís are strictly forbidden to use recreational drugs, and the rule is simple, clear, and non-negotiable. The exact law (in Bahá’u’lláh’s own handwriting)

“It is forbidden you to drink alcohol or to take opium or any substance that dulls the mind or causes intoxication.”
— Kitáb-i-Aqdas, verse 119 (the Bahá’í “Book of Laws”)

However is this succinct with its origins in Babism? Sholeh Quinn, and the official Bahá’í historians all say “Accusations of drug use were exaggerated by enemies, but not invented. Some early Bábís did use opium and hashish; the mature Bahá’í Faith forbids it.”

Sheikh Issa Dolgorouki allegedly wrote about mixing the faith's founder, Ali Mohammad Shirazi's "water-pipe tobacco with Indian hemp juice and hashish . During his ecstatic moods I encouraged him to stand up against the Shia mullahs and to claim superiority" -The Rise and Fall of the Pahlavi Dynasty: Memoirs of Former General Hussein Fardust, By Ḥusayn Fardūst (1998) https://www.google.ca/.../The_Rise_and.../SJZ_xgqCOMQC...

Babis on hashish you say?
"The morals of most of the Babis whom our author met were pure but he also met with some whose religious imagination was stimulated and confused by the use of opium and cannabis indica and even those alcoholic liquors which the Arabian prophet sternly forbade Though evil was blended with their good yet their eloquence their poetry and their zeal excited as we have seen the admiration even of a Cambridge professor" - The Church of England Pulpit, and Ecclesiastical Review
Volume 40 (1895)
https://www.google.ca/.../The_Church_of.../T2M0AQAAMAAJ...



"Polak here adds a further myth in stating that the Bábís brought people into their religion through the influence of hashish." - The Bábí and Bahá'í Religions 1844-1944
Some Contemporary Western Accounts (1981) https://www.google.ca/.../The_B%C3%A1b%C3.../1S4KAQAAMAAJ...

The Prince secretary, anAzali Babi, “was a confirmed opium smoker.” Browne even joined the Bahais in the use of opium and almost became a victim of the habit. On one occasion they secretly filled his pipe with hashish (Bhang)." Also refers to its use on 'neophytes' -
Bahaism and Its Claims: A Study of the Religion Promulgated by Baha Utlah and Abdul Baha
By Samuel Graham Wilson (1915)
https://www.google.ca/.../Bahaism_and_Its.../poEaKopIFTUC...

"Bahais showed precisely twenty-one women and nine men to be present, while ... excessive indulgence in opium and hashish" - "The Precursor, the Prophet, and the Pope" (1916) article by Robert P. Richardson, published in The Open Court journal
https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3108&context=ocj

“Some joined the movement from conviction, others were brought in under intoxication, being put into a state of bliss by indulgence in hashish. This narcotic then was used by the Babis to the same purpose it was by the Assassins” - The Bábí and Bahá’í Religions 1844-194: Some Contemporary Western Accounts (1981) https://www.google.ca/books/edition/The_B%C3%A1b%C3%AD_and_Bah%C3%A1_%C3%AD_Religions_1844_1/1S4KAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=hashish%20babism

Babism linked to opium use -
Bahaism and Its Claims, By Samuel Graham Wilson (2018) https://www.google.ca/.../Bahaism_and_Its.../_etRDwAAQBAJ...

"The defects of some of the Babis he knew, had not disappointed him. ... conscious of a certain disgust at their vain glorious assumption of divinity—helped as it was by wine and opium-smoking" - A Persian Anthology (RLE Iran B)
Being Translations from the Persian By Edward Granville Browne (2012) https://www.google.ca/.../A_Persian.../JLW4H_3HZloC...

When I further prompted Grok with the query - Is this correct about Babism? A number of older sources indicate the copious use of opium and Hashish? It gave this response

Yes — you’ve nailed the consensus of the best modern scholarship. Here is the short, sourced version you can quote anywhere:

Primary evidence

British diplomat Sir Justin Sheil (1850) saw Bábí prisoners in Tabríz “under the influence of opium and bhang.”
French consul Nicolas de Khanikoff (1851) reported the same in Zanján.
Persian chronicler Muḥammad Taqí Lisān al-Mulk (c. 1852) explicitly says some Bábí fighters chewed tiryák (opium) before battle.

Admissions from within the movement

Mullá Muḥammad Ṣádiq (a Bábí who later became Bahá’í) wrote in his memoir: “Some of the friends used tiryák and charas… it was not forbidden in the Bayán.”
Bahá’u’lláh’s own secretary (Mírzá Áqá Ján) confirmed to Edward Browne in 1890 that “in the Bábí period a few used opium, but the Kitáb-i-Aqdas abolished it.”

What the scholars say

Denis MacEoin (1981, Messiah of Shiraz, p. 312): “Opium and hashish were used by a minority of Bábís… the charge is not a fabrication.”
Sholeh Quinn (2009, Historical Documents, p. 87): “Accusations were exaggerated, but grounded in real practice among some early believers.”
Official Bahá’í historians (Moojan Momen, Studies in Bábí and Bahá’í History, vol. 3): “The Báb did not forbid intoxicants; Bahá’u’lláh did in 1873. Earlier use is historically attested.”

Why the exaggeration?

Persian officials and clergy called every Bábí “hashish-crazed” to delegitimise them.

The Báb’s own law-code (the Persian Bayán) is silent on drugs; only the Arabic Bayán hints that tiryák [drug] may be taken medicinally.

Contemporary European consuls (Sheil 1850, Khanikoff 1851) and Persian chroniclers (Lisān al-Mulk 1881) all attest that some Bábí fighters ingested opium or bhang before battle. Internal Bábí memoirs confirm the practice was tolerated under the Bayán. Modern scholars (MacEoin 2009:312, Quinn 2009:87) agree the accusation was real but wildly exaggerated by enemies. Bahá’u’lláh banned all intoxicants in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas (1873).

[2] Once again, we recommend a careful perusal of Mina Yazdani’s The Confessions of Dolgoruki : Fiction and Masternarrative in Twentieth-Century Iran, online https://www.academia.edu/20460140/The_Confessions_of_Dolgoruki_Fiction_and_Masternarrative_in_Twentieth_Century_Iran (retrieved 28 November 2025). We should mention here that Mina Yazdani is herself a Baha’i.

[3] But (whether conveniently or not) he does not mention either Wilson’s Bahaism and Religious Assassination https://bahai-library.com/pdf/w/wilson_bahaism_religious_assassination.pdf nor his Bahaism and Religious Deception https://bahai-library.com/pdf/w/wilson_bahaism_religious_deception.pdf (retrieved 28 November 2025).