Source: Bahá'í Library Online (bahai-library.com), curated by Jonah Winters. Used by permission of the curator. Original citation: J. R. Richards, The Religion of the Baha'is, bahai-library.com.
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

The Religion
of the Bahá’ís
By
J. R. Richards, B.A. (Wales)
C.M.S. Missionary at Shíraz, Persia1

[Page images are available from
bahai-library.com/richards_religion_bahais ]

London
Society for promoting
Christian Knowledge,
New York: The Macmillan Company

The Rt Rev John Richards, DD was an Anglican bishop and author
during the third quarter of the 20th century. Born on 3 March 1901. He
was a CMS missionary in Iran until 1945. In 1956 he became Bishop of
St David's, a post he held until 1971. He died on 10 March 1990.
i
First published in 1932

Printed in Great Britain

ii
Preface
This book has been written with a view to the needs of
missionaries who are in daily contact with Baha’ís. The need of
such a book has long been felt by Christian missionaries working in
the Near East, who are daily hampered in their work through
ignorance of the history and teaching of Baha’ism, due to lack of
literature on the subject. The works of the late Prof. E. G. Browne
are, of course, available, and are invaluable as a guide to the history
of the movement, but unfortunately the best known of these is the
“Traveller’s Narrative”, which is of little historical value. The
“Noqtatu’l-Kaf”, by far the most important and most valuable of the
histories published by him, is, unfortunately, out of print, and
consequently almost impossible to obtain. Moreover, it exists only
in the original Persian, and its usefulness is therefore somewhat
limited. There remains the “New History of the Bab”, Prof.
Browne’s excellent translation of the “Taríkh-i Jadíd”, which is
another “manufactured” history, and therefore of little value in
itself. It is, however, provided with excellent notes containing
excerpts from the “Noqtatu’l-Kaf”. Further narratives are found in
the notes to the “Traveller’s Narrative” and in Prof. Browne’s other
book, “Materials for the Study of the Babí

iii
iv Religion of the Bahais
Religion” all of which give different versions of the important
events in the history of the movement. Thus the missionary was
left with a confused mass of material which hampered rather than
helped him. The best book on the doctrines of the movement is a
German work, “Die Babí-Beha’í”, published by Dr Hermann Roemer
as far back as 1912. Since then a vast amount of Baha’í literature
(chiefly consisting of ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s writings) has appeared. Dr
Roomer’s book, excellent though it is, is of far more value to the
student of comparative religion than it is to the missionary. The
only books available in Persian are totally unfit to use, consisting as
they do of attacks on the personal lives and characters of Baha’í
believers. However much truth there may be in these books, it is
grossly unfair to argue from the particular to the general, and, in
any case, no religion can be judged by the lives of its adherents,
unless we choose to judge it by its best representatives, and even
then our judgment will not be fair, I have, therefore, ignored all such
books, and though the historical portion of this book must, and
does, contain narratives which show the Baha’í leaders in an
unpleasant light, I have sought to omit all but those that have a
bearing on the historical development of the movement.
This book is based, for the most part, on a study of the original
texts (see Bibliography), and full references are given, which will, I
hope, prove of real value to missionaries. The translations are my
own, except where English translations are quoted, as shown by
the references. In the transliteration of Persian and Arabic words I
have not troubled to follow any fixed rule, and as no distinction is
made in Persian between various
Preface v
Arabic letters of similar sounds, I have contented myself with
merely marking the long vowels.
I have to acknowledge my gratitude to the many friends, English
and Persian, who have helped me in various ways, and I owe a
special debt of gratitude to my friend the Rev. W. M. Miller, of the
American Mission, who very kindly allowed me to read the
manuscript of his book which is now in the press. My indebtedness
to the late Prof. Browne and to Dr Roemer is fully acknowledged in
the text of the book. Finally my thanks are due to the Rt. Rev. J. H.
Linton, D.D., Bishop in Persia, for reading and correcting the MS. of
this book and contributing a Foreword and to my wife for seeing
the book through the Press.
J. R. Richards
Shíráz, August 1932.
Foreword
The study of Baha’ism is an essential part of the effective
preparation of every missionary working in these days in the Near
and Middle East. At the same time most missionaries have
admittedly found it an almost insuperable task to get at the
historical facts and the religious principles of Baha’ism in a
convenient and reliable form. Not every missionary on the field
has the ability or the opportunity to hunt out such an exhaustive
library of Baha’í literature as Mr. Richards possesses, and a list of
which he gives us in his bibliography. As head of the Persia mission
of the Church Missionary Society I am glad to put on record our
indebtedness to one of our own missionaries for having in so
unique a way put missionaries, and many others as well, in
possession of the historical facts relating to the founders and the
spread of Baha’ism, and the vital elements in its teaching.
There is no other book on Baha’ism of which I am aware that
gives in the same compass, and with the same reliability and
lucidity, just what everyone—missionary, traveller or official—who
has contacts with Baha’ism ought to know.
I have been present and listened to Mr. Richards holding
discussions with some of the leading Baha’í propagandists in
Persia, and I am not surprised that they have found him so
searching in his exposure of

vii
viii Religion of the Bahais
their teaching and their methods that they have taken as drastic
steps as they are able in order to prevent their literature from
reaching his hands.
Readers will be struck by his fairness in stating their case, and
at the same time his trenchant criticism of the historical methods of
Baha’í writers. Instances are the story of Qurratu’l-‘Ayn and of
Mírza Yahya.
The chapters on the Teaching of the Bab, and of ‘Abdu’l-Baha
are invaluable for all who would understand this faith. Mr.
Richards traces its departure from Islamic teaching, reveals its
glaring inconsistencies, e.g. concerning the Life after Death and the
survival of personality; its opportunism, as, for example, in its
attitude towards modern science and its ambiguous teaching on
polygamy, etc.
It is a favourite argument with Baha’ís that a man may become a
Baha’í and still retain his Christian, Jewish or other faith. But Mr.
Richards convincingly shows that Baha’í teaching on all the vital
doctrines of the Christian faith is defective and unsatisfactory, for
Baha’ism has no true belief in a Personal God; and the conclusion
which Mr. Richards reaches is justified, that “Baha’ism is a denial of
all that is fundamental in the Christian religion.” Its great
weakness lies in its lack of driving power. “Changed hearts are
more necessary than even trained minds. … Baha’ism may urge
that the mind be trained, but it cannot change the human heart.”
“The redemption of the world demands a redeemed humanity.”
And there Baha’ism utterly breaks down.

J. H. Linton,
Bishop in Persia.
Contents
Preface............................................................................................................ . iii
Foreword.. .................................................................................................... . vii
Bibliography.. .............................................................................................. . xi
1. The Mahdí in Islam.. ....................................................................... . 1
2. The coming of the Bab.. ................................................................ . 13
3. The teaching of the Bab................................................................ . 37
4. The coming of Baha’u’llah.. ......................................................... . 51
5. The beginnings of the Baha’í Religion................................... . 63
6. The making of a new Religion.. ................................................. . 73
7. The doctrine of the person of Baha’u’llah.. ......................... . 85
8. ‘Abdu’l-Baha and the spread of Baha’ism............................ . 95
9. The new Baha’ism and the West.............................................. . 109
10. The teachings of ‘Abdu’l-Baha: Part I.. ................................. . 125
a) God.. ................................................................................................ . 126
b) Man.. ............................................................................................... . 131
c) Immortality................................................................................. . 135
11. The teachings of ‘Abdu’l-Baha: Part II.. ............................... . 143
a) The Trinity.. ................................................................................ . 144
b) Jesus Christ.................................................................................. . 144
c) The Holy Spirit.. ........................................................................ . 149
d) Baptism.. ....................................................................................... . 150
12. The teachings of ‘Abdu’l-Baha: Part III.. .............................. . 153
a) The Prophets.. ............................................................................ . 153
b) Miracles.. ...................................................................................... . 156
c) The Scriptures.. ......................................................................... . 159
d) Sin and evil.. ................................................................................ . 159
e) Salvation.. ..................................................................................... . 161
f) Love.. .............................................................................................. . 161
13. The doctrine of the person of ‘Abdu’l-Baha.. ..................... . 165

ix
x Religion of the Bahais
.
14. The Bible in Baha’ism.................................................................... . 173
a) Interpretation of Rev. of St. John chap. 11.. ................. . 183
b) Interpretation of Rev. of St. John chap. 12.. ................. . 187
15 Worship in Baha’ism.. ................................................................... . 191
a) Congregational prayer.. ......................................................... . 193
b) Private prayer.. .......................................................................... . 195
c) Ceremonial ablutions and fasting.. ................................... . 197
d) Prayers composed by Baha’u’llah.. .................................. . 198
e) The marriage service.. ............................................................ . 199
f) Hyms.. .............................................................................................. . 200
16. Shouqí Effendí and the Baha’í constitution.. ...................... . 203
17. Baha’í missionary methods.. ...................................................... . 215
18. Baha’ism and the future............................................................... . 227
Appendices
I The numbers 19 and 9 in the Babí-Baha’í
Religion.. .............................................................................................. . 237
II ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s contradictory accounts of the
life of Baha’u’llah.. ........................................................................... . 239
III Queen Marie of Rumania and the Princess Ileana........... . 243
IV The problem of the Baha’í “inquirer”.. .................................. . 245

Index.. ............................................................................................................. . 249

Appendix IV
The Problem of the Baha’í “Inquirer” 235
Index 239
Bibliography
The following list of books and manuscripts is a catalogue of the
literature in the possession of the present author rather than a
complete Bibliography of Baha’í books. For a fairly complete
catalogue of printed works in European languages, the reader is
referred to the late Prof. Browne’s book, “Materials for the Study of
the Babí Religion”. The abbreviations used when giving references
are given in parentheses.
(a) Arabic and Persian works
Baha’u’llah Al Kitábu’l-Aqdas—the complete text of
the “Aqdas”, followed by a selection of
Tablets, dated AH 1308. (Aqdas)
Súratu’l-Haykal—a collection of selected
Tablets dated AH 1308. (Sur.)
Kitáb-i Mustatáb-i Íqán—a controversial
work in support of the Bab’s claim.
Dated AD 1900. (Iqan.)
Zekru’l-Asrár—better known by the title
of Haft Vádí. A book of pure Sufism,
dated AH 1312. (Haft Vadí.)
Kalimát-i Maknúneh—undated. Sufí in
character, translated into English under
title of “Hidden Words”, and contained
in the volume “Baha’í Scriptures”. Much
quoted by Baha’ís. (Kalimat.)

xi
xii Religion of the Bahais
Ad‘iyat-i Hazrat-i Mahbúb—a book of
Prayers, contains also Tablets to be read
at weddings, and various other Tablets,
among them Baha’u’llah’s Will and
Testament. (Ad‘iyat.)1
‘Abdu’l-Baha An-Núru’l-Abhá fí Mofávezát-i ‘Abdu’l-
Bahá—talks by ‘Abdu’l-Baha on a
variety of subjects. One section devoted
to Christian subjects. Leyden, Holland,
1908. Held in high esteem, and much
quoted by Baha’ís. English version
available, for which see below. (Mof.)
Mokáteb-i ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Vol. I, Cairo,
1910.
Mokáleb-i ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Vol. II, Cairo, AH
1330
Mokáteb-i ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Vol. III, Cairo,
1921.
The collected Tablets of ‘Abdu’l-Baha.
(Mok.)
Khatábát-i Hazrat-i ‘Abdu’l-Bahá fí
Eurobá va Ameríká, Vol. I—a record of
‘Abdu’l-Baha’s addresses delivered in
the West. Khat.)
Javábnámeh-i Jám’iyatta’l-Abhá bercue
cjrá’i-i Sulh-i ‘umúmí—‘Abdu’l-Baha’s
peace teachings. Cairo, AH 1337
Badí‘u’llah Al-Ta‘límu’l-Bahá’íyat—a tract printed at
Haifa bearing no date, dealing with the
Mohammad ‘Ali dispute. (Ta‘lím.)2
Mírza Abu’l-Fadl Kilábu’l-Fará’ed—a reply to certain
Gulpayganí criticisms of the Baha’ís by Sheikh
‘Abdu’s-Salam. Cairo, AH 1315 (Fara’ed.)

Ad‘iyah-i-Ḥaḍrat-i-Maḥbúb.
at-Ta‘límu’l-Baha’íyat?
Bibliography xiii
Mírza Abu’l-Fadl Kilábu’l-Fará’ed—a reply to certain
Gulpayganí criticisms of the Baha’ís by Sheikh
‘Abdu’s-Salam. Cairo, AH 1315 (Fara’ed.)
Kitábu’d-Duraru’l-Bahá’íyat. Cairo, AH
1318
Sharh-i Aiát-i Mo’arrakheh va Fazlu’l-
Khatáb1—devoted to the interpretation
of Bible passages. Shanghai, 1925.
Rasáleh-i Istidlálíyeh—written in
support of ‘Abdu’l-Baha. The Bible
interpreted. Cairo, AH 1314 (Rasaleh)
Sheikh Munázerátu’d-Díníyeh—a handbook for
Mohammadu’n Baha’í missionaries containing
Nateq questions and answers to be used in
dealing with Moslems, Jews, Christians,
Zoroastrians, Babís and atheists. Vol. 1,
Cairo, AH 1342 (Mun.)
Aqa Mírza Na‘ím Kulliyát-i Na‘ím—a book of Baha’í verse.
Isfahaní Bombay 1927. (Kulliyat.)
Hají Mohammad Táríkh-i Shukadá i Yezd—a Baha’í
Taher Malmírí account of the Yezd persecution. Cairo,
AH 1342 (Shuhada’.)
Mírza Mahmud Kitáb-i Badá’í’ul-Ásár, Vol. I, Bombay,
Zarqani 1914.
Kitáb-i Badá’í’ul-Ásár, Vol. II, Bombay,
1921.
These two volumes contain a full
account of ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s visits to the
West.
Mírza ‘Abdu’l- Al-Kavákebu’d-Duarriyeh—the official
Hosein Avareh Baha’í history. Cairo, 1923. (Avareh.)
Mahfel-i Khademín- Durús-i Masá’el-i Táríkhí ráje’be Amr-i
i Atfal Bahá’í va sá’ir-i shará’i’t-Muqaddas-i
Eláhí—a teacher’s handbook containing
instruction for children. Teheran, AH
1302. (Durus.)

Sharh-i-Ayat-i-Mu’arrakh wa Fadílu’l-Khitab.
xiv Religion of the Bahais
Anonymous Dalá’ilu’l-‘Erfán—interesting on account
of some interpretations of Bible
passages. Printed in Bombay in AH 1312
according to title-page, or 1313 according
to colophon. Author’s name in the
unreadable “Khatt-i Badí‘”.
Istekhráj az Mofávezát-i ‘Abdu’l-Bahá1—
a tract purporting to he a translation of
an excerpt from “Some Answered
Questions”—the English version of the
Mofávezát. The title is misleading, for
the tract is a translation of the article on
Baha’ism in the Encyclopaedia of
Larousse (Questions, p. vii, footnote),
and is in no sense an excerpt from the
Mofavezat. (Istekhraj.)
Kitáb-i Asráru’l-Gheibíya’l-Asbábu’l-
Madaniyat, Bombay, AH 1310. An English
version, entitled “The Mysterious Forces
of Civilization,” was published in
London in 1910.
Dars-i Akhláq—doureh-i avval va
dovvum—a teacher’s handbook
containing excerpts from the writings of
Baha’u’llah and ‘Abdu’l-Baha, short
Tablets, and explanations of some of the
“Aqdas” laws.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá va al-Bahá’íyat—a volume
of prose and verse by various writers, of
whom Mírza Abu’l Fazl is the most
important. (‘A.B. va B.)
(b) Manuscript literature
Mírza ‘Alí Commentary on Súrah Yusúf.
Mohammad, the Commentary on Súrah Kausar.
Bab

Istikhráj az Mufáwaḍát ‘Abdu’l-Bahá.
Bibliography xv
Baha’u’llah Kalimát-i Maknúneh. See above.
D’á’í Shafá’i—also contained in the
Ad‘iat, a prayer for healing which can be
used as a charm.
Aqa Mírza Nairn Baháríyeh-i Na’im—a selection of
Isfahaní poems.
Laura Clifford Dalírán-i Rabbání—a Persian translation
Barney of Miss Barney’s play “God’s Heroes”—a
drama with Qurratu’l-‘Ayn as heroine.
Translator’s name not given.
‘Abdu’l-Baha Qabáleh-i Nekáh—the Baha’í in
marriage contract and service, drawn up
by ‘Abdu’l-Baha, written by ‘Alí Akbar
Rohaní, and dated AH 1348 (Qabaleh.)
Kiláb men al-Bá qabl-i Há—a collection
of Tablets written by ‘Abdu’l-Baha.
Anonymous Durúsu’d-Díyánat—graded lessons for
children.
(c) Persian manuscripts published and
edited by the late Prof. E. G. Browne
‘Abdu’l-Baha Maqáleh-i Shakhsi-i Saiyáh—“Traveller’s
Narrative,” Vol. 1, Cambridge, 1891.
Mírza Janí Noqtalu’l-Káf—No. 15, Gibb Memorial
Series, Leyden and London, 1910.
Contains also an excellent Summary-
Index to the “Beyan,” and a scholarly
Introduction in English. This
Introduction has been published
separately in Persian under the title
Muqaddameh-i Noqtatu’l-Káf, Bombay,
AH 1329 (Noq.; Muq.)
xvi Religion of the Bahais
(d) Miscellaneous
Sálnámeh-i Bahá’í—Calendar for the
85th year, Beyanic reckoning. Also
contains a summary of Baha’í teaching, a
short selection of poems by Na‘ím, and
an account of the conversion to
Baha’ism of Queen Marie of Rumania.
Sálnámeh-i Bahá’í—Calendar for the
87th year of the Beyanic cycle.
Mahfel-i Rohaní-i Circular Letter to the Baha’í Assemblies
Haifa of the East dated May 1924—written in
support of Shouqí Effendí,1 and giving
an account of the activities of an
opponent of Shouqí.
Shouqí Rabbaní, the Tablets dated May, September, October
Guardian of the 1924; May, October and November 1925;
Cause June, July and October 1926; February
and August 1927; Khurdad 1304 and 1305.
(Persian dates are given when Tablets
are quoted in this book.)
Baha’í Publishing Akhbár-i Amrí—the News-Letter of the
Committee, National Spiritual Assembly of Persia.
Teheran Various numbers dated August 1924;
February, March and November 1928;
January and February, April and June
1929.
(e) English translations of Persian books
Prof. E. G. Browne Traveller’s Narrative, Vol. II—an
excellent translation of the Maqaleh-i
Saiyah, with copious notes. Cambridge
1891. (Trav.)
The New History of the Báb—a
translation of Mírza Hosein Hama-

Shawqí Afandí Rabbaní (1897–1957). His preferred spelling was Shoghi
Effendi.—M.W.T.
Bibliography xvii
Prof. E. G. Browne daní’s “Taríkh-i Jadíd”. The various
Appendices are particularly valuable to
the student of Bahr ism. Cambridge,
1893. (New Hist.)
Laura Clifford Some Answered Questions—the English
Barney version of the “Mofavezat,” on the whole
a faithful translation, but some minor
differences are noted in the text of this
book. (Questions.) Published by Kegan
Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd.,
London, 1908. Strikes, an Appendix to
the above. Chicago, 1913.
Horace Holley Bahá’í Scriptures—Selections from the
(Editor) writings of Baha’u’llah and ‘Abdu’l-Baha.
The Glossary is of no value, being full of
mistakes. (Scrip.)
(f) Works by American Bahá’ís
Horace Holley Bahai, the Spirit of the Age—chiefly
interesting as showing the tendencies in
Western Baha’í thought. The first part
of the book is devoted to an attempt to
give the prophets of the movement a
‘cosmic significance’. The Bab,
Baha’u’llah and ‘Abdu’l-Baha are
represented as a Cosmic Trinity—Love
(Bab), Will (Baha) and Knowledge
(‘Abdu’l-Baha). The historical passages
are of no value. Kegan Paul, 1921.
Myron H. Phelps Life and Teachings of Abbas Effendí —a
typical Baha’í history. (Phelps.)
Ruth White Abdul Baha and the Promised Age —an
account of two visits to Haifa. New
York, 1927.
xviii Religion of the Bahais
Ruth White The Bahai Religion and its Enemy, the
Bahai Organization—an attack on the
Baha’í Organization under Shouqí
Effendí. Interesting for the light thrown
on the state of affairs within the
movement. The Tuttle Company,
Rutland, Vermont, 1929. (Organization.)
Abdul-Baha’s Alleged Will is
Fraudulent—an Appendix to the above.
Contains expert’s report on photostat
copy of ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s Will. Tuttle
Company, 1930. (Appendix to
Organization.)
(g) Works by other writers
Prof. E. G. Browne Materials for the Study of the Bábí
Religion—gives an account of the spread
of the movement to the West. Excellent
Bibliography. Cambridge 1918.
(Materials.)
Dr Hermann Die Bábí-Behá’í—a scholarly inquiry into
Roemer the origin of the Babí-Baha’í religion.
Available only in the original German.
Invaluable to the student. Potsdam,
1912. Obtainable from the Quell-Verlag
der Ev. Gesellschaft, Stuttgart. (Roemer.)
(h) Magazines, tracts, etc.
Baha’í News Service The Bahá’í Magazine, Star of the West—a
monthly magazine published in
Washington, D.C. (S. of W.)
Reality Publishing Reality, a Bahá’í Magazine—only one
Corporation copy in the present author’s possession.
Bibliography xix
National Spiritual
Bahá’í News Letter—circulated only
Assembly of the
amongst Baha’ís. Published monthly, it
Baha’ís of the
contains much that was formerly
United States and
published in the Star of the West.
Canada
National Spiritual Bahai-Nachrichten, published monthly
Assembly of by the Baha’í Bureau, Stuttgart, for
Germany circulation amongst Baha’ís throughout
the world. The letter is in two sections,
German and English.
Baha’i Publishing The Spirit of World Unity—selections
Committee, New from the addresses and Tablets of
York ‘Abdu’l-Baha. Free.
Baha’i Publishing “9”—a free tract containing a summary
Society, Chicago of Baha’í teaching and extracts from the
writings of Baha’u’llah and ‘Abdu’l-Baha.
J. E. Esslemont What is a Baha’i?—a free tract
obtainable from the Baha’í Reading
Room, Walmar House, Regent Street,
London.
(i) General
United States Bahá’ís, Census of Religious Bodies,
Government 1926—of genuine interest in view of the
Printing Office exaggerated reports current in the East.
Lord Curzon Persia, Vol. I.
A. E. Garvie Christian Doctrine of the Godhead.
(Garvie.)
Thomas Patrick
Dictionary of Islam.
Hughes
H. R. Mackintosh The Christian Experience of Forgiveness.
(Mackintosh.)
xx Religion of the Bahais
Sir William Muir The Caliphate, its Rise, Decline and Fall.
H. Maurice Relton Some Postulates of a Christian
Philosophy. (Relton.)
George Sale The Koran
Edward Sell The Faith of Islam. (Sell.)
W. St. Clair-Tisdall The Original Sources of the Qor’an.
N. P. Williams The Ideas of the Fall and of Original Sin.
The Mahdí in Islám
It is commonly, but wrongly, held that Islam presents a united
front to its opponents, and that there is a real unity in Islam which
is lacking in Christianity. We, as Christians, are deeply conscious of
our divisions, and are really desirous of seeing reunion made
possible, but no such desire is found among Moslems, for the
simple reason that the hatred and bitterness engendered when
Islam first became divided have perpetuated themselves in the
Moharram ceremonies of the Shí‘ah sect.
The Sunní-Shí‘ah schism can truly be said to be the continuation
in a new field of an old feud between two rival factions which was
ancient history in Mecca when Mohammad was born.
Somewhere about AD 440, Koshai, a member of the Qoreish
tribe, acquired for his family the guardianship of the Ka‘bah, the
central shrine of Arabian idolatry, and, after he had brought
together some of the scattered families of the Qoreish tribe, and
had made some improvements in the city, he had become, in virtue
of the dignities connected with the custody of the Ka‘bah and the
pilgrimage to it, the chief spiritual and temporal ruler of Mecca.
After his death there were many disputes among his descendants,
and eventually the

2 Religion of the Bahais
various offices were divided among his grandchildren. The
prerogative of providing food and water for the pilgrims passed to
Hashim, and the leadership in war to ‘Abdu’l-Shams. Hashim was
succeeded by his son ‘Abdu’l-Muttaleb, and, although he met with
much opposition from Umaiyah, the son of ‘Abdu’l-Shams, yet he
managed to retain his position as head of the Qoreish tribe,
Mohammad was a lineal descendant of Hashim, whilst his ablest
opponent in Mecca was Abu Sofian, a grandson of Umaiyah, who
submitted to Mohammad the day before the capture of Mecca, and
thus brought into Islam the element of factional rivalry which was
in the Khalifate of Othman to end in civil war, and to lead to the
division of Islam into the two great sects of Sunnis and Shi‘ahs. The
Sunnis accepted the Umaiyah succession to the Khalifate in the
person of Mu‘awíyah, accepting the principle that the Khalif is
elected by the people, but the Shi‘ahs restrict the right of
succession to the Hashimites, and so we find the old pre-Islamic
factional rivalry that divided Mecca continued in Islam in the
struggle between ‘Alí the descendant of Hashim and Mu‘awíyah the
descendant of Umaiyah. We are not concerned with all the points
of difference between the Sunní and Shí‘ah beliefs, but it is very
essential that we should understand the Shí‘ah doctrine of the
Khalifate. The Shi‘ahs give the title of Imams to their Khalifs, the
first of whom was ‘Alí, and they do not acknowledge the first three
Khalifs, Abu Bekr, Omar and Othman, but regard them as usurpers.
Their contention is that the Imams are divinely appointed. Before
the creation of the world, the “Nur-e Mohammadí”—Light of
Mohammad—was created from the Divine Light, but
1. The Mahdí in Islam 3
first appeared in the world with Mohammad, from whom it passed
on to the true Imams, who alone are the lawful successors of the
Prophet. The true Imams, who are ‘Alí and his successors, are, like
the Prophet, sinless and immaculate. The Imamate is therefore not
an office in Shí‘ah Islam, but a fundamental article of faith.
One other consequence of this schism must now be
mentioned—one that is of supreme importance to our theme—
namely, different beliefs about the Mahdí. Both Sunnis and Shi‘ahs
believe in the, Mahdí, the Guided One who is to come, but whereas
the Sunnis are content to know him simply as the Promised One
who will come in the latter days before the return of Christ (who,
according to the Traditions, will return to earth and revive true
religion), the Shi‘ahs claim him as a descendant of ‘Alí, who has
already appeared on earth as an Imam.
The Shí‘ah belief in the Imamate and their doctrine of the Mahdí
are so inextricably bound up that they must be considered
together. The Shi‘ahs declare that the Mahdí has already appeared
on earth and that he did not die, but became “hidden”, leaving his
followers and taking up his abode in the fabulous city of Jabelsa,
and that he will appear again at the end of the world and rule. But
who is the Mahdí? On this vexed question Shí‘ah Islam has become
divided into numerous sects, all holding different views as to the
Mahdí. This will best be seen by following very briefly the
succession of the Twelve Imams.
According to Shí‘ah teaching, ‘Alí was succeeded by his son
Imam Hasan, who, say they, was murdered as a result of political
intrigue (but historical probability
4 Religion of the Bahais
would suggest a harem intrigue), and he was succeeded by his
brother Imam Hosein, who was slain at Kerbela in an inglorious
attempt to seize the Khalifate. It was at his death that Shí‘ah Islam
first became divided. Whilst some followed ‘Alí, the son of Hosein,
others followed Mohammad Khanifeh, the third son of ‘Alí ibn Abu
Taleb, and brother of Hasan and Hosein, regarding him as the
Imam. They declare that he did not die, but became “hidden” and
that he will come again as Mahdí. When ‘Alí ibn Hosein died, his
followers hailed his son, Mohammad ibn ‘Alí ul Baqer, as Imam, and
he, again, was regarded by some of his followers as Mahdí, though
tradition tells us that he himself denied it. After his death the claim
was once more made for his son, Ja‘far ibn Mohammad us-Sadeq,
but he again denied that he was Mahdí. It was at his death that the
most important schism in Shí‘ah Islam took place. He had four
sons, the eldest of whom was called Isma‘íl. Isma‘íl predeceased his
father, and the succession came to Musa. It would seem that the
succession of Musa had been recognised by the majority of the
Shi‘ahs during the lifetime of Isma‘íl, for the latter was caught in a
state of drunken intoxication, and was disinherited by his father.
Some of Isma‘íl’s followers remained loyal to his family even after
his death, and so when Imam Ja‘far died they claimed the
succession for Mohammad, the son of Isma‘íl, and seceded. They
declare that after Imam Ja‘far there begins a succession of “hidden”
Imams, and that there never can be a time when the world is
without an Imam. There is always an Imam in the world, though he
may be in seclusion. These followers of Isma‘íl are called the
Isma‘íliyah.
1. The Mahdí in Islam 5
The followers of Musa passed by the claims of Isma‘íl, only to
become divided themselves at the death of their leader, for whilst
one section claimed that Musa was the Mahdí, the majority
accepted the succession of his son, Imam Reza ibn Musa. In Baha’í
literature much importance, is given to a tradition that Imam Reza,
when questioned as to the coming of the Mahdí, declared that it
would not be in accordance with popular expectation. Another
schism now took place, for the Sufis regard Imam Reza as the last of
the Imams, and do not accept his successors. The main body,
however, accepted the succession of his son, Imam Mohammad
Javad, and of his son, ‘Alí ibn Mohammad, and, later still, of Hasan
‘Askarí ibn ‘Alí. Imam Hasan ‘Askarí was succeeded by his son,
Mohammad ibn Hasan ‘Askarí, better known as Mohammad Abu’l-
Qasem, the Twelfth Imam. According to Shí‘ah teaching, he is the
Mahdí, and having become “hidden”, dwells in one of the two
fabulous cities, Jabelsa and Jabulqa. There would seem to be
considerable doubt as to whether the Twelfth Imam ever existed
outside the minds of those who accepted him. Ja‘far, the brother of
Imam Hasan ‘Askarí, declared that the latter died heirless, for
which piece of gratuitous information the Shi‘ahs have bestowed
upon him the somewhat opprobrious title of Ja‘far Kazzab (Ja‘far
the Liar). It will be seen later that Baha’í writers are not slow to
take full advantage of this weakness in the Shí‘ah tradition, and,
when it suits their purpose, they deny that there ever was such a
person as Imam Mohammad Abu’l-Qasem. Finally, it behoves us to
consider the origin of the Sheikhí sect, from which Babism derived
its origin.
6 Religion of the Bahais

Abu’l-Qasem, the Twelfth Imam, succeeded his father in AH
1260, and for a period of sixty-nine years he is said to have held
intercourse with his followers through a succession of men who
were called “Doors”, and who acted as mediums of communication
between the secluded Imam and his followers. At the end of this
period, the Twelfth Imam disappeared altogether, and the last of
the “Doors” did not appoint a successor, but declared that “God
hath a purpose which He will accomplish.” The Sheikhí doctrine
revived the office of “Bab”, or “Door”, and thus made possible the
claim of Mírza ‘Alí Mohammad.
Sheikh Ahmad Ahsa’í, the founder of the Sheikhí sect, was a
devout ascetic, who held himself to be under the direct guidance of
the Imams. He was born in AD 1753 (Avareh says AD 1743), but we
have no authoritative account of his life. The following facts are
taken from an account given to the late Professor E. G. Browne by a
Persian friend, and published by him in his edition of the
“Traveller’s Narrative”.1
Sheikh Ahmad was a native of Bahrein who left his native land
and went to Irak (i.e., Kerbela and Najaf, the Shí‘ah Shrines) at the
direction of his spiritual guide, and, taking up residence there, soon
became famous as a teacher. His fame having reached Persia, he
was invited to visit that country by Fath ‘Ali Shah, and accordingly
went to Teheran, thence to Kermanshah, and, finally proceeding to
Yezd, he remained there twelve years. He performed the
pilgrimage to Mecca several times, and on the last occasion of doing
so he died two stages from Medina, at which town he was buried.

Vol. II, Note E.
1. The Mahdí in Islam 7

The account given in the “Qasasu’l-‘Ulama”, which is quoted by
Prof. Browne, differs somewhat from the above in that it states that
he came direct from Bahrein to Yezd, where he stayed some time
before going on to Kermanshah. From the latter place he
proceeded to Kerbela, where he finally took up his abode.
Returning to Persia on a visit towards the end of his life, he passed
through Qazvín, where he visited the house of Hají Mulla Taqí, the
maternal uncle and father-in-law of the famous Qurratu’l-‘Ayn.
Avareh, whilst mentioning this visit to Qazvín, is content with the
bare statement that whilst on a journey to Persia Sheikh Ahmad
met Fath ‘Alí Shah, and that he visited and resided at Yezd,
Khorasan, Teheran and Kermanshah, and that Fath ‘Alí Shah was so
taken with him that none dared utter a word against him. Sheikh
Ahmad died in AD 1826.
It remains for us to consider very briefly the Sheikhí doctrine of
the “Fourth Support” (Kokn-i Raba’). The Shi‘ahs hold that the
“Supports” (Arkan) or essential principles of religion are five in
number, viz.: (1) Belief in the Unity of God; (2) Belief in the Justice
of God; (3) Belief in Prophethood; (4) Belief in the Imamate; (5)
Belief in Resurrection. The Sheikhís, however, accept only three of
these—namely, the first, the third and the fourth. They decline to
accept the other two, on the ground that they are not separate
principles, but, according to them, the second is included in the
first, and the fifth in the third. To the three principles that they
accept they add a fourth—namely, that there must always be
among the Shi‘ahs some one Perfect Man, whom they call the
“Shí‘ah-i Kamel”—the “Perfect Shí‘ah”—who is the medium
8 Religion of the Bahais
or channel of grace between the absent Imam and his followers.
The title “Fourth Support” belongs therefore to this article of belief,
and was not originally used as a designation of the office of the
medium. In course of time, however, the title has come to be used
of the medium, and not of the article of faith. Thus we see that the
Sheikhí doctrine of the “Fourth Support” is the revival of the old
teaching of the “Doors”. This prepared the way for the coming of
Mírza ‘Alí Mohammad Shírazí, and when he declared himself to be
the “Bab”1 there were many among the Sheikhís who accepted him.
Babí and Baha’í historians give Sheikh Ahmad Ahsa’í the title of
“Mobasher-e Zuhur”, or “Evangelist of the Manifestation”.
Avareh declares that Sheikh Ahmad had repeatedly warned his
disciples that they should watch for the coming of the Promised
One, but he makes no attempt to substantiate his statements, and
as the title of “Fourth Support” means, in the language of the
Sheikh, a doctrine or an article of belief, and not a person, Avareh’s
statement cannot be accepted without confirmation.2
There is one other aspect of Sheikh Ahmad’s teaching which has
a bearing on our theme. Avareh tells us that whilst he accepted the
Shí‘ah doctrine of the person of the Twelfth Imam being the Mahdí,
Sheikh Ahmad did not interpret that doctrine as do the Shí‘ah
theologians, but differed from them in his teaching as to the return
of the Mahdí. He did not believe in the existence of the fabulous
city of Jabelsa, but declared that the abode of the Promised One is
in heaven, and not

“Door”.
Avareh’s reliability as a historian will be discussed in the next chapter.
1. The Mahdí in Islam 9
on earth. “The grave from which the ‘Qa’em’ will rise is the grave of
his mother’s womb.” 1 Here again Avareh gives no references, but,
whether this formed part of the Sheikh’s teaching or not, the
argument is greatly used by Baha’í writers.
Sheikh Ahmad was followed by Hají Seyyid Kazem of Resht,
Prof. Browne gives us the following facts concerning his life. A
native of Resht, when twelve years old he was living at Ardabíl,
near the shrine of Sheikh Safí’ud-Dín Ishaq, a descendant of the
seventh Imam. One night in a dream he was directed to put himself
under the guidance of Sheikh Ahmad Ahsa’í, who was then residing
at Yezd. Accordingly, he proceeded thither, and enrolled himself
among the disciples of the Sheikh. Eventually he attained such
eminence that at the death of Sheikh Ahmad he was recognized by
all as the leader of the Sheikhí School. He died in Baghdad in 1843
or 1844.
Hitherto the Sheikhís had been a united body, but they now
became divided. Seyyid Kazem had not nominated a successor;
indeed, according to Babí-Baha’í historians, he had hinted that the
traditional state of things under which he and his master Sheikh
Ahmad had assumed the guidance of the faithful was with his
declining life drawing to a close, and that a brighter light was about
to shine forth from the horizons of the spiritual world. The writer
of the “Taríkh-e Jadíd”2 declares that during the last two years of
his life Hají Seyyid Kazem had restricted his discourses to
discussing the promised Proof, the signs of his coming and their
explanation, declaring that the Coming One

“Qa’em” is a title commonly given to the Mahdí, and means “He who
will arise”.
“New History”.
10 Religion of the Bahais
would be a Hashimite by birth, and not versed in the learning of
men. Mírza Janí, too, tells us that Seyyid Kazem had made known
the signs whereby the “Bab” might be recognised. He even goes so
far as to assert that the Seyyid had designated Mírza ‘Alí
Mohammad more specifically as the Coming Proof, but as Mírza Janí
bases this statement on a curious coincidence rather than on any
definite statement of the Seyyid’s, it has little historical value.1
Nor does the statement of the writer of the “Taríkh-e Jadíd”
increase our confidence in the assertion of Avareh that Sheikh
Ahmad had warned his disciples to be on the watch for the coming
of the promised Proof, if Seyyid Kazem, who survived his master by
seventeen years, did not until the last two years of his life make
that all-important subject the centre of his teaching. Avareh makes
another remarkable statement which deserves to be mentioned.
He declares that Hají Seyyid Kazem had three classes of disciples:
(1) those in distant towns and villages who were attracted by the
fame of his teachings, but had no opportunity of attaining to any
real knowledge of them; (2) those who were privileged to attend
his lectures but did not enjoy his friendship and confidence; (3)
those who belonged to the privileged inner circle of his disciples
and enjoyed his full confidence, nothing being withheld from them.
This inner circle, according to Avareh, accepted the Bab to a man.
That the Bab had visited Seyyid Kazem we know, and Avareh
therefore implies that the Seyyid had recognized him as the Coming
One, and had made known his discovery to this favoured inner
circle. In the next chapter we shall see that Avareh makes this

Vide “New History”, pp. 340 ff.
1. The Mahdí in Islam 11
statement in more explicit terms, and definitely declares the
Sheikhí chiefs to be but heralds of the Bab. Baha’ís to-day definitely
regard them as such, and hold them in high respect, giving them the
title of “Do Najm-e Sate”.1

Arabic Najman Sati‘an, Persian Du Najm-i-Sati‘, “The Two Bright Stars”.
The coming of the Báb

The discovery by the late Prof. E. G, Browne of a copy of the
“Noqtatu’l-Kaf” in the National Library, Paris, in the spring of 1892
was an event of far-reaching importance to all students of
Baha’ism. It is to this discovery that we owe the fact that to-day we
are in a position to trace the development of the Babí-Baha’í
movement from its very beginning. The writer of this book was
Mírza Janí, a native of Kashan in Persia, who was himself martyred
in the year AH 1268 (AD 1852), two years after the death of the Bab.
He had been acquainted with all the leading Babís, including Mírza
Yahya Subh-i Ezel, Qurratu’l-‘Ayn, Baha’u’llah and the Bab himself,
and was therefore well qualified to write the history of the
movement. Writing at a time when Babism was as yet undivided,
and suppression of the truth was unnecessary, Mírza Janí is our one
authority for the history of the movement up to the death of the
Bab, and the events of the two years that immediately followed. Its
importance cannot be exaggerated, for, as we shall see in the
course of this chapter, the histories which succeeded it so alter and
amend the facts that they cannot be regarded as histories, and must
be classed as polemical works. In this chapter it will be shown how
the history of the

14 Religion of the Bahais
movement has been changed gradually by a succession of writers,
but the reasons for these changes will be considered in a later
chapter. The “Noqtatu’l-Kaf” was superseded by the “Taríkh-i
Jadíd”,1 but although this history changes and alters and adds to the
“Noqta-tu’l-Kaf”, yet it did not meet with the approval of Baha’í
chiefs at Acre, so it did not get beyond the manuscript stage. Here
again we owe a debt of gratitude to the late Prof. Browne for
preserving this manuscript for us, and for publishing an English
translation with excellent notes, to which the reader is referred for
an account of the origin of the manuscript and the events that led to
its composition. This was superseded by another history, the
“Traveller’s Narrative”, written by ‘Abbas Effendí (‘Abdu’l-Baha),
which has also been published by Prof. Browne. This was for a time
the “official” history, but later it was felt to be inadequate, and
Avareh undertook the task of writing a new and completer work.
This new history, called the “Kavakebu’d-Durríyeh”2 is now
regarded as the official history. The author, Mírza ‘Abdu’l-Hosein
Avareh, has since left Baha’ism, and now occupies himself with
writing books against his old religion. In one of these books, the
“Kashfu’l-Hial”,3 he declares that this history was manufactured at
the request of ‘Abdu’l-Baha. Furthermore, in a letter to the present
author Avareh declares that he wrote only what he was told to, and
declares that “one half of the contents of that book is made up of
stories manufactured by Baha himself and by Baha’ís.” There are
other smaller histories which need not be mentioned here, but
which will be introduced when the need arises.

Nuqṭatu’l-Káf, “The Point of the Kaf”. Táríkh-i-Jadíd (“New history”) or
New History of Mírzá ‘Alí Muḥammad the Báb, by Mírza Husayn of
Hamadan.
al-Kawákib al-Durríya.
Kashf al-Hiyal, “Uncovering the Deceptions” by ‘Abdu’l-Husayn-i-Ayatí
(Avarih).
2. The coming of the Bab 15
As to the value of these various histories, the reader can form his
own conclusions from the narrative which follows.
There is some doubt as to the year of the Bab’s birth. Both
‘Abdu’l-Baha and Avareh agree in fixing the date as the first of
Moharram AH 1235, which corresponds with October 20, AD 1819
(but Avareh has October 30). Mírza Yahya Subh-i Ezel’s statement
to Prof. Browne1 that the Bab was twenty-four and entering on his
twenty-fifth year at the time of his Manifestation, agreeing as it
does with the Bab’s own statement in the “Seven Proofs”—if he
really was the author of this work2—would seem to fix the date of
his birth as the first of Moharram AH 1236.3 Mírza Janí has very
little to tell us of the youth of the Bab, but he states that he was
remarkable even as a boy, and he relates a story to illustrate the
uncanny knowledge he possessed.4 The writer of the “Taríkh-i
Jadíd” is silent on the subject, but Avareh relates numerous stories
of the Bab’s wonderful boyhood. 5
Mírza ‘Alí Mohammad, the Bab, was the son of Seyyid
Mohammad Reza and Fatimeh Begum, both of whom could, we are
told, trace their descent from the Imam Hosein. His father having
died whilst the Bab was still a child, his maternal uncle, Mírza
Seyyid ‘Alí, a merchant, took the child to his home in Shíraz, and
here it was that he spent his boyhood. The only real interest
attached to his boyhood is concerned with the question of his
education. As is well known, Moslems in general claim that
Mohammad was illiterate (though Rabbi Geiger declares that the
word “ummi” means

“Trav.”, Vol. II, notes.
Cf. “Materials”, p. 204.
AD October 9, 1820. The Bab was born on 1 Muharram 1235, 20 October
1819.—M.W.T.
Noq., p. iii.
Avareh, pp. 31 ff.
16 Religion of the Bahais
not illiterate, but Gentile, as opposed to Jew), and that the Qor’an
must therefore be regarded as a miracle. Both the Bab and
Baha’u’llah claim that their writings are proof of their mission, and
the same claim is made on behalf of ‘Abdu’l-Baha. The question is,
therefore, important. ‘Abdu’l-Baha tells us that the Bab attended no
school and was helped by no teacher,1 but this is not quite true, for
the Bab himself mentions the name of his teacher in the “Beyan”,
but declares himself devoid of formal learning. Avareh devotes a
chapter to Sheikh Mohammad, the Bab’s teacher, whom he calls
Sheikh ‘Abed (the Pious) on account of his great piety. In this
chapter he tells us that Sheikh ‘Abed was famed for his learning,
and was the best available teacher, whilst the Bab was his best
pupil.2 Indeed, the old man was so impressed with the wisdom of
the boy that when the latter declared his mission, he immediately
believed on him. Avareh also implies that the Bab remained in
school until he became of age (a very indefinite statement meaning
anything between the ages of fifteen and eighteen), when he was
taken to Bushire by his uncle. Mírza Janí tells us that the Bab was
eighteen years of age when this took place,3 so, if Avareh’s
statement is correct, he received a fair education. His knowledge of
Arabic was, however, poor, and was often called in question in later
years, so he can hardly be said to have received a good education.
When the Bab’s knowledge of Arabic Grammar is questioned,
Baha’ís generally declare that the Prophets are not tied down by
rules of grammar, but the latter are made by them. Historically an
argument

Mof., pp. 19 f.
Avareh, pp. 31 f.
Noq., p. 109.
2. The coming of the Bab 17
could be built on this answer which no Moslem could refute, for the
Qor’an is perfect not because it conforms to all the rules of Arabic
grammar and composition, but because the latter are based on
Qor’an usages. The Ezelí writer of “Hasht Behesht” gives a very
original reply to those who would criticize the Bab’s grammar; he
declares that Accidence and Syntax are two fixed habits from which
men have been freed in the Beyanic Dispensation, for these are the
“Harut and Marut” of the Qor’an.1 Both Avareh and Mírza Janí deny
that the Bab was a pupil of Seyyid Kazem of Resht in Kerbela, and
there seems no reason to doubt this statement, but in any case the
Bab was only a few months in Kerbela. It seems clear, therefore,
that the Bab was a man of very ordinary education, but of
considerable natural ability.
In Bushire the Bab became a partner in his uncle’s business, and
later, according to ‘Abdu’l-Baha, he started a business of his own.
Mírza Janí tells us that all the merchants were amazed at the skill of
one so young, and that he became famous for his piety and
generosity. But the fullest account is that given by Avareh, of which
the following is a summary. Whilst in Bushire, Mírza ‘Alí
Mohammad once more became the subject of popular attention on
account of his remarkable piety. Indeed, he spent most of his time
in prayer and meditation, to the detriment of his business. At this
time, too, he began to compose books and treatises on various
subjects, such as the coming of the promised “Proof”. He held the
doctrines of the Shí‘ah sect in high respect, even testifying to the
truth of the existence

“New Hist.”, p. 422. Harut and Marut are two angels said to be
imprisoned in a well in Babylon.
18 Religion of the Bahais
of the “Qa’em”, though it became evident later that his
interpretation of these doctrines differed from that of Moslems in
general. But most important of all is the statement that Avareh
here makes that in the course of his researches he discovered a
letter of the Bab’s own composition, and addressed to his uncle in
Shíraz, which bore the date of AH 1259, and from which it would
seem that Mírza ‘Alí Mohammad was already regarded by a certain
section of his acquaintances as the possessor of a unique “station”
or rank. The following purports to be a quotation from the said
letter. “The Cause is not yet ripe (of age), and the moment has not
yet arrived, therefore should anyone attribute to me opinions
contrary to the usual doctrines and beliefs of Islam both I and my
immaculate ancestors will be displeased with him, both here and in
the next world.”1 AH 1259 was the year of Seyyid Kazem’s death,
and it is generally held that the Bab first made his claim in the
following year in Shíraz,2 after the death of Seyyid Kazem. We have
already seen that the claim is generally made that Seyyid Kazem
had recognized him as the coming “Proof”, but Avareh strikes an
altogether new note when he declares that friends in Bushire had
begun to attribute a high station to him. Seyyid Kazem died in AH
1259, and it would be interesting to know whether this letter, if such
ever existed, was written previous to that event or afterwards.
Strange, then, that Avareh omits to mention this! And yet not
strange when we remember what Avareh tells us of his own
character as a historian.
Mírza Janí states that the Bab remained five years in Bushire,
and then gave up his business and proceeded to

Avareh, p. 36.
Noq., p. 110.
2. The coming of the Bab 19
Najaf, where he remained for about a year. Avareh gives a totally
different account of his movements, and declares that at the age of
twenty-two the Bab went to Shíraz to choose a wife, and shortly
afterwards married a girl named Khadíjeh Begum, who bore him a
son in the course of the following year. The child, to whom they
gave the name of Ahmad, died shortly afterwards, whereupon the
Bab decided to make a pilgrimage to Kerbela, where he remained a
few months.2 It would seem probable that Avareh is correct, in this
case, for we know from other sources that the Bab did get married
about this time, and that he had one son who died.3 Mírza Janí tells
us that the Bab remained some three months in Kerbela, and that
he occasionally attended the meetings held by Seyyid Kazem, and
he also tells us of the very respectful attitude that the latter
adopted towards him.4 Avareh is therefore not alone in declaring
that the Sheikhí leader regarded the Bab as his successor, but it is
not easy to understand why even Mulla Hosein of Bushraweyh, a
prominent Sheikhí, should demand proof before he would accept
Mírza ‘Alí Mohammad as his guide, nor is it easy to understand why
the Sheikhís scattered in search of a leader when Seyyid Kazem
died, if the latter really had pointed to Mírza ‘Alí Mohammad as his
successor.
From Kerbela the Bab returned to Bushire, where he remained
until a few months after the death of Seyyid Kazem, when he closed
his business and returned to Shíraz. In the following year, AH 1260,
on the 5th of Jamadiul-ula,5 he declared himself to be the Bab.

Noq., pp. 109 f.
Avareh, pp. 36 f.
“Trav.”, Vol. II, p. 250.
Noq., pp. 104 f.
May 23, 1844.
20 Religion of the Bahais
According to Mírza Abu’l-Fazl Gulpayganí, he published about this
time an article in an Egyptian magazine containing a Tradition in
which the name “Bab” was mentioned, and which people
interpreted in different ways. Some said that it meant the “Door
(Bab) of Knowledge”, others said it meant the “Door of Heaven”,
whilst a third opinion was that it meant the “Door of Truth”, and
this it was which led to Mírza ‘Alí Mohammad’s followers being
called “Babís”. Mírza Abu’l-Fazl is alone in making this statement,
and his purpose is not quite clear. Does he mean us to understand
that the title of “Babís” was given to the followers of Mírza ‘Alí
Mohammad through a misinterpretation of the latter’s claim?1 The
tendency amongst all Baha’í writers of a recent date is to declare
that the Bab from the very first claimed to be the Mahdí.2 In view of
these statements, the claim of Mírza ‘Alí Mohammad will be
considered before we proceed with the further history of his life.
We saw above that the Shí‘ah Moslems believe that the Twelfth
Imam became “hidden” in the year AH 260, and that for a period of
sixty-nine years he is said to have communicated with his followers
through a succession of four men. This period is called the “Lesser
Occultation” (Gheibat-i Sughra), and came to an end in AH 329,
when Abu’l-Hasan, the last of the four, refused to appoint a
successor. Then began the period known as the “Greater
Occultation” (Gheibat-i Kubra), when the Imam was completely cut
off from his followers. The title of “Bab” (Door, or Gate) was given
to each of the four men who had acted as mediums of
communication with the absent Imam during the

Vide “A.B. v. B.”, p. 8.
Avareh, p. 39.
2. The coming of the Bab 21
period of the Lesser Occupation. When the Sheikhí doctrine of the
“Fourth Support” revived the belief in the existence of a medium of
communication with the Imam, the title of “Bab” was also revived,
and it was given to both Sheikh Ahmad Ahsa’í and to his successor
Seyyid Kazem of Resht. Furthermore, the title had the sanction of
tradition, for in the Traditions it is recorded that Mohammad
himself applied it to ‘Alí, saying: “I am the City of Knowledge, and
‘Alí is the Door (Bab).” That this was the sense in which Mírza ‘Alí
Mohammad applied the title to himself cannot be doubted, for,
according to Mírza Janí, he quoted this very Tradition when asked
what was meant by the “Bab” during his examination by the mullas
at Tabríz.1 How did Mírza ‘Alí Mohammad come to make this claim?
Seyyid Kazem of Resht had died without nominating a successor,
and his disciples were looking, not for the coming of the Mahdí, but
for a successor to their late master. In short, they were looking for
another “Bab”. It was no accident that Mírza ‘Alí Mohammad first
made his claim to one of the Sheikhí leaders, as would seem from
the writings of most Baha’ís, rather was it significant of the true
nature of that claim. It definitely connected Babism with
Sheikhism, for Mírza ‘Alí Mohammad did not at first claim to be the
“Mahdí” of Shí‘ah Islam, but only to be the “Bab” for whom the
leaderless Sheikhís were searching. It would seem from Mírza
Janí’s account that Mírza ‘Alí Mohammad did at first consider the
possibility of declaring himself to be the “Mahdí” at Kufa, but as the
missionaries whom he had sent out were badly, and in some cases,
cruelly treated, he

Noq., p. 134.
22 Religion of the Bahais
changed his mind, and declared himself instead at Mecca, where his
claim soon became generally known, and he gives the narrative of
one who saw him there.1 Are we to understand from this that the
claim to be the “Mahdí” was actually made at Mecca? This can
hardly be the meaning, for Mírza Janí later tells us that this latter
claim was first made by the Bab in a letter which he wrote from his
prison in Chihrík to Mulla Sheikh ‘Alí (better known as Jenab-i
‘Azím) after the death of Hazrat-i Quddus.2 According to Mírza Janí,
there were three stages in the claim made by Mírza ‘Alí Mohammad.
First of all he was the “Bab”, or “Gate”, then he became the “Zekr” or
“Reminder”; then, thirdly, he became the “Noqteh” or “Point”. When
the Bab first made his claim in Shíraz and was accepted by Mulla
Hosein of Bushraweyh, he gave the latter the title of “Babu’l-Bab”
(Gate of the Gate), but later, when he himself became the “Zekr”, he
gave the title of “Bab” to Mulla Hosein. It would further seem that
for a time Mulla Mohammad ‘Alí of Barfurush (better known as
Hazrat-i Quddus) became the “Noqteh” (Point), and it was not until
his death that the Bab was recognized as the Mahdí. We shall have
cause to mention the claim of Hazrat-i Quddus again in more detail
during the course of this chapter, so no references need be given
here.
It would therefore seem to be fairly clear that Avareh’s
statement given above has no historical foundation, and that the
first claim made by Mírza ‘Alí Mohammad was a definite result of
the Sheikhí expectation. It is also interesting to note that the late
Prof. Browne has published a letter, which he declares to be
undoubtedly

Noq., p. 111.
ibid., p. 209.
2. The coming of the Bab 23
in the Bab’s own handwriting, and said to be written by the latter
towards the end of his life, in which he recants and denies that he
ever made any claim,1 but as the said letter does not materially
affect the issue, no further mention will be made of it.
In tracing the history of the movement, a certain amount of
repetition is unavoidable, and events which have already been
referred to must once again be mentioned here.
At the death of Seyyid Kazem of Resht, his disciples resorted to
the mosque at Kufa to seek guidance in the choice of a spiritual
director. They then dispersed each on his own way, Mulla Hosein
of Bushraweyh going to Shíraz, where he renewed acquaintance
with Mírza ‘Alí Mohammad, whom he had previously met at
Kerbela. To him the young man declared himself to be the Bab, but
Mulla Hosein would not accept him without some proof being given
first. The Bab then produced his Commentary on the Surah of
Joseph, and thus convinced the good man that he was indeed the
much-sought Master. As a result of his acceptance, the Bab
bestowed on him the title of “Babu’l-Bab”, and made him the “Harf-i
Avval”2 in the Babí hierarchy of nineteen, known as the “Hurufat-
Hayy”.3 Having made several important converts in Shíraz, and
dispatched missionaries provided with copies of the new sacred
books, on the verses or “signs” (ayat) of which he based his claim,
to the King and clergy of Persia, as well as to other Moslem lands,
the Bab set out for Mecca accompanied by his uncle, Seyyid ‘Alí, and
Mulla Mohammad ‘Alí of Barfurush.

“Materials”, p. 256.
First Letter.
“Letters of the Living”.
24 Religion of the Bahais

The first result of the Bab’s claim was to divide the Sheikhí sect
into two camps. Hitherto they had been united, but now one
section accepted the Bab, whilst the majority accepted Hají
Mohammad Kerím Khan as their leader, and became the Bab’s most
bitter opponents.
At Mecca the Bab’s claim soon became known, though how and
where there he made the claim we do not know. Avareh tells us
that the claim was openly made near the Ka‘bah, and that it soon
became the subject of general conversation.1 Modern Baha’í
writers of the American school have taken up this story with
enthusiasm, and worked it into a very dramatic scene. But they are
not content to say that the Bab here claimed to be the “Mahdí”:
they even declare that he foretold the coming of Baha’u’llah! “But
listen! What amazing news is this? For now, in tones as of a great
bell, the Preacher is announcing that He, Himself, has been sent by
God as a Herald, to prepare the way for the coming of a Great One,
still behind the Veil.”2 Such stories are not history, but,
unfortunately, they are the only accounts read by some people.
Avareh tells us that during the first five months following the
Bab’s declaration of his mission, eighteen Sheikhí leaders accepted
his claim, and that these became the “Letters of the Living”.3
Avareh is certainly wrong here, for Mírza Yahya Subh-i Ezel, who
was the fourth among the “Letters” in rank, could not possibly have
become a believer at this time, as will later be shown; but that the
Bab rapidly made disciples at first is a matter of little doubt.

Avareh, p. 43.
Florence E. Pinchon, “The Coming of the Glory”, S. of W., Vol. XIII, No. 10.
Avareh, p. 43.
2. The coming of the Bab 25

On arrival at Bushire in AH 1261 (AD 1845) the Bab sent
missionaries to Shíraz, whilst he himself remained at Bushire. One
of these missionaries was the famous Mulla Mohammad ‘Alí of
Barfurush, whilst another was Mulla Mohammad Sadeq, who is also
known as Jenab-i Muqaddas. Mírza Janí gives us but a brief account
of the events that took place in Shíraz, and though he does tell us of
the treatment meted out to these missionaries,1 yet his account of it
is only a casual reference. Mírza Hosein of Hamadan gives a far
fuller account, and, if we can accept his version it would seem that
the mullas did not complain without reason, for Mulla ‘Alí Akbar
Ardastaní, the third of the missionaries, acted as “mu‘ezzin” in the
mosque in which Mulla Mohammad ‘Alí used to perform the
prayers, and in the call to prayer he used to insert a new clause: “I
bear witness that ‘Alí Mohammad His servant is the Remnant of
God.”2 The mullas could hardly be expected to let such an
innovation be introduced without taking action, so they appealed
to the Governor.
We have many conflicting accounts of this period of the Bab’s
life, so that given by Mírza Janí will be used here, and any
departures from it will be noticed as they occur.
When the news arrived that the Bab was in Bushire, the
Governor of Shíraz sent twelve men to bring him to Shíraz in
chains. In Shíraz he was allowed to live at home, but orders were
given that after three days none were to be allowed to see him,
neither was he to leave the house except to go to the bath. He was
also prevented from writing or receiving letters. Yet, in spite

Noq., p. 113.
“New Hist.”, pp. 200 f.
26 Religion of the Bahais
of all these injunctions, men from near and far came to him with
questions, and a way was found to answer them. His opponents,
learning of this, informed the Governor, and on the latter’s
instructions, the house was one night raided. The Bab and his
uncle, Seyyid ‘Alí, were taken before the Governor, who addressed
them very discourteously, confiscated all their goods, inflicted the
bastinado on Seyyid ‘Alí, and committed the Bab to the custody of
the Chief Constable (“Darugha”). By far the most important event
in connection with the Bab’s stay in Shíraz was the conversion of
Seyyid Yahya of Darab. Mírza Janí, who knew Seyyid Yahya
personally, gives us the Seyyid’s own account of his conversion.
When news of the Bab’s claim was noised abroad, people were
constantly asking the Seyyid what he thought of the matter, so he
decided that he would see the Bab for himself before he gave an
opinion, and hence he went to Shíraz, where he became a convert to
the new faith.1 It is interesting to note that ‘Abdu’l-Baha declares
that Seyyid Yahya was delegated by the then King, Mohammad
Shah, to visit Shíraz and inquire into the matter of the Bab,2 whilst
Avareh goes still further, and declares that the Shah provided him
with a horse for himself, and also gave him the sum of one hundred
tomans in cash for expenses of the journey.3 There can be little
doubt but that the true story is that given by Mírza Janí, and that
the other story is an invention to add still further to the glory of the
Bab. In view of the Seyyid’s character, his conversion was in any
case a triumph for the Bab, but if the Seyyid were really the royal
messenger, how

Noq., pp. 120 ff.
“Trav.”, Vol. II, p. 7.
Avareh, pp. 52 f.
2. The coming of the Bab 27
much more remarkable would be that triumph! After his
conversion, Seyyid Yahya became an indefatigable missionary, and
we shall have cause to mention him again in the course of this
chapter. Yet another important convert made during this period
was Mulla Mohammad ‘Alí of Zanjan, who also became a prominent
Babí leader. He became a convert through reading some of the
Bab’s writings, and immediately started preaching the new
doctrine.
Whilst the Bab was confined in the Chief Constable’s house in
Shíraz an outbreak of the “White Plague” occurred, and the Chief
Constable’s son fell sick and was nigh unto death’s door. The Bab
prayed for him, and he recovered. As a result, the Chief Constable
believed in the Bab, and thus it was that the latter was enabled to
escape to Isfahan. Mírza Janí tells us of a number of remarkable
happenings in connection with this journey, which, however, need
not be recorded here. Sufficient it is to say that he credits the Bab
with the power to work miracles, and his history contains accounts
of many of these, whereas in later histories no mention is made of
them.
It would seem that the Bab reached Isfahan towards the
beginning of the summer of AD 1846, and sent word to Manuchihr
Khan, Mu‘tamadu’d-Dawla, the Governor of Isfahan, informing him
of his approach. The Governor sent word to the Imam Jum‘a of
Isfahan bidding him invite the Bab to his house. This the Imam
Jum‘a did, and so the Bab became his guest for the first part of his
stay at Isfahan. The most outstanding event of this period was the
gaining by the Bab of the Mu‘tamadu’d-Dawla’s friendship, for the
Georgian eunuch was a man of great power and influence. He
28 Religion of the Bahais
it was who tried to arrange a meeting between the Bab and the
chief mullas, and, when the latter became hostile, caused the Bab to
be lodged in his own garden. Mírza Janí tells us that he actually
offered to take the Bab to Teheran, and to obtain for him one of the
Shah’s daughters in marriage, and so put him in a position to make
his claim openly and fearlessly.1 The Bab refused this offer, and the
Governor then placed all his property and money at his disposal.
Shortly afterwards Manuchihr Khan died, and the Bab immediately
wrote to the Prime Minister, Mírza Aqasí, stating that the late
Governor had made over to him all his possessions, and demanding
that these should therefore be handed over to him; a request to
which the Prime Minister paid no attention whatever.2
The death of Manuchihr Khan brought with it a complete
change in the fortune of the Bab. Gurgín Khan, the acting-Governor
of Isfahan, sent for him, and, without even giving him an
opportunity to bid farewell to the wife he had recently married in
Isfahan, sent him from the town under escort. It is unnecessary to
give a full account of the journey, but it is important, because
henceforth the Bab remained a prisoner. He was first of all taken to
Maku, and whilst there he occupied himself in writing books, and
the “Seven Proofs”,3 as well as most of the “Beyan”, were now
written. From Maku he was moved to the castle of Chihrík, and it
was from there that he was summoned to appear before the ‘Ulama
(Mullas) of Tabríz, at which meeting Naseru’d-Dín Mírza, the then
Crown Prince, presided. Baha’í historians as a matter of policy
always exonerate the Shah and his sons from any complicity in the
Bab’s

Noq., pp. 118 f.
ibid., p. 119.
But see p. 14.
2. The coming of the Bab 29
death, but that was not the attitude of the original Babís towards
them. Mírza Janí in his account of the Bab’s Examination at Tabríz
refers to the Crown Prince by the opprobrious epithet of
“haramzadeh”,1 but ‘Abdu’l-Baha calls him “the heaven-cradled
Crown Prince”.2 As a result of this examination the punishment of
the bastinado was inflicted on the Bab, and he was sent back to
Chihrík. Shortly afterwards Mohammad Shah died, or, to quote the
more picturesque language of Mírza Janí, “Mohammad Shah went
to hell”,3 and Naseru’d-Dín Mírza was crowned as Shah in 1848 at
Teheran. About this time took place the conference of the Babí
chiefs at Badasht in Mazandaran. What exactly did happen at
Badasht we do not know, but from Mírza Janí’s account it would
seem that the conduct of the Babí chiefs scandalized some of their
followers even.4 The writer of the “Taríkh-i Jadíd” gives a
completely different story from that of Mírza Janí, and pictures the
Babís as going to Mazandaran to suffer martyrdom.5 ‘Abdu’l-Baha
does not even mention the name of Badasht, but Avareh declares
that the purpose of the Conference was two-fold—to effect the
Bab’s rescue, and to consider what attitude must be taken towards
the teachings of Islam.6 Avareh further tells us that it was at this
conference that Baha’u’llah first became prominent and his
authority was first recognized, but there is no historical
justification for this statement, as is evident from comparison with
the narratives of earlier writers. The conduct of the Babí chiefs
provided some justification for the charge made against them that
they held their goods

Bastard.
Noq., p. 137, and “Trav.”, Vol. II, p. 20.
Noq., p. 138.
ibid., pp. 144 ff.
“New Hist.”, p. 47.
Avareh, p. 127.
30 Religion of the Bahais
and even their women in common, and the speech of Hazrat-i
Quddus as recorded by Mírza Janí1 would seem to assert that the
Bab has the right of disposal of all property of his followers, and
even of their women-folk. He would also seem to assert that the
Bab had given to him the famous woman Qurratu’l-‘Ayn, for that is
the obvious meaning of the sentence “even as the Master who hath
given his servant and his handmaid to one another.”2 It was at this
conference that Mulla Mohammad ‘Alí of Barfurush first took the
title of “Hazrat-i Quddus”, and by this title, we are told, he intended
to signify that he was a “return” of the Prophet Mohammad.3 The
meeting at Badasht ended in disorder, for a number of Babís,
disgusted at the conduct of their chiefs, left, and the inhabitants of
the district, attracted by the continually increasing noise in the
camp, attacked the Babís and plundered them.4
We cannot in the course of this chapter give a full account of the
insurrections that broke out soon after this conference in different
parts of the country, but it is necessary to correct many wrong
impressions that are current, due chiefly to the “idealized” histories
written by Baha’ís. Insurrections broke out in three places—at
Mazandaran, Níríz, and Zanjan. A study of Mírza Janí’s history
shows that in all three cases the conduct of the Babís was the direct
cause of the trouble. Much is made of the cruelty with which they
were treated, and of the treachery on the part of the Government
officers, which terminated the insurrections at all three places, and
although nothing can justify the severity

Noq., pp. 151 f.
ibid., p. 152.
ibid., p. 153.
ibid., p. 154.
2. The coming of the Bab 31
with which they were treated, it must yet be borne in mind that the
Babís, too, committed many atrocities. In Mazandaran they sacked
a village called Deh-i Nazer Khan, slaying one hundred and thirty
persons and carrying away sufficient provision for two years. This
severe punishment was in their opinion merited by the fact that the
villagers had previously made professions of faith, and were
therefore to be accounted renegades.1 How cruel they could be is
again clearly seen from their treatment of Farrukh Khan at Zanjan.
He had been, or had pretended to be, a Babí, but he took up arms
against them, and was captured by them. They revenged
themselves on him by flaying him alive and then roasting him. 2 It
must also be borne in mind that the Babís were definitely hostile to
the Government, and were determined to set up a theocracy in
Persia, as will be more clearly seen in the next chapter.
There could be but one result of these open rebellions in
different parts of the country, and in 1850, on July 8, the Bab was
put to death at Tabríz, together with a young disciple named Mírza
Mohammad ‘Alí, a native of Zanvaz near Tabríz.
The next event of any importance was the attempt made in 1852
to murder Naseru’d-Dín Shah, in which a number of Ba bís took
part. As Mírza Janí himself perished in the persecution which
followed, we are deprived of his account of this event, and are
compelled to revert to books written by Baha’ís. The accounts they
give are so varied that it is impossible to know the truth. Avareh
declares that the plot was hatched by about twenty Babís, and that
six took part in the attempt,3 whilst Mírza Hosein of Hamadan
declares that

Noq., pp. 161 f.
“New Hist.”, p. 155 n.
Avareh, pp. 313 f.
32 Religion of the Bahais
the attempt was made by “two or three ignorant and uninstructed
men, impelled by the promptings of the devil, and their own selfish
passions.”1 ‘Abdu’l-Baha gives yet another account, for he declares
that the attempt was made by a young man named Sadeq, who,
horrified by the execution of the Bab, to whom he was very
devoted, became obsessed with the idea of revenge, and being
ignorant of the fact that the Bab was put to death without the
knowledge of the Shah, he determined to kill the latter.2 The
immediate result of this “great error and grave presumption and
crime”, as it is called by ‘Abdu’l-Baha, was a severe persecution of
the Babís, and a large number of them were put to death with
fiendish cruelty. One of the victims was the famous Qurratu’l-‘Ayn,
mentioned above in connection with the Badasht Conference, and
with a brief account of her life this chapter shall close.
This remarkable woman was one of the most famous of the
disciples of the Bab, and was one of the “Letters of the Living”. She
is said to have visited Kerbela during the life of Seyyid Kazem of
Resht, and Mírza Janí tells us that it was the Sheikhí leader who
gave her the title of Qurratu’l-‘Ayn.3 When, on the death of Seyyid
Kazem, Mulla Hosein of Bushraweyh set out for Shíraz, she wrote
him a letter declaring her faith in the coming Manifestation. Mulla
Hosein showed her letter to the Bab, and the latter immediately
made her one of the “Letters of the Living”. She seems to have paid
a second visit to Kerbela, and to have held a number of mixed
meetings for men and women. She did not, however, cast off the
veil, for the

“New Hist.”, p. 315.
“Trav.”, Vol. II, pp. 49 f.
Noq., p. 140.
2. The coming of the Bab 33
men sat behind a curtain. So great was her influence that she
succeeded in imposing a severe religious discipline upon her
followers, and Mírza Hosein of Hamadan would have us believe that
it was this which led to the Governor’s attention being drawn to
her,1 but the real reason is that given by Mírza Janí, who tells us that
she now laid claim to being a “return” of Fatimeh, the daughter of
Mohammad.2 She was forbidden to leave Kerbela until the
authorities at Baghdad should come to a decision about her, but she
ignored the order and proceeded unmolested to Baghdad, but was
finally ordered to leave Turkish territory, and so she returned to
Persia. It was her intention to go to Teheran, but her father sent
and caused her to be brought to Qazvín. Efforts were made to
reconcile her to her husband, Mulla Mohammad, the son of her
uncle, Hají Mulla Taqí, but these utterly failed. “Jenab-i Tahereh”
(Her Highness the Pure), as she had been called by the Bab, would
have nothing to do with her husband, because he had not accepted
the Bab. Shortly afterwards her uncle and father-in-law, Hají Mulla
Taqí, was murdered, and she was suspected of complicity in the
crime, but the charge against her was dismissed. It was, however,
impossible for her to remain in Qazvín, so she set out for Khorasan,
and was, as we saw, present at the Conference at Badasht, where
her relations with the famous Hazrat-i Quddus caused some
scandal. Mírza Janí also tells us that Mulla Mohammad openly
divorced her before she left Qazvín. From Badasht she went to Nur,
for it would seem that Mírza Yahya Subh-i Ezel met her at
Barfurush, and at the bidding of Hazrat-i Quddus escorted

“New Hist.”, pp. 271 f.
Noq., p. 140.
34 Religion of the Bahais
her thither, Avareh gives us a totally different account, for he
declares that after the Mazandaran insurrection, Baha’u’llah took
her to his house in Teheran, where she remained under his
protection until he left on his pilgrimage to the Shrines; then she
returned to Qazvín, where she was eventually arrested.2 A similar
statement is made by Mírza Abu’l-Fazl,3 but neither can be taken
seriously, for both statements undoubtedly arose from the Baha’í
practice of suppressing all possible reference to Mírza Yahya Subh-i
Ezel (see Chapter VI). Baha’u’llah’s meeting with her took place
before the Mazandaran insurrection, and the services he rendered
her are recorded for us in detail by Mírza Janí.4 Whether she went
back to Qazvín we do not know, but it would seem improbable, for
Subh-i Ezel declared that she remained at Nur until her arrest,
when she was taken to Teheran.5 In Teheran she was put in the
custody of Mahmud Khan, the “Kalantar”, where she remained until
her death in 1852.
As an example of the later attempt to centre the history of the
movement around Baha’u’llah, it is interesting to read the account
of this remarkable woman given by ‘Abdu’l-Baha in a speech in
New Hampshire in 1912. He said: “Qurratu’l-‘Ayn was a Persian
woman without fame and importance; unknown, like all other
Persian women. When she saw his Holiness Baha’u’llah she
changed completely, visibly, and looked within another world. The
reins of volition were taken out of her hands by heavenly
attraction. She was so overcome that she forsook

Noq., pp. 154, 241.
Avareh, pp. 305 f.
“A.B. v. B.”, p. 12.
Noq., p. 240.
“Trav.”, Vol. II, p. 313.
2. The coming of the Bab 35
everything, and went forth to the plain of Badasht, no fear in her
heart, dauntless, intrepid, openly proclaiming the message of light
that had come to her. The Persian Government stood against her.
They made every effort to quiet her, imprisoned her in the
Governor’s house, but she continued to speak. Then she was taken
and killed. To her last breath she spoke with fervid eloquence, and
so became famous for her complete attraction in the path of God. If
she had not seen Baha’u’llah, no such effect would have been
produced.”1
A comparison of this statement with the true account as given
above serves as a good example of the Baha’í method of treating
history, which will be discussed more fully in another chapter. One
sentence in the account given by Mírza Janí shows clearly in what
relation Baha’u’llah stood to Qurratu’l-‘Ayn. The Persian sentence
which describes the meeting of Baha’u’llah with her is as follows:
“Va dar arz-i rah khedmat-i Jenab-i Tahereh rasídand”, which can
be translated, “And on the way he arrived at the service of Her
Highness the Pure”. The idiomatic use of the word “khedmat”
(service) in this sentence proves beyond all doubt that in Mírza
Janí’s opinion Baha’u’llah was her inferior in rank.2

“S. of W.”, Vol. III, No. 18.
Noq., p. 240.
The teaching of the Báb
The Bab was the author of many books and treatises, consisting
for the most part of commentaries on various Surahs of the Qor’an,
books of prayers, and so on, but for the purpose of this chapter the
only book of real importance is the “Beyan”. The word “Beyan” is
used throughout this chapter, and, indeed, throughout this book, in
the sense in which it is generally used to-day—i.e. it is used as a
proper name for what may be termed the Bab’s “Bible”. We are not
here concerned with the original meaning of the term “Beyan”, for
that has neither bearing on, nor importance for, our main subject,
but if the reader is interested in the use made of the term by the
Bab, he will find it fully discussed by Prof. Browne,1 whose use of
the term “Persian Beyan” corresponds with our use of the term
“Beyan” in this book. Like so many other of the first products of the
Babí-Baha’í religion, the “Beyan” is almost unknown to-day except
as a name for a book no longer obtainable. Very few copies exist,
and it is almost impossible to obtain one. The only importance of
the book to-day is historical, for it shows us the origin of modern
Baha’í teaching and the nature of its development. Here again we
owe a great debt to the late Prof. Browne, for he has put a summary
of the

“Trav.”, Vol. II, pp. 343 ff.
38 Religion of the Bahais
teachings of the Bab, with the “Beyan” references, at our disposal.
This summary is found in the introduction to his edition of the
“Noqtatu’l-Kaf”, and it provides the basis of part of this present
chapter. The “Noqtatu’l-Kaf” is also out of print, but fortunately the
Persian introduction has been published as a separate booklet, so,
wherever it is possible, references are given to the latter volume.
The “Beyan” was intended by the Bab to consist of nineteen
books each containing nineteen chapters (vide Appendix I), but the
book was never completed, and it would seem that the Bab
purposely left it incomplete,1 and that he deputed Mírza Yahya
Subh-i Ezel to complete the work.2
The Bab believed his meditations to have been inspired of God,
but the inspiration was subjective, and not objective, as was that of
Mohammad. The Bab himself declared that he laid no claim to
“revelation from an angel”, which was the claim of Mohammad.3 In
Islam “revelation from an angel” is technically called “Vahí”, and is
purely objective, the words being the actual words of God Himself,
so this is revelation at its highest. Subjective revelation is known as
“Ilham”, and is therefore inferior to the objective. The Moslem
regards the Qor’an as “Vahí”, and the Gospel as “Ilham”, so, whilst
the Bab expected the “Beyan” to displace the Qor’an, he, strangely
enough, put it on a par with the Gospel, which he must have
regarded as inferior to the Qor’an. For the sake of convenience, his
teaching will be considered under different heads, and only those
doctrines which have a

“Trav.”, Vol. II, p. 353, f. 4.
Noq., p. 244.
“Trav.”, Vol. II, p. 4.
3. The teaching of the Ba b 39
bearing on the later development of Baha’í teaching will be
discussed here.
1. God and the Prophets
God is eternal and unapproachable. All things come from Him
and exist by Him. He is incomprehensible, and unknowable.
Knowledge of the “Life” or “Being” (Zat) of God is impossible. The
term “knowledge of God” means knowledge of Him through His
Manifestations (the Prophets); “meeting God” (resurrection) means
meeting the Manifestations; “I take refuge in God” (a favourite
ejaculation among Moslems) means taking refuge in the
Manifestation. Man knows God only in the Manifestations, and all
references to God in Holy Scripture must be interpreted in this
sense. Distinct from God there is a Primal Will, who becomes
incarnate in the Prophets. This Primal Will spoke in all the
Prophets from Adam down. He spoke in the Bab, and will speak
again in “Him whom God shall manifest”.1 This Primal Will is the
Creator of all things, and its relation to existing things is that of
cause to effect, or of fire to heat. This Will is the “Point” of the
Manifestation, and as each one of the Prophets is a “Point” of a
Manifestation, all the Prophets can be said to be one. Adam, the
first of the Manifestations, is one with the last of them. This
doctrine of the Prophets was later to become the central doctrine
of Baha’ism, and is the main theme of the book “Iqan”. It is
generally known as the doctrine of “Shamsu’l-Iom” (Sun of the
Day),2 or “Shamsu’l-Haqíqat” (Sun of Reality), which latter term
also originated in the teaching of the Bab. There

Vide Sell. “The Faith of Islam”, pp. 146 f., text and footnote.
Shamsu’l-Yawm.
40 Religion of the Bahais
is neither beginning nor end to the Manifestations, and even after
the coming of “Him whom God shall manifest” there shall be other
Manifestations. Each Manifestation is, however, an advance on the
previous one, for while containing in himself the previous
Manifestation, he also brings something new. Revelation is
therefore progressive, but there neither is, nor can there be, a final
Revelation.1
2. Revelation
As we saw above, no revelation can be said to be final, and no
Prophet can be said to be the last who will come. This is a direct
contradiction of the Moslem doctrine that Mohammad is the Last of
the Prophets, and the Qor’an the complete and perfect and final
revelation. This latter is one of the fundamental doctrines of Islam,
and is found in the Qor’an itself,2 so that Babism is a departure
from Islamic teaching rather than a development of it. As every
revelation is more advanced than that which preceded it, each new
revelation can be said to abrogate the former one, so the Gospel
abrogated the Law, and the Qor’an abrogated the Gospel, and the
“Beyan” now abrogates the Qor’an. But the “Beyan” cannot be
regarded as final; indeed, it is incomplete at the best, for we are
told, “The Beyan is to-day in a state of seed, but in the day of ‘Him
whom God shall manifest’ it will arrive at the degree of fruition.”
The Bab himself has no illusions as to the value of the “Beyan” for
he declares, “A thousand perusals of the ‘Beyan’ are not equal to
the perusal of one verse of what shall be revealed by

Muq., Section 3, pp. 41 ff.
Surah Ma’idab, verse 101; Surah A’raf, verses 184 f.
3. The teaching of the Ba b 41
‘Him whom God shall manifest’.” The “Beyan”, like all the
revelations granted hitherto, is but a stage in the preparation of the
world for the coming of “Him whom God shall manifest”.1
3. The Resurrection
We saw above that the expression “to meet God”, which also
means “resurrection”, means nothing more than meeting the
Manifestation. We are not surprised, therefore, to find that
resurrection in the sense of the word as used by both Christians
and Moslems is denied by the Bab. He declares that the
resurrection spoken of in the Scriptures must not be interpreted
literally, for the term is not meant to be more than a pictorial
representation of the awakening of souls that are spiritually dead.
Such an awakening, or resurrection, accompanies the manifestation
of every Prophet. Heaven is faith in the Manifestation in this life,
which will be rewarded by knowledge of God in the next. Hell is
the denial of the Manifestation, for everyone that denies enters the
fire of God, and remains there until the coming of “Him whom God
shall manifest”. Purgatory is the period that intervenes between
the coming of two Manifestations. Hitherto none but the
Manifestations have understood the meaning of the terms heaven
and hell.2
It is important to notice that denial of the resurrection does not
necessarily mean denial of life after death. Nowhere is the Babí-
Baha’í teaching more unsatisfactory than it is here. We shall see
later that the teachings of ‘Abdu’l-Baha on the question of

“Trav.”, Vol. II, Note V.
Vide Muq., p. 46.
42 Religion of the Bahais

life after death are not only vague, but also confused.1 The reason is
obvious to all who read the teachings of Baha’u’llah. It would seem
that the latter took over the teaching of the Bab about resurrection,
and yet retained a belief in the survival of personality, for he says:
“Blessing be upon the spirit which departs from the body purified
from the doubts and superstitions of the nations. Verily it moves in
the atmosphere of God’s desire and enters into the supreme
paradise. All the angels of the supreme paradise attend and
surround it, and it will have fellowship with all the Prophets of God
and his Saints, and speak with them and tell them what happened
to it in the Cause of God the Lord of the Universe.”2 Can we
conceive of the survival of personality and not believe in a
resurrection body? Baha’u’llah, who is so definite in his statements
about the life of the soul in the world to come, would seem to know
nothing of the form in which the soul survives. “As to your question
about its form, it cannot be described, and is not needful to be
expressed.”3 If the Babí doctrine of the resurrection be accepted,
then life after death can only mean that the soul survives as a
disembodied spirit. More important still is the fact that the general
teaching of Baha’u’llah would deny the survival of personality, for
the aim which he holds before the believer is absorption in the
Deity—“Fana’”—which implies extinction, and the above passage is
only one of the many inconsistencies which are characteristic of his
teaching, and which appear again in the teachings of ‘Abdu’l-Baha.
It is therefore true to say that the teachings of the

Chapter X below.
“Scrip.”, p. 226.
ibid., p. 227.
3. The teaching of the Ba b 43
Babí-Baha’í religion raise problems rather than solve them, for
where they should be definite, there they are vague and
inconsistent.
4. “He whom God shall Manifest”
We now come to the most important part of the Bab’s teaching,
for the claim of Baha’u’llah was made possible by the fact that the
Bab himself foretold the coming in the future of another greater
than himself. There can be no question as to the importance which
the Bab himself attached to this aspect of his teaching, for even the
“Beyan” is said to be of very little value compared with the teaching
of “Him whom God shall manifest”. The whole of the “Beyan”
revolves around the saying of “Him whom God shall manifest”. “All
the splendour of the ‘Beyan’ is ‘He whom God shall manifest.’” All
who believe in him believe in God, for faith in him is faith in God.
To take refuge in God is to take refuge in him. The letters of the
“Beyan” if they be entered in his book will be saved from fire,
otherwise they will not profit by remaining in the “Beyan”. Every
good name revealed in the “Beyan” is said to refer to him. The
“Beyan” is the balance of truth until the day of “Him whom God
shall manifest”, and that day will see the perfection of the “Beyan”
and the reaping of its fruits. The resurrection of the “Beyan” comes
with the manifestation of “Him whom God shall manifest”, as does
also the day of the general resurrection, when all shall arise and
come forth from their graves (in the sense given in paragraph
headed (3) above). Belief in the Bab and the “Beyan” is belief in
him. “He whom God shall manifest” contains in himself all the
perfection of God, for he is the source of the divine names
44 Religion of the Bahais
and of the divine attributes. Before the beginning of time he was,
and when time is no more he will be in the heaven of purity. He is
absolute, and answerable to no one for his actions, and none has
the right to question that which he does. In him is the excellence of
all existing things. The “Beyan” and believers in the “Beyan” need
him more than the lover needs his beloved. As the touchstone
separates the pure gold from the impure, so he separates the
believers from the unbelievers. There hath not appeared, nor shall
there appear, one like unto him in the art of producing “verses”
naturally and without effort, which means that he shall excel in
literary production, the generally accepted proof of prophethood.
It is enjoined upon all Baha’ís that they should respect him, and as a
token of this respect the first month in the Babí calendar of
nineteen months is dedicated to him. Whenever his name is
mentioned, every believer must stand up; and whenever a meeting
is held, a vacant place must be reserved for him. The time of his
coming is known only to God, but when he does come it will be
suddenly and unexpectedly. That the Bab warned his disciples not
to deny him when he came is true, but it is equally true that he did
not expect him to come for a considerable period of time. “If he
comes at the end of ‘ghaias’ and all the people have entered (the
Babí religion), then not a single person will remain in hell. If he
does not come until the number ‘mustaghas’ and all enter then, not
a soul shall remain in hell.1 But more than ‘mustaghas’ it shall not
be, not even were God to will it.” These words need an explanation;
the words “ghaias” and “mustaghas” are symbols, and the key to
their meaning is contained in the arithmetic

Between Ghiyath (abjad 1,511) and Mustaghath (abjad 2,001).
3. The teaching of the Ba b 45
arrangement of the Arabic alphabet, known as the “Abjad”,
according to which “ghaias” stands for 1511 years, and “mustaghas”
stands for 2001 years. Obviously, therefore, the Bab expected him to
come between 1511 years and 2001 years after him. This will be
discussed more fully in a later chapter.1
5. Rij‘at
Closely connected with the Babí doctrine of the resurrection, as
well as with the doctrine of the Prophets, is the teaching about
“Rij‘at” or “Return”. According to this doctrine, Mohammad,
Fatimeh, the Twelve Imams and the Four “Gates” have all returned
to the life of the world with such as believed in them and such as
did not believe. What exactly is meant by “rij‘at” it is difficult to
ascertain. Mírza Janí himself seemed to be vague as to its meaning,
for though he gives the doctrine an important place in his book, yet
he can give only a negative explanation of it, and declares: “It is
neither incarnation, nor transmigration, nor absorption; it is as it
is, and none knoweth it save those who have ‘returned’.” Hazrat-i
Quddus was a “return” of Mohammad, whilst the Bab, when he was
the “Reminder”, was a “return” of ‘Alí.2 In the same way, Qurratu’l-
‘Ayn probably claimed that she was a “return” of Fatimeh.3 But
perhaps the meaning of the term is best explained by a story told of
Mírza Yahya Subh-i Ezel. When the news was brought to him that
Hazrat-i Quddus was dead, Subh-i Ezel was taken violently ill with
a very high fever which lasted three days, after which “signs

Vide Muq., pp. 47 ff.
Noq., pp. 152 f.
See previous chapter.
46 Religion of the Bahais
of holiness appeared in his blessed form, and the meaning of ‘rij‘at’
became clear.”1 From this it would seem that the qualities which
had marked Hazrat-i Quddus now became apparent in Subh-i Ezel.
That there was a certain amount of justification for the belief that
the Babís held the doctrine of transmigration of souls is evident
from a story told about Seyyid Basír, who, hearing a dog barking,
said, “That dog is a ‘return’ of such an one, whom God has punished
because of his sins.” To prove the truth of his statement, he told his
audience that they would find the dog in a certain house, and, on
inquiries being made, he was seen to have told the truth. This was
but one of the many mysteries said to have been revealed by him.2
Baha’u’llah took over this doctrine of “rij‘at”, and it forms the basis
of his teaching about the Prophets. One example will suffice to
show his method of teaching this doctrine. Speaking of the way in
which Christians and Jews refused to accept Mohammad, he says:
“Consider how from this verse we are to understand that the men
of the age of that Exalted One (Mohammad) were the same men
who in the age of previous prophets had striven and fought to
spread the knowledge of the law and to preach the word of God.
Whereas the men of the age of Jesus were not the men of the age of
the Exalted One, and, moreover, the man they had formerly known
was Moses the possessor of the law, and Jesus the possessor of the
Gospel. Yet, why then does Mohammad say, ‘When that man whom
they had known came to them, who was Jesus or Moses, they did
not believe him’?”3 Thus he teaches that Moham-

Noq., p. 243.
ibid., p. 258; “New Hist.”, pp. 334–338.
Iqan, pp. 125 f.
3. The teaching of the Ba b 47
mad was a “return” of Jesus, and the men of his age were in the
same way “returns” of the men of the age of Jesus.
6. The calendar
The Bab devised a calendar of nineteen months of nineteen days
each (see Appendix I), the first month being dedicated, as we saw
above, to “Him whom God shall manifest”. Each month bears a
name, but these names are not peculiar to the months, for they are
also given in the same order to the nineteen days of each month.
Thus, as the first month is entitled “Baha”, so the first of each
month is also called “Baha”. It would seem that the Babí era began
on No Ruz (March 20th), 1844,1 the Persian New Year, and not on
the day of the Bab’s manifestation, as would be expected, and in the
“Beyan” it is decreed that the No Ruz should be celebrated as a
festival. To make the Babí year coincide with the solar year, five
intercalary days are inserted before the last month. Baha’u’llah
took over this calendar, and it is in general use among the Baha’ís
to-day, and so is important because all their feasts and fasts are
fixed according to it.2
7. The Báb’s outlook on the future
It is perfectly clear that the Bab expected his religion to become
the national religion of Persia, for he declares that tolerance must
be shown when the Babís come into power. He even hopes that by
the day of “Him whom God shall manifest” all mankind will have
entered his religion. It would therefore seem that

Naw-Ruz varies between the 20th and 21st of March each year.
For a full discussion of the origin of this calendar the reader is referred
to Roemer, p. 27 and footnote, and to “Trav.”, Vol. II, Note 2.
48 Religion of the Bahais
the Bab expected a long time to pass before the coming of “Him
whom God shall manifest” indeed, there is every reason to believe
that he did not expect the latter to come for at least two thousand
years.1 It would seem, however, that Mírza Janí regarded Subh-i
Ezel as “He whom God shall manifest”, and that he credited the Bab
with holding the same view (see next chapter), but this could not
have been the general view, for the book “Iqan”, whilst testifying to
the Babí expectation of a brilliant future for the new religion, shows
that the Babís under Subh-i Ezel were all looking to the coming of
“He whom God shall manifest” in the future.
In conclusion, it need only be pointed out that the “Beyan” code
was a very strict one, and Babís very soon began to desire some
modification of its laws, and this undoubtedly helped to pave the
way for Baha’u’llah’s teaching. The “Beyan”, although, according to
its own teaching, imperfect, is yet all that the believer needs, and no
other books are to be read unless they elucidate the “Beyan”.2
In many ways the claims made for the “Beyan” resemble those
made for the Qor’an. Unbelievers are challenged to produce a book
like unto the Qor’an,3 which comprises all the secrets of heaven and
earth.4 All creatures working together could not produce the like of
the “Beyan”, which is incomparable and inimitable and includes all
things.5 As the Qor’an contains passages which none can
understand but God,6 so, too, the “Beyan” is incomprehensible save
to such as are divinely aided.7 As the Qor’an is said to confirm the

Muq., pp. 33 ff.
Noq., Index lx.
Surah Tur, 34; Surah Hud, 16 f.
Surah Naml, 77; Surah Yunus, 62.
Noq., Index lviii f.
Surah Al ‘Imran, 5.
Noq., Index lviii.
3. The teaching of the Ba b 49
earlier Scriptures, so the “Beyan” is in essence identical with the
Gospel and Qor’an.2
Yet, in spite of these claims, the “Beyan” is almost unknown to-
day, and its interest is purely academic. Finally, it is interesting to
note that the Bab, whilst claiming that all the creatures working
together could not produce the like of the “Beyan” is yet compelled
to utter a warning that the grammar of the “Beyan” is not to be
criticized!3

Surah Yusuf, 111.
Noq., Index lix.
Noq., Index lviii.
The coming of Bahá’u’lláh
We now come to a new era in the history of the movement, an
era which sees the decline of Babism and the growth of Baha’ism.
The centre of the movement moves from Persia, first of all to
Baghdad, and finally to Acre. The whole atmosphere now changes,
and instead of a sect hated, yet feared, united by a common
purpose and a common faith, we find a party of exiles divided by
bitter rivalries and fierce quarrels. True there are occasional
glimpses of the courage which faced death with a smile, but for the
most part the martyr has given place to the common assassin, and
the gallant and open fighting of the Babís gives place to the
intrigues and cowardly assassinations which are now committed in
the name of religion.
As we saw above, the majority of the Babí chiefs had either been
killed in the different rebellions, or had perished in the severe
persecution which followed the unsuccessful attempt on the Shah’s
life. The Bab had perished, Hazrat-i Quddus and the Babu’l-Bab
were no more. Had the Bab nominated a successor? That is the
question which must now occupy our attention. Fourth in the Babí
hierarchy was a young man named Mírza Yahya Subh-i Ezel, whose
acquaintance we have already made. The history of this period

52 Religion of the Bahais
centres round Mírza Yahya and his brother Mírza Hosein ‘Alí, better
known as Baha’u’llah, who was eventually to wrest the leadership
from his brother.
Mírza Yahya and Mírza Hosein’ Ali were half-brothers, both
being sons of Aqa Mírza ‘Abbas, better known as Mírza Buzurg of
Nur, but by different wives. We know very little about their youth,
but it seems to be fairly certain that Mírza Hosein ‘Alí was born in
1817 (on October 1, according to Avareh), and that Mírza Yahya was
born in 1830–1. It would seem that Mírza Hosein ‘Alí was the son of
a concubine,1 a fact which is unintentionally attested by Avareh,
who makes the same statement about Subh-i Ezel.2 Subh-i Ezel was
the son of a woman of distinguished parentage, who died whilst he
was still a child.3 Mírza Buzurg then committed the child to the
care of his second wife, or concubine, the mother of Mírza Hosein
‘Alí’. At first she neglected the child, but one night she saw a vision
concerning him, and that completely changed her attitude, and she
treated him with more love than she had ever shown to her own
children, ministering to him faithfully and reverently until he
reached his fourteenth year, when the Manifestation of the Bab
took place. This story was told to Mírza Janí by Baha’u’llah,4 who
added the following account of the youth of Mírza Yahya. After the
death of Baha’u’llah’s mother in that same year (Mírza Yahya’s
fourteenth year), he undertook the instruction of Mírza Yahya, and
found him a boy of unusual modesty, gravity, and courteousness of
demeanour, whose goodness was transparently clear, but at the
time he little thought

Noq., p. 238. The parents of Baha’u’llah (b. 2 Muharram 1233; 12
November 1817) were Mírza ʻAbbas-i-Nurí (or Mírza Buzurg Nurí) and
his second wife Khadíjih Khanum.. Mírza Yahya Nurí (c. 1831–1912) was
a younger half-brother of Baha’u’llah. His mother was the concubine
Kuchik Khanum.—M.W.T.
See Chapter VI.
Noq., p. 238.
ibid., p. 239.
4. The coming of Baha ’u’llah 53
of the station the boy would one day come to occupy. Mírza Yahya
studied Persian, but made little progress in Arabic. His handwriting
(nasta‘líq) was good, and he had a real fondness for mystical
poetry.1
Of the youth of Baha’u’llah, Mírza Janí has nothing to tell us, but
Baha’u’llah himself tells us that he received no school education,
and that he did not study the sciences as men generally did, 2 but
this does not mean that he was not privately educated, as was
Mírza Yahya. As in the case of the Bab, so here, we can say that it is
more correct to credit him with a very ordinary education than to
say that he was uneducated. Both ‘Abdu’l-Baha3 and Avareh4 speak
of the remarkable youth of Baha’u’llah, and of the way in which he
was admitted into the councils of statesmen and learned divines, all
of whom were amazed at the wisdom and knowledge of one so
young. Avareh tells us that Baha’u’llah, who was twenty-seven
years old when the Bab declared his mission, immediately showed
himself partial to the new faith, and became an ardent teacher and
preacher of its tenets. Mírza Janí has nothing to tell us of the youth
of Baha’u’llah, but he makes it perfectly clear that the young man
was an ardent Babí, and that he held him in high regard.5 When the
Bab appeared, Mírza Yahya Subh-i Ezel was but a boy, but he could
not help hearing of the new Manifestation, because his elder
brother used to bring his Babí friends home with him. For the
story of his conversion we are indebted to Mírza Janí, who heard it
from the lips of Mírza Yahya himself.6 It would seem that the boy
used to listen to the conversations

Noq., p. 239.
Sur., p. 89.
“Trav.”, Vol. II, pp. 56 ff.
Avareh, pp. 456 f.
Noq., p. 239.
ibid., p. 339.
54 Religion of the Bahais
of Baha’u’llah and his Babí friends and to reading; by them of the
Bab’s writings. The continual repetition in the course of a prayer of
the words “O, O my God!” enthralled his heart and attracted him to
the Bab, who was the writer of the prayer. His faith was established
and perfected by the reading of some of the Bab’s explanations of
the Traditions of the Imams. When the Bab (or “Zekr” as he then
was) ordered his followers to go to Khorasan, Mírza Yahya also
decided to go thither, but Mírza Hosein ‘Alí heard of it, and
immediately sent and prevented him, on account of his youth.
Shortly afterwards his relatives went to Mazandaran, and Mírza
Yahya accompanied them, and after the collapse of the Badasht
conference we find him at Barfurush, in the company of Hazrat-i
Quddus, whom he had met on the way, and who had shown him
great kindness. At Barfurush he met Qurratu’l-‘Ayn, and at the
command of Hazrat-i Quddus he conducted her to an appointed
place. During the siege of the Castle of Tabarsí he went with
Baha’u’llah and some others to help Hazrat-i Quddus, but was
arrested on the way, and imprisoned for a while. That Mírza Yahya
was very attached to Hazrat-i Quddus, and that the attachment was
mutual, is very obvious from Mírza Janí’s account, and it would
seem that when news came of the death of Hazrat-i Quddus, the
young man was some days in a high fever, after which “signs of
holiness” appeared in him, and it was believed that he was a
“return” of Hazrat-i Quddus. It is clear that Mírza Janí regarded this
event as the beginning of a new dispensation, and he distinctly
declares that the Bab rejoiced in this new development, which
marked the “decline of the sun of ‘the Reminder’,
4. The coming of Baha ’u’llah 55
and the rising of the moon of Ezel.” From what follows, Mírza Janí
makes it abundantly clear that the Bab nominated Mírza Yahya as
his successor, for he sent him some of his own personal effects,
including rings, garments, and papers, and also wrote a
testamentary deposition definitely nominating Mírza Yahya as his
successor, and bidding him write the eight (unwritten) “Vahids” of
the “Beyan”, and to abrogate the “Beyan” should “He whom God
shall manifest” appear, and put into practice that which would be
given him by inspiration. From this Mírza Janí himself understood
that the Bab meant men to understand that Mírza Yahya was “He
whom God shall manifest”.2 That the Bab did appoint Mírza Yahya
as his successor cannot be disputed, and the letter making the
appointment, together with a translation, has been published by
the late Prof. Browne.3 That Mírza Hosein ‘Alí, Baha’u’llah, regarded
his half-brother as the successor of the Bab is also perfectly clear
from Mírza Janí’s narrative, for, as we saw above, the story of Mírza
Yahya’s youth came from Baha’u’llah himself, and the very
expression “But I did not know that he would become the
possessor of a ‘station’,” which he uses with reference to Mírza
Yahya, clearly proves his attitude towards his brother. Mírza Janí
himself perished in the persecution of 1852, so that we must seek
another source of information for the period which follows. Before
we come to consider the story of Baha’u’llah, it is necessary to
follow very briefly the movements of Mírza Yahya after the death of
the Bab. At the time of the Bab’s martyrdom he was residing

Noq., pp. 243 ff.
ibid., p. 244.
“New Hist.”, p. 426.
56 Religion of the Bahais
at a village near Teheran, but when Mírza Aqa Khan of Nur became
Prime Minister, he was compelled for his own safety to leave that
neighbourhood. Thus it came to pass that he was at Nur when the
attempt was made on the Shah’s life, and so escaped arrest. A
reward was offered for his capture, but in the guise of a dervish he
managed to escape, and after many adventures he arrived in
Baghdad in 1852 or 1853.
We saw above that Baha’u’llah, together with Mírza Yahya and
some other Babís, were arrested on their way to the Castle of
Tabarsí, After a time they were released, and Baha’u’llah went on a
pilgrimage to Kerbela and Najaf, and so escaped the persecution,
but after his return he was arrested on suspicion of being
concerned in the attempt on the Shah’s life, and was thrown into
prison. After four months’ imprisonment his innocence was
proved and he was released, but his property was confiscated.
Then, with the permission of the Shah, he left Persia, and with his
family went to Baghdad, arriving there a short time before Subh-i
Ezel, according to the latter,1 or a short time later, according to
others.2 The Ezelí historians tell us that Mírza Yahya assumed the
leadership in Baghdad, and sitting behind a curtain taught his
followers, none but his relatives being allowed to see him.3 But
Baha’í historians, led by ‘Abdu’l-Baha, tell a very different story,
and contend that Baha’u’llah was the leader. All these later
histories are, however, unreliable, and discussion of them will be
postponed to the next chapter, where it properly belongs, whilst
this chapter

“Trav.”, Vol. II, p. 375.
ibid., p. 355.
“Hasht Behesht”, quoted “Trav.”, Vol. II, p. 355.
4. The coming of Baha ’u’llah 57
will be confined to an attempt to ascertain the true historical facts.
As we saw above, Mírza Janí’s history makes it abundantly clear
that after the Bab, Mírza Yahya Subh-i Ezel was generally accepted
as leader, and that Baha’u’llah also acknowledged his leadership.
We are not here concerned with the claims that were made at this
time by a number of persons—claims which did not disturb Mírza
Yahya in the least—for none of them is of any importance to our
theme. What we have to do is to consider when and how it was
that Baha’u’llah came to make his claim to be “He whom God shall
make manifest”. It would seem from Mírza Janí’s account that
Baha’u’llah was suspected of harbouring designs to set up a
standard on his own account whilst the Bab and Hazrat-i Quddus
were still alive, and for that reason was sent from Mazandaran to
Teheran, to prevent him creating further disturbances in an
already disturbed region.1 We have no further evidence of his
harbouring any such intentions until we come to the Baghdad
period, when we have his own statement testifying to the fact that
he was once more suspect. It would seem that after Subh-i Ezel had
retired into seclusion, the management of practical affairs fell into
the hands of Baha’u’llah, and it would appear from the Ezelí
account that he now attracted to his side a number of men to whom
some slackening of the severer code of the “Beyan” was not
unwelcome. Certain of the old school of Babís, perceiving the
tendency to innovation and relaxation, remonstrated so vigorously
with him that he left Baghdad in wrath, and went towards
Suleimaníyeh,2 in the neighbourhood

Noq., p. 243.
Sulaymaníya.
58 Religion of the Bahais
of which he remained among the Kurds for nearly two years.
During the whole of this period his whereabouts was unknown to
the Babís at Baghdad, but when at last it was discovered, Subh-i
Ezel wrote a letter to him inviting him to return.1 The truth of this
narrative is proved by Baha’u’llah’s own statement in the book
“Iqan”, which he wrote after his return to Baghdad. He says: “I
swear to God that I had no intention of returning from this
voluntary exile, nor did I hope to see this journey end. For I did not
desire to be a cause of discord among my friends, or a cause of
schism among the brethren. I did not desire to bring loss or grief of
heart to anyone. Beyond this I had no thought (in going away), and
I certainly had no intention of proclaiming a (new) cause, but men
spoke idly, according to the thoughts of their own imaginations.
Such was the position until the order for my return was issued from
the seat of authority, and reluctantly I yielded and came back.”2
This statement confirms that of the Ezelí historian, and proves
beyond all doubt that the later Baha’í histories are spurious. From
his own clear statement it is obvious that Baha’u’llah was once
more suspected of planning to found a new cause. What exactly
happened it is impossible to tell, but it is certain that the older
Babís became thoroughly alarmed, and took immediate steps to
prevent the threatened schism. It is clear, too, that Baha’u’llah was
anxious to clear himself, and that he submitted to the authority of
Mírza Yahya when the latter ordered him to return. The value of
the book “Iqan” cannot be exaggerated, for it provides us with our
only authoritative statement of Baha’u’llah’s position at this time.
The book is

“Trav.”, Vol. II, Note W.
Iqan, p. 211.
4. The coming of Baha ’u’llah 59
a defence of Babism, and is important an account of the
interpretations of Christian Scriptures it contains, and because it
enables us to reconstruct Baha’u’llah’s outlook on the future at the
time when he wrote the book. He is convinced that Babism has a
bright future, and declares himself unable to describe, and mankind
unworthy to comprehend, the kingdoms that are to become subject
to the rule of the Bab.1 The time is not far off when the signs of his
kingdom will be evident in all countries.2 The “Beyan” is the book
of the age, and all Babís should consecrate themselves to the
service of the Cause.3 He is ready to give his life for the Bab,4 whose
rank is higher than that of any of the Prophets, and whose mission
is loftier and higher than the comprehension of the saints.5 It was
his perfect love for the Bab that inspired him to write the “Iqan”,
with the hope that the poor of the world would be led thereby to
share in the riches of the Bab, and the ignorant to partake of the
knowledge he brought.6
From internal evidence we know that the “Iqan” was written
two years after his return to Baghdad,7 so the date of its
composition was AH 1274 (AD 1857–8), and not AH 1278, as has often
been stated. So we know that five years previous to his final
departure from Baghdad (AH 1279) Baha’u’llah was apparently a
true Babí, and, by his own confession, loyal to Mírza Yahya. But it is
possible that even then he was but biding his time, for he expresses
the hope that the Babís will not reject the Hidden One who is to
come.8
The influx of Babís from Persia to the neighbourhood of the
Supreme Shrines (Kerbela and Najaf) began to

Iqan, p. 103.
ibid., p. 65.
ibid., p. 166.
ibid., p. 212.
ibid., p. 205.
ibid., p. 53.
ibid., p. 211. Possibly written about 15 January 1861 (AH 1277).
ibid., p. 208.
60 Religion of the Bahais
alarm and disturb the Shí‘ah Divines who resided there, and they
therefore sought a way to put an end to it. A meeting of the leading
divines was convened, but it came to nought, for Sheikh Murtaza al-
Ansarí, one of the most famous of the Shí‘ah divines of his day,
refused to condemn the Babís, on the ground that he was not
sufficiently versed in their doctrine to pass judgment on it. That
this meeting was convened we cannot doubt, for Subh-i Ezel also
testifies to it, corroborating the story of Sheikh Murtaza’s refusal to
condemn the Babís.1 ‘Abdu’l-Baha tells us that, having failed in this,
they sought another way, and sent a mulla skilled in debate to meet
Baha’u’llah, and to demand a sign of him. Baha’u’llah then offered
to work any miracle they desired on the one condition that they
accept him afterwards, and, fearing to put him to the test, they
departed, taken aback by the unexpected response.2 That this story
cannot be true is proved by the evidence of the “Iqan” given above,
and also by the fact that in his lengthier account, given in the
“Traveller’s Narrative”, ‘Abdu’l-Baha does not mention the incident.
The original version of the story is undoubtedly that given in the
“New History”, according to which the challenge to the mullas was
not issued by Baha’u’llah in Baghdad, but by a Baha’í apologist at a
meeting in Teheran, said to have been convened by the Shah.3 As
Prof. Browne points out, Baha’u’llah must have been at Acre when
this meeting was held, if it ever was held: we are therefore justified
in assuming that ‘Abdu’l-Baha adopted the story to suit his own
purposes.

“Trav.”, Vol. II, p. 86, footnote.
Mof., pp. 22 f.
“New Hist.”, pp. 172, 178.
4. The coming of Baha ’u’llah 61

The Babís now began to have trouble from another source. The
Persian Consul in Baghdad, Mírza Buzurg Khan, became their
enemy. Baha’í historians, led by ‘Abdu’l-Baha, declare that he was a
drunkard, and that he was a mere tool in the hands of the mullas,1
but the Ezelís, on the other hand, declare that the reason for his
hostility was twofold—firstly that the Babís refused to bribe him in
order to gain his goodwill, and, secondly, that Baha’u’llah, who
already had two wives, took as a third a young girl whom Mírza
Buzurg himself wished to marry.2 The Babís were now so
persecuted that they enrolled themselves as Turkish subjects,
hoping that thereby they would escape from their tormentors.3
The Persian Government now brought matters to a head. The
existence of a strong band of Babís near the Supreme Shrines was a
constant menace to the peace of Persia, for the Babís were
definitely opposed to the Government, and the coming of hosts of
Persian pilgrims to the shrines enabled them to engage in extensive
propaganda work. Pressure was therefore brought to bear on the
Ottoman Government with a view to the removal of the Babís to a
place more distant from the Persian frontier. It was therefore
decided to move them to Constantinople.
Baha’u’llah and his party left Baghdad on April 20, 1863. Almost
all Baha’í writers declare that he halted at the Garden of Rezvan
beyond the Tigris, where he declared himself to be “He whom God
shall manifest”. Behiah Khanum, a daughter of Baha’u’llah, declares
that the claim was not openly made, but that it was in the nature of
a confidential statement to ‘Abdu’l-Baha

“Trav.”, Vol. II, pp. 84 f.
ibid., footnote.
ibid., p. 88.
62 Religion of the Bahais

and four of the most intimate disciples.1 Mírza Jawad declares that
this was the second declaration, the first having been previously
made in writing,2 but there does not seem to be any justification for
this statement. Avareh, who places the event in 1864, distinctly
states that Baha’u’llah now made a public proclamation of his
mission in the presence of a large gathering of the nobility of
Baghdad, who had come to bid him farewell.3 It is impossible to
discover what really did take place at this time, but it could not
have been of any importance, for ‘Abdu’l-Baha, in his “Traveller’s
Narrative”, which was the first official history of Baha’ism, does not
even mention the name of the garden.4 But, on the other hand,
Baha’u’llah himself, in a “Tablet” to a man named ‘Alí Naqqí, writes:
“Blessed art thou in that thou wast privileged to be present in the
Garden of Rezvan, on the Festival of Rezvan, when God, the
Merciful, showed forth His glory to the world.” 5 It would therefore
seem probable that Baha’u’llah did at this time confide to a few
friends his intention of setting up a standard of his own, and that
from now on he set about preparing the way for his claim, which,
however, he did not venture to make until he was certain of
winning the support of the main body of Babís who accompanied
them to Constantinople.
There can be no doubt as to the time when he made the public
declaration, for we have the unanimous witness of many writers,
including Mírza Abu’l-Fazl, Dr Kheiru’llah, Nabíl, and Behiah
Khanum, that the claim was made in Adrianople in the year 1866.

Phelps, p. 30.
“Materials”, p. 16.
Avareh, pp. 358 ff.
He was compelled to ignore this incident because he declares that even
the Bab had recognised Baha’u’llah’s claim.
Sur., pp. 172 f.
The beginnings of the Bahá’í Religion
The journey from Baghdad to Constantinople seems to have
taken from three to four months, and was made by way of Karkuk,
Mosul, and Samsun, whence it was continued by steamer. The
travellers were met by Government carriages, and driven to the
Government guest-house, but this proving small for them,
Baha’u’llah and a number of others were moved to another house,
which was more spacious. Here they were the guests of the
Ottoman Government, which appointed Shamsí Bey to entertain
them. Mírza Yahya, who had travelled apart from Baha’u’llah’s
party, was the recognized head of the sect, but as nearly all the
existing histories were written by Baha’ís, they attribute the
leadership to Baha’u’llah. The Babís were now guests of honour,
and were treated with the utmost respect. After a short stay at
Constantinople, they were removed to Adrianople, which was now
appointed as a residence for them. Here again they were at first
treated with the utmost consideration, and ‘Abdu’l-Baha declares
that “the materials of comfort were gathered together, neither fear
nor dread remained, they reposed on the couch of ease, and passed
their time in quietude.”1 Before continuing with the story of their
sojourn at Adrianople, another account

“Trav.”, Vol. II, p. 92.
64 Religion of the Bahais
of the events related above, written by an American Baha’í, will be
given. It is interesting because it shows the type of narrative that is
circulated amongst Westerners, and which may help to explain why
some of them are attracted to the movement.
“Slowly the caravan, consisting of Baha’u’llah, his family, and
some seventy followers who refused to leave him, moved forward
on the long trek to Constantinople. Throughout the day, by the side
of His Father’s wagon rode ‘Abdu’l-Baha. At night He guarded His
tent, never all through that journey relaxing in the most watchful
vigilance. Now scene after scene of suffering and persecution
followed. Confinement in utterly inadequate quarters. Questioning
and hostility from the clergy and authorities. Then further
banishment through the heavily-falling snow, again in a state
bordering on destitution, to Adrianople. Here in this important city
of Roumelia, imprisoned again in verminous, overcrowded rooms.
But through it all the majesty of the Prisoner shone more and more
clearly. As calamities increased, only the brighter grew His
radiance, spiritual influence and authority. An authority that even
His bitter enemies acknowledged and feared.”1
The period immediately following the settlement at Adrianople
is perhaps, at first sight, one of the most difficult from the point of
view of the historian. But this is not really true, for though we have
two different stories of the main events of the period, the very fact
that one of those stories is deliberately intended to contradict the
other is obvious proof that one or the other must be true. What we
have to decide, there-

Florence Pinchon cited in “S. of W.”, Vol. XVIII. No. 11, pp. 329 f.
5. The beginnings of the Baha’í Religion 65
fore, is to which of these stories we are to give credence. The two
stories will therefore be given, beginning with the Baha’í version.
The story given by Mírza Jawad is as follows. Whilst at
Adrianople Subh-i Ezel, jealous of the growing fame and honour of
Baha’u’llah, and, incited by Hají Seyyid Mohammad Isfahaní, began
to claim that he, and not Baha’u’llah, was the successor of the Bab.
Mírza Yahya was at this time living apart from Baha’u’llah, but his
expenses were paid by the latter. Things became more and more
embarrassing, until at last, on the publication by Baha’u’llah of the
“Tablet of Command”,1 the smouldering fire burst into flame. This
Tablet announced that Baha’u’llah was “He whom God shall
manifest”, and was sent to Mírza Yahya by messenger. As a result,
relations between the brothers became strained, and Mírza Yahya
began to consider means of doing away with his brother. First of
all he invited Baha’u’llah to tea, and gave him a poisoned cup.
Baha’u’llah drank part of it, and gave the rest to one of Mírza
Yahya’s wives. Both became ill, and Baha’u’llah’s life was saved by
the prayers of a physician named Dr Chupan. Having failed in his
attempt, Mírza Yahya sought another way, and, entering a bath
attended by Mohammad ‘Alí of Isfahan, a barber by trade, he tried
to persuade the latter to cut Baha’u’llah’s throat when he came to
the bath. Mohammad ‘Alí on leaving the bath reported the matter,
and the story became public property. Baha’u’llah now left the
company and went to live in a house apart. Having failed twice,
Mírza Yahya now sought another way of creating trouble, and,
incited by Seyyid Mohammad Isfahaní, he sent

Lawh-i-Amr.
66 Religion of the Bahais
some of the women of his household to the Governor to complain
that Baha’u’llah was not giving them the allowance apportioned to
them by the Government.
When Baha’u’llah heard this story, he drove both Mírza Yahya
and Seyyid Mohammad away from him, whereupon the latter went
to Constantinople to complain to the Government. There he met
Aqa Jan Bey, nick-named “Kaj-Kolah” (Skew-cap), and together they
plotted to get Baha’u’llah into trouble. As a result of this intrigue
the Ottoman Government put Baha’u’llah under arrest, and a week
afterwards he and his family, together with a large band of
followers (the number varies according to different writers from
sixty-eight to eighty), were removed to Acre, whilst Subh-i Ezel and
some of the disciples of Baha’u’llah were sent to Famagusta in
Cyprus.1
The Ezelí story is that after the arrival of the party at
Adrianople, Baha’u’llah, incited by Mírza Aqa Jan Kashaní, gradually
began to make public his claim to be “He whom God shall manifest”,
and began to send letters and epistles in all directions. Then began
a series of assassinations on the part of the Baha’ís. All the
prominent Ezelís who withstood the claims of Baha’u’llah were
marked out for death. In Baghdad, Mulla Rajab ‘Alí and his brother,
Hají Mírza Ahmad, Mírza Mohammad Reza, and several others, fell
one by one victims of the assassin’s knife. Then an attempt was
made to poison Subh-i Ezel. Baha’u’llah caused poison to be put in
one side of a dish that was set before Mírza Yahya and himself. The
dish had been flavoured with onions, and Subh-i Ezel, disliking

Vide “Materials”, pp. 20 ff.—the date as given by Mírza Jawad has been
omitted in the above, because it is obviously impossible.
5. The beginnings of the Baha’í Religion 67
it, did not partake, but Baha’u’llah ate a little of it, and the poison
having diffused, he was presently attacked with vomiting.
Baha’u’llah then assembled his companions and told them that
Subh-i Ezel had tried to poison him. Shortly after this it was
arranged that Mohammad ‘Alí Isfahaní, the barber, should cut Subh-
i Ezel’s throat at the bath, but the latter, suspecting danger, refused
to allow him to come near, and after leaving the bath separated
himself entirely from Baha and his followers. Hají Seyyid
Mohammad of Isfahan and Aqa Jan Bey, who held the rank of
Lieutenant-Colonel in the Turkish army, discovered how matters
stood, and reported to the Ottoman Government. The Government
decided to separate the brothers by sending them to different
places, so Mírza Yahya and his family, together with four of
Baha’u’llah’s followers, were sent to Famagusta, whilst Baha’u’llah,
together with his family, about eighty of his followers, and four of
the followers of Mírza Yahya, were ordered to Acre in Syria. One of
the latter, Mírza Nasrullah was poisoned in Adrianople, and the
other three, Hají Mohammad Isfahaní, Aqa Jan Bey, and Mírza Reza
Qulí of Tafrísh, were assassinated shortly after their arrival at Acre.
One of the assassins was Mohammad ‘Alí the barber.1
It seems to the present author to be obvious that two such
contradictory stories, containing identical charges, must of
necessity be accounts which owe their origin to some historical
occurrence which was a matter of common talk at the time. Which
story are we to accept? The balance of truth would seem to

Vide “Trav.”, Vol. II, Note W.
68 Religion of the Bahais
lie with the Ezelís, and the present author, for reasons that will now
be given, is disposed to accept their story. The Baha’í story that
Mírza Yahya tried to oust Baha’u’llah from the leadership is an
obvious fabrication, for we know that the former was the true
leader. Furthermore, we have seen that Baha’u’llah since the event
at the Garden of Rezvan had been planning to oust his brother, and
that it was at this time that he made his claim. He would certainly
be in a much stronger position if Mírza Yahya were out of the way.
That a number of Ezelís were murdered is a fact of history, and we
know from the writings of Baha’u’llah that he did not disapprove of
these crimes, for he declares that their deaths proved that the
“curse of God was upon infidels”, and even names one of the Ezelís
murdered at Baghdad, Mírza ‘Alí Mohammad Isfahaní.1 It is also
very significant that Mohammad ‘Alí the barber was an ardent
follower of Baha’u’llah, and was later one of the assassins of the
Ezelís at Acre. These murders are readily acknowledged by the
followers of Baha’u’llah, who,2 however, exempt Baha’u’llah from
any responsibility. There is also the significant fact that the
murderers of the Ezelís at Acre were later released at the request of
‘Abdu’l-Baha.3 The Baha’í attitude towards such murders is made
perfectly clear by ‘Abdu’l-Baha, who distinguishes between human
revenge and divine retribution, which latter term covers all
punitive acts committed by the Prophets. Some of the Prophets
issued commands for the slaying of many, but there were no human
motives behind those commands—

Sur., p. 208.
“Materials”, pp. 54 ff.
“Trav.”, Vol. II, p. 370.
5. The beginnings of the Baha’í Religion 69
they were inspired solely by divine justice. This teaching, taken in
conjunction with Baha’u’llah’s declaration quoted above, would
seem to prove beyond all doubt that they were not troubled by the
ethics of assassination. Again, it is worthy of note that neither
‘Abdu’l-Baha in his “Traveller’s Narrative” nor Avareh in his history
makes any mention of these events, and it is very unlike either to
omit to put on record anything that could be said to the detriment
of Mírza Yahya’s character. Finally, there is the character of the
historians to be reckoned with, and it is clear from the various
accounts that we have already considered that the Ezelí historians
are more reliable than their opponents.
These stories have been considered in detail because it is
important that we should understand the background of the new
faith that was now to be preached. Baha’ism was born in
Adrianople, and baptized in the blood of its opponents. From a
background of intrigue and hatred, of treachery and bloodshed,
there came forth a new faith which was later to adopt as its slogan
the words “Universal Peace!”
In the next chapter we shall consider the problem which now
faced Baha’u’llah, and the way in which he tackled it. Mírza Yahya
now vanishes from the stage, for, far away in Cyprus, he could take
no active part in the direction of affairs, and the way was left clear
for Baha’u’llah. Acre now becomes the centre of interest, and here
the new religion was developed until it completely ousted Babism.
When first the Baha’ís, as they will henceforth be known, arrived at
Acre they were lodged in the military barracks, which

Mok., Vol. I, p. 360.
70 Religion of the Bahais
were then empty. Here they undoubtedly suffered many hardships
on account of the climate and the bad quality of the water, and a
number of them died during that summer. Later a supply of fresh
water was arranged, and matters improved, so that the general
health of the party ceased to be a matter of worry. After the murder
of the Ezelís, Baha’u’llah himself was arrested, and was in prison for
some days, and was afterwards moved with his companions to a
building belonging to the military, where they remained for a little
over six months.1 After about two years in the military barracks,
Baha’u’llah had been given a house in the town,2 so this second
confinement cannot be regarded as imprisonment “for his faith”.
Much is made of this period in Acre, the “Most Great Prison”, but in
fairness to the Ottoman Government it must be pointed out that the
Baha’ís were given as much freedom as was possible, and that the
periods of real imprisonment were in each case due to disturbances
caused by the Baha’ís themselves. For nine years after his release
from prison Baha’u’llah did not leave Acre, but Mírza Jawad makes
it perfectly clear that he could have gone had he wished.3 The only
two events of any importance that, marked the beginning of the
Acre period were, firstly, a schism in the ranks of the Baha’ís, which
was so fierce that Mírza Jawad does not care to discuss it; and,
secondly, the coming of Mírza Badí‘ in 1869, and the bearing by him
to Persia of Baha’u’llah’s letter to the Shah. Mírza Badí‘ succeeded
in, giving the letter to the Shah, but it cost him his life, for he was
immediately arrested, and, after torture, was put to death.
Baha’u’llah

“Materials”, p. 57.
ibid., p. 50.
ibid., p. 58.
5. The beginnings of the Baha’í Religion 71
spent the last years of his life at Acre living in the palace of ‘Udí
Khammar, a short distance outside the town, which he rented in
1880.1 Here he was visited by pilgrims from East and West, and
here he remained until his death on May 28, 1892. He was buried in
a house to the west of the palace of ‘Udí Khammar, which then
acquired the dignity of a shrine. His followers never speak of his
death, preferring to regard it as his “ascension”. Thus passed away
a remarkable man—a man of such tremendous personality that he
was able in the course of a short time to win a large body of
disciples from a religion which at one time seemed as if it would
sweep all before it. The personality of Mírza Yahya undoubtedly
helped him, for the latter, a recluse by nature, was out of touch with
the main body of his followers. The difference between the two
men is clearly shown in Prof. Browne’s account of his interviews
with them,2 from which we see how, by clever staging of the scene
for his audiences, Baha’u’llah was able to increase the effect that his
personality had on those who met him. He was a great man, but
thoroughly Oriental, and to understand his influence we must
understand the background against which he lived. Set against a
Western background he would stand out as a man who would
hesitate at nothing in order to achieve his purpose, a man to be
feared rather than reverenced. But the East has its own ideas as to
what qualities go to make a Prophet, and so Baha’u’llah was a
Prophet.

“Materials”, p. 58.
“Trav.”, Vol. II, Introduction.
The making of a new Religion
When Mírza Yahya was sent to Famagusta in Cyprus the field
was left clear for Baha’u’llah. In Adrianople he had been
remarkably successful, for he had won the allegiance of almost all
the exiled Babís. A greater problem faced him now. How was he,
an exile, to win over the Babís of Persia to his cause?
Mírza Yahya Subh-i Ezel had been generally accepted as the
successor of the Bab, and as such he was still regarded in Persia,
and Baha’u’llah’s first task was to explain away Mírza-Yahya. Mírza
Janí’s history was in existence, but only in manuscript form, and the
first task was to suppress that history, and to re-write it in a form
more favourable to Baha’u’llah’s claims. So well was the first part
of the task accomplished, that were it not for the fact that the
Comte de Gobineau had brought one copy of the “Noqtatu’l-Kaf” to
Europe, the book would no longer be in existence. The first Baha’í
history to be written was the “Taríkh-i Jadíd” (New History), which
was based on the “Noqtatu’l-Kaf”, but which did not include the
story of the rise of Mírza Yahya, and his appointment as the Bab’s
successor. It is now definitely stated that Baha’u’llah was the
successor of the Bab, and stated in such a way as to suggest that
attempts were being

74 Religion of the Bahais

made to put Mírza Yahya in his place.1 This history did not meet
with the approval of the Baha’í chiefs at Acre, so it never got beyond
the manuscript stage. ‘Abdu’l-Baha then undertook the task of
writing another version, and the “Traveller’s Narrative” was
produced. ‘Abdu’l-Baha was nothing if not thorough, and he does
not mince matters, but makes a very good attempt to explain away
Mírza Yahya by relating the following very plausible story.
“Now since a great celebrity had been attained for Baha’u’llah in
Teheran, and the hearts of men were disposed towards him, he,
together with Mulla ‘Abdu’l-Karim, considered it expedient that, in
face of the agitation among the doctors, the aggressiveness of the
greater part of (the people of) Persia, and the irresistible power of
the Amír-Nizam, whereby both the Bab and Baha’u’llah were in
great danger and liable to incur severe punishment, some measure
should be adopted to direct the thoughts of men towards some
absent person, by which means Baha’u’llah would remain
protected from the interference of men. And since, further, having
regard to sundry considerations, they did not consider an outsider
as suitable, they cast the lot of this augury to the name of
Baha’u’llah’s brother Mírza Yahya.
“By the assistance and instruction of Baha’u’llah, therefore, they
made him notorious and famous on the tongues of friends and foes,
and wrote letters, ostensibly at his dictation, to the Bab. And since
secret correspondences were in process, the Bab highly approved
of this scheme. So Mírza Yahya was concealed and hidden, while
mention of him was on the

“New Hist.”, pp. 246 ff.
6. The making of a new Religion 75
tongues and in the mouths of men. And this mighty plan was of
wondrous efficacy, for Baha’u’llah, though he was known and seen,
remained safe and secure, and this veil was the cause that no one
outside (the sect) fathomed the matter or fell into the idea of
molestation, until Baha’u’llah quitted Teheran at the permission of
the King, and was allowed to withdraw to the Supreme Shrines.”1 It
is worthy of note that ‘Abdu’l-Baha, who, in order to achieve his
purpose, is compelled to declare that Baha’u’llah went into hiding
(in the sense that he hid behind a lie), tells a different story when
writing for Western inquirers. To them he declares, “Not for one
moment was he (Baha’u’llah) in concealment; he mixed openly with
his enemies. He was occupied in showing forth evidences and
proofs, and was recognised as the herald of the word of God. In
many changes and chances he endured the greatest misfortunes,
and at every moment he ran the risk of being martyred.2
The story thus concocted by Baha’u’llah, though hardly
creditable to Baha’u’llah, was an excellent explanation of Mírza
Yahya’s appearance on the stage of history, and it met with great
success. Mírza Abu’l-Fazl in his brief account of the movement
does not even mention the name of Mírza Yahya, who by that time
was completely forgotten.3
Although it has no immediate bearing on the question under
discussion, it is interesting to note that Avareh adopts a totally
different method in writing his history, a method far superior to
that of ‘Abdu’l-Baha. The latter occasionally substitutes the name
of Baha’u’llah

“Trav.”, Vol. II, pp. 62 f.
Mof., p. 21; Questions, p. 33.
See “A.B. v. B.”.
76 Religion of the Bahais
for that of Mírza Yahya, and then adapts stories told by Mírza Janí
without further change,1 but Avareh takes Mírza Janí’s narrative
and simply substitutes the name of Baha’u’llah for that of Mírza
Yahya, so we find that Baha’u’llah was the son of the favourite wife,
and Mírza Yahya the son of the concubine. The remarkable vision
mentioned by Mírza Janí was seen at Baha’u’llah’s birth, and not at
that of Mírza Yahya, and it was to Baha’u’llah that the Bab sent his
ring and writing materials.2 That Avareh was able to follow this
method was due to the fact that when he wrote his book even the
name of Mírza Yahya was known to very few.
Baha’u’llah’s second method of approaching his task was
equally successful. While at Adrianople he had written a number of
Tablets to prepare the way for his claim, and he adopted the same
method after reaching Acre. From there he wrote his Tablets to the
Kings of Europe, to the Pope, to the Shah of Persia, and to various
individuals of less renown. He was further helped by the fact that
the Bab had warned his followers to be on their guard lest they
reject “Him whom God shall manifest” and had told them that one
of the proofs of his claim would be his remarkable ability to
produce “verses”. Baha’u’llah was already known as a writer, for
the book “Iqan” had immediately become popular, and the large
number of Tablets he now produced were held up as indisputable
proof of the truth of his claim.
Nor must we forget the part played by the assassin’s knife.
Whether the Ezelís were assassinated with his knowledge or not,
those assassinations helped to

e.g. “Trav.”, Vol. II, p. 41.
Avareh, pp. 353 ff., 285.
6. The making of a new Religion 77
forward his claim. The removal of the Ezelís at the Supreme
Shrines, and at Baghdad, was necessary, for both these places were
important points of vantage. Every year they were visited by hosts
of Persians, and these, returning to their homeland, would carry
news of the new Manifestation, and the tidings they carried would
have far more weight if it could be said that all the Babís who had
gone into exile had accepted the new Manifestation. So Baghdad,
the Shrines, and Acre, all became the scenes of murders, and Baha’í
influence reigned supreme in all. But he had other problems to
solve, and the first of them was concerned with the Babí attitude
towards the Government. The Babís were, as we saw above,
irreconcilably hostile to both the Government and the then Royal
Family of Persia. All this must now be changed, for Baha’u’llah was
more ambitious than the Bab. He dreamed of a Baha’í world, not of
a Baha’í Persia. Consequently, whereas Babism was intensely
national and exclusive, Baha’ism must be a universal religion. The
new histories played their part in creating a new “atmosphere”.
The Shah is no longer blamed for the persecution of the Babís, and
he had no knowledge of the execution of the Bab until it had
actually taken place. In any case, he was powerless to help, for the
opposition of the mullas and members of his Government was too
strong. The new attitude adopted towards the Royal house can be
summarised in the brief statement that, whereas Mírza Janí was
convinced that Mohammad Shah went to hell,1 the writer of the
“New History” believed that he went to the mansions of Paradise.2
There must be no more fighting, being

Noq., p. 138.
“New Hist.”, p. 291.
78 Religion of the Bahais
killed is preferable to killing. He announced this change of attitude
to the King in the “Lawh-i Sultan” (Tablet to the King), which was
conveyed by the unfortunate Mírza Badí‘. In this Tablet Baha’u’llah
humbly throws himself and his followers on the King’s mercy, and
apologetically explains why they became Ottoman subjects. He
condemns sedition and strife as displeasing to God, and requests
the King to let him come face to face with his opponents, that the
King himself may judge between them. The full text of this letter,
which is too long to quote, will be found in the text of the
“Traveller’s Narrative”.1
Then what of the attitude of the Babís towards men of other
creeds? That, too, needed to be changed. The Bab taught that all
true Christians had accepted Mohammad; the rest of the Christians
had many good qualities, yet they are of the Fire (i.e., children of
hell-fire). He applauds their cleanliness and some of their other
qualities, and bids the Babís follow their example in these things.2
Yet, in spite of all this, only those who practise useful trades and
professions are to be allowed in the lands of believers.3
Furthermore, unbelievers are not allowed to dwell in five of the
Persian provinces.4 Unbelievers are not to be killed, but their
property may be confiscated, and marriage with them is
forbidden.5 All this must now change, and those who accept
Baha’u’llah must be ready to regard men of all creeds as their
brothers, for are they not all “the fruit of one tree, and the leaves of
one branch?”
At first sight it would seem that the task which faced

Pp. 1o8 ff.; for the original see Sur., pp. 96 ff.
Noq., Index lxi.
ibid., Index lxiv.
ibid., Index lxxiv.
ibid., Index xci.
6. The making of a new Religion 79
Baha’u’llah was an almost impossible one, but further
consideration shows that the Babí doctrine, in spite of its
narrowness, did contain the germ of the new universalism. The
Bab by his doctrine of revelation and of the Prophets had paved the
way for the Baha’í conception of a world-religion. The Primal Will
spoke in all the Prophets, and they were all sent to prepare the way
for “Him whom God shall manifest”. The doctrine of “Rij‘at” implied
that Moses, Jesus, and Mohammad were in a very real sense one,
and if this is true, does it not mean that there is a bond of union
between the various creeds? Furthermore, if all the different
Revelations were but stages in the preparation of the world for the
coming of “Him whom God shall manifest” then He is the fulfilment
of all prophecy, and the perfector of all religions. The fundamental
principles of all religions are therefore one, however much the
accidentals may vary. Thus Baha’u’llah, if once accepted as “He
whom God shall manifest”, would be regarded as belonging not to
one religion, but to all religions, and there was no real difficulty in
the way of promoting the new teaching.
It remains for us to consider how far Baha’u’llah was capable of
carrying out the self-appointed task of converting Babism into a
universal religion.
A favourite objection to Christianity in the East is that it has no
code of law. The Moslem cannot understand a religion that has no
code of law, for the Qor’an is not only his Bible, it is also his text-
book of law and final authority in all legal matters. The Christian
finds it hard to appreciate this objection until he realises how every
phase of Moslem life is provided for in the religious laws. The
difficulty of the Moslem
80 Religion of the Bahais
is the difficulty of the Pharisee when he heard the teaching of
Christ. Saul the Pharisee had to break away from the bondage of
the Law before he could become Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ,
Christ did not bequeath unto His Church a code of law, but He sent
His Spirit to dwell in the hearts of men, and under the guidance of
that Spirit men of every age have framed their own laws. A law that
is decreed and fixed for all time is the negation of progress, and
results in bondage, but “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is
liberty.” It has been said that Baha’u’llah found himself in a position
very similar to that of St. Paul when he began his mission,1 but this
is not exactly true. Paul was preaching Christ, and rejoicing in his
new freedom in Christ. Baha’u’llah was preaching himself, and
trying to proclaim a liberty from the bondage of laws that he
himself had found irksome, but without knowing of any substitute
for them, with the consequence that all he could offer was a
modified code of law. Paul preached that the Jesus whom he had
persecuted was indeed the Lord. Baha’u’llah preached that the Bab,
for whom at one time he had been ready to give his life, was only a
herald, and that he himself was Lord. The two men cannot really be
compared, because St. Paul had an experience of Jesus Christ
underlying his every thought, his every deed—he was in a very real
sense a “new creature”.2 St. Paul had entered into the glorious
liberty of the sons of God, Baha’u’llah remained in the bondage of
law. Baha’u’llah failed in the task he had set himself, because he
found it impossible to break away from the past with its legalistic
conception of religion. A slave

Phelps. Introd., xxviii.
2 Cor., v. 17.
6. The making of a new Religion 81
of the old idea that a Prophet must needs be a law-giver, he drew up
a new code of law, which was to supersede the “Beyan,” and to
abrogate all the other Scriptures. This new code of law, which is
contained in the book “Aqdas”, is based on the Qor’an and the
“Beyan” both of which it modifies.
No summary of the “Aqdas” will be given here, because the book
is of little importance to-day, and is quite unknown to Western
Baha’ís. (A complete summary will be found in the Rev. W. M.
Miller’s History of Bahā’ism,1 which is, at the time of writing this
chapter, in the press.) It must be borne in mind that the laws of the
“Aqdas” are definitely meant to supersede the civil law. In a Baha’í
country the government is to be in the hands of the religious
leaders. Justice is to be administered by the ecclesiastical courts;
fines are to be paid to them; taxes are to be controlled and disposed
by them. In short, it is intended to introduce that very form of
government which has been such a failure in Islam, and from which
nation after nation is struggling to free itself in the East.
Then what of the international problem? How is the peace of
the world to be secured? How are all men to be united, and
national and religious pride, which are such productive causes of
strife, to be banished? Nowhere is the weakness of Baha’ism more
apparent than it is here, for it lacks driving power to put its
teachings into practice. The teaching that mankind is an essential
unity, and that all men are brothers is centuries old; what is needed
is a power to enable men to realise that unity. Baha’ism lacks that
power. Education, which is made compulsory by Baha’u’llah, will
never solve the problem. Ignor-

Bahā’ism: Its origin, history, and teachings, 1931. The English
translation, The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, was published in 1992.
82 Religion of the Bahais
ance is admittedly at the root of many evils, but it must not be
forgotten that what education does is to increase the capacity of the
individual for good or evil. Behind education there must be a
power making men love the good and hate the evil before it can
avail to save the world. Changed hearts are more necessary than
even trained minds; love of the good must be inculcated before
capacity for good can find a way of expression. Baha’ism may urge
that the mind be trained, but it cannot change the human heart.
Baha’u’llah had not realised how deeply rooted the evil was, and
so his remedies are useless. He directs that one of the existing
languages should be chosen and adopted as a universal language,1
believing that thereby men would better understand one another,
and that unity would follow. What mankind needs is a common
heart, not a common tongue. The division of the world is not
decided by language, nor is variety of speech at the root of it. When
nations are divided into classes totally out of sympathy with each
other, when brother rises against brother, and selfishness holds
sway, what has Baha’u’llah to offer? To a world torn and divided he
can only confess failure, and call on the kings of the earth to
accomplish that which is beyond his power. “Be united, O ye kings,
unity will remove the spirit of contention, and your subjects and
they that are around you will enjoy peace, if ye be wise. If one of
you should rise against another, then rise against him. That is
justice.”2 War to end war is all that he can offer. Could anything be
more superficial, more meaningless, than his declaration that
“Weapons of war are forbidden to you, except

Aqdas, p. 65.
Sur., p. 85.
6. The making of a new Religion 83
in times of necessity”? Surely such a statement is proof enough of
the weakness of Baha’ism. The redemption of the world demands a
redeemed humanity, and that Baha’ism cannot achieve.
Then what of his social regulations? They are all drawn up in
view of conditions existing in the East in Baha’u’llah’s own time,
and show that he had no idea of Western conditions of life and the
needs of men living under those conditions. His laws cover a wide
field, from feasting to fasting, from murder to prayer, from hunting
to the cutting of the hair. Some of these laws will be considered in
a later chapter, but the majority of them will be ignored. How
impossible they are for the West will be abundantly clear from the
following examples. For the first offence a thief must be banished
to another town, for a second he must be imprisoned, and for a
third he must be branded on the forehead, that all men may know
him for what he is.2 He who purposely sets fire to a house must be
burnt to death, and a murderer must be punished by death, or,
should the court so desire, the sentence can in either case be
commuted to one of life-imprisonment.3 A man may not marry
more than two wives,4 though from the point of view of comfort
one is better! The marriage laws are very comprehensive, and even
decide what a man should do were he to quarrel with his wife
when on a journey! The only prohibition is that a man is forbidden
to take unto himself one of his father’s wives.5 What water one
may use, or not use, for washing; what vessels one may use, or not
use, for food—everything is decided by the “Aqdas”. Yet

Aqdas, p. 34.
ibid., p. 27.
ibid., p. 22.
ibid., p. 22.
ibid., p. 36.
84 Religion of the Bahais
Baha’u’llah tells us that he did not come to legislate for men’s
bodies, but to give life to souls.1 Here again there is nothing to help
men, nothing that can satisfy their needs. Men ask for bread,
Baha’u’llah offers a stone.
The “Aqdas” laws are in some ways superior to those of the
Qor’an, in other ways they are inferior, but, whatever value we may
set on them, they are an indication of the true nature of Baha’ism.
They prove that the Baha’í religion is a legalistic system, and not a
religion of the Spirit. No other Prophet is to come for another
thousand years,2 so for that period the world is to be governed by
the rules of the “Aqdas”. Baha’u’llah could not conceive of religion
without a code of law. Brought up as a Moslem, he became a Babí
by choice, but, though he found the severe code of the “Beyan”
irksome, he was yet unable to break away from the influences that
had moulded his ideas and his life. He did not even dare to be
original, but took the “Beyan” and the Qor’an as his patterns,
contenting himself with modifying them, but remaining true to
their spirit. So the “Aqdas” remains a monument of the failure of
Baha’u’llah to perform his self-appointed task.

Sur., p. 182.
Aqdas, p. 13.
The doctrine of the person of Bahá’u’lláh
It has been said by many writers that Baha’u’llah claimed to be
God. This charge was first made against him by the Ezelís,1 and in
course of time the idea spread that Baha’u’llah claimed to be God
incarnate, and this teaching has become an article of faith for some
Baha’ís to-day. It is important, therefore, that we examine the
teachings of Baha’u’llah, for only then can we come to a true
understanding of the claims he made for himself.
Whilst there is much in his writings which would at first seem
to justify the belief that Baha’u’llah did claim to be God, a careful
study serves to show that he did not actually make any such claim.
It is a mistake to take the sayings of Baha’u’llah out of their setting,
and to interpret them literally. It should also be borne in mind that
there is a vast difference between Western thought, with its
background of Christian teaching, and Eastern thought, with an
Islamic background, and Christian ideas should never be read into
words of Baha’u’llah.
The passages in which Baha’u’llah sets forth his claim can be
divided into two main classes—namely, passages which declare
him to be Moses, Jesus, or

“Trav.”, Vol. II, p. 359.
86 Religion of the Bahais
Mohammad returned, and passages which seemingly hail him as
God.
Underlying all passages of the first class are the doctrines of
“Shamsu’l-Iom” and “Rij‘at” (see Chapter III above), and as these
afford no real difficulty, they need not be discussed here, but the
following examples will serve to show the nature of these passages.
“O people of the earth, the day of help came, and the preacher of
Sinai appeared.”1 “Say, O people of the Gospel, the door of heaven
opened, and he who had ascended came forth.”2 In order to
understand these passages it is necessary to remember that in
Baha’ism Christ holds no higher place than do the other Prophets,
so that in claiming to be Christ returned Baha’u’llah is only claiming
that he is a Prophet.
As we shall see in a later chapter, his followers did come to
regard Baha’u’llah as God, but their belief was based on a wrong
interpretation of the claims he made. Baha’u’llah claimed to be “He
whom God shall manifest”, and all the statements he makes
concerning himself should be read in the light of the “Beyan”
teaching about the promised Manifestation. The very name “He
whom God shall manifest” bears witness that he is not to be
regarded as God, but as sent by God. In making this claim he does
declare himself to be greater than the Prophets, but that is in
accordance with the “Beyan” which declares that all the Prophets
came to prepare the way for “He whom God shall manifest”. The
reader is advised to read the “Beyan” teaching, given above,3 before
continuing with this chapter. The “Beyan” teaches that in “Him
whom God shall

Aqdas, p. 101.
ibid., p. 100.
Chapter III.
7. The doctrine of the person of Baha’u’llah 87
manifest” is all the perfection of God, so Baha’u’llah declares that
“In my person is nothing seen but the Person of God; in my beauty
nothing but the beauty of God; in my existence nothing but the
existence of God; and in my being nothing but the Being of God.” 1
The “Beyan” declares that all believers need him even as a lover
needs his beloved, and Baha’u’llah declares that “This is he for
whose countenance those in the eternal heaven, and those who
have taken their place in the most glorious Mansion, do yearn.” 2
“He whom God shall manifest” is the source of the Divine names
and of the Divine attributes, so Baha’u’llah is “the source of the light
of the names of God, and the manifestation of all the attributes of
God.”3 According to the “Beyan”, the promised Manifestation will be
absolute and answerable to no one for that which he does.
Baha’u’llah therefore says, “Truly, if I desire that all things should at
once become mirrors of my name, I can bring it to pass”,4 and “if we
abrogate anything that is written in the ‘Beyan’, none has the right
to ask ‘Why?’ or ‘Wherefore?’”5 “He whom God shall manifest” was
before time was, and shall be when time is no more, so it is that
Baha’u’llah says, “We entered the school of God whilst you were yet
asleep. … God, truly, formed this school before the creation of
heaven and earth, and we entered it before ‘K’ was placed on its
foundation ‘N’.”6 The letters “K” and “N” form the Arabic imperative
“Kun” (Be!), the fiat of the Creator. Again he tells us, “Fear God, and
deny not him by whom the Cause of God was promoted from the
very beginning to which

Sur., p. 21.
ibid., p. 4.
ibid., p. 34.
ibid., p. 40.
ibid., p. 81.
Aqdas, p. 61.
88 Religion of the Bahais
there was no beginning, and by whom every Apostle (Prophet) was
sent down.”1
It is impossible to consider all his sayings about himself, but
whilst the majority can be explained by what has been said above,
others would, at first sight, seem to need a different explanation.
Sometimes in Tablets to individuals he makes puns on their
names, as an example of which we may quote the following: “O
‘Abdu’l-Khaleq (Slave of the Creator), behold and consider, when
the ‘Khaleq’ (Creator) came, the ‘makhluq’ (creature) shunned
him.”2 The word “Khaleq” is one of the names of God given in the
Qor’an, so as he claims to be the source of the Divine names, his use
of it is explained. In other places he refers to himself as “the
Father” or “the Father whom Isaiah foretold”3 and as “the Lord of
Hosts”.4 The explanation of all such sayings is found in the teaching
of the Bab that all references to God in Holy Scripture must be
interpreted as referring to the Prophets, who are His
Manifestations. This is borne out by Baha’u’llah’s own statement in
the book “Iqan” that the knowledge of the Prophets expresses God’s
knowledge, their power His power, their dominion His dominion,
their beauty His beauty, their manifestation His manifestation.
Their station is that of “I am He and He is I”,5 so if one of the perfect
Manifestations declares that he is God, it is true. 6 Furthermore, he
declares that all the Manifestations were created before the
creation of heaven and earth.7 Thus, it is only by deliberately
ignoring their setting that

Aqdas, p. 146.
ibid., p. 215.
Sur., pp. 53, 57, etc.
Aqdas, p. 140.
Pp. 80 f.
P. 149.
“Scrip.”, p. 207.
7. The doctrine of the person of Baha’u’llah 89
we can interpret his teachings to mean that he claimed to be God.
Before we come to consider the true nature of his claim, we
must consider one more passage, which will serve to show his
method of adducing proofs from the Qor’an. According to the
passage in question, he claims to be “the same who has been called
Jehovah in the Law, the Spirit of Truth in the Gospel, and the Great
News in the Qor’an.”1 His application to himself of the name
Jehovah is explained by what has been said above, whilst the
writings of ‘Abdu’l-Baha make it perfectly clear that the Spirit of
Truth must be interpreted to mean a person, 2 so that the term
“Great News” alone needs an explanation. This term is taken from
the opening verse of Surah 78, which is called “Naba” or “News”,
and refers, it would seem from the context, to the resurrection. We
have already seen that the Bab taught that the day of “Him whom
God shall manifest” is the day of the general resurrection, in the
sense that it is a day of spiritual awakening, so that Baha’u’llah’s
application of the term “Great News” to himself is in perfect
keeping with his claim to be the promised Manifestation.
Finally, the following passages are sufficient evidence that
Baha’u’llah himself did not regard his use of passages such as those
we have considered as implying that he was God. “Truly, I was as a
dead body when His command came to me. The will of thy Lord,
the Merciful and Compassionate, changed me.”3 “I swear to God
that I had no intention of manifesting myself, or of uttering a word,
but God’s will overcame my will, and He caused me to appear.”4
Again he tells us that

Aqdas, p. 103.
Mot, p. 83.
Sur., p. 90.
Aqdas, p. 158.
90 Religion of the Bahais
he was but an ordinary man when the winds of God the most Holy
blew upon him and endowed him with knowledge.1 Thus
Baha’u’llah appeared and claimed to be “He whom God shall
manifest”, and what that claim implied will be evident from the
following summary of his teaching concerning himself.
He is the source of the Divine Names and of the Divine
Attributes.2 He is absolute and answerable to no one.3 He was
before time was, and shall be when time is no more.4 The “Beyan”
was sent down by him,5 in order to declare his name,6 and its very
letters go to form his words.7 All the Prophets were sent down by
him,8 and through him is the light of God reflected to man.9 In his
hand is the government of all things,10 for he is the treasury of
God’s purpose and the dwelling place of God’s will.11 He is the
straight way, and the balance by which everything both great and
small is weighed.12 Unto him is given perfect knowledge of all that
ever has been or ever shall be.13 For his sake was the world
created,14 and he was created for the service of God.15 He enjoys a
peculiar position granted him by God, and is chaste above all
others.16 He was created of the light of God’s beauty,17 and one hair
of his head is of more value in the sight of God than all things in
heaven and earth.18 He is God’s interpreter in the Kingdom,19 and
the guide to the way of God. 20 Prayers are of no avail unless there
is faith in him, but faith in him gives hope of forgiveness even to
those who totally
______________________________________
1. Sur., p. 89. 2. ibid., p. 34, 3. ibid., p. 181.
4. Aqdas, p. 61. 5. ibid., p. 191. 6. ibid., p. 114.
7. ibid., p. 191. 8. ibid., p. 146. 9. Sur., p. 30.
10. ibid., p. 16. 11. ibid., p. 19. 12. Aqdas, p. 137.
13. Sur., p. 31. 14. ibid., p. 74. 15. ibid., p. 143.
16. Aqdas, p. 18. 17. Sur., p. 5. 18. ibid.
19. Aqdas, p. 81. 20. Sur., p. 39.
7. The doctrine of the person of Baha’u’llah 91
neglect both prayer and good works. He came to call men to
Eternal Life,2 to save the world, 3 and to reform it.4 His sole purpose
is to free the creatures of God from the chains of hypocrisy and
superstition.5
The word “taqlíd”,6 here translated hypocrisy for lack of a better
word, really means following the example of, or imitating a
religious leader. In Shí‘ah Islam every man is either a “mujtahed”
or a “muqalled”; he is either qualified to interpret the law and to
lead others, or he is compelled to follow some person who is
qualified. So every “muqalled” must choose a “mujtahed” who will
then be his “taqlíd”, and his pattern in everything, and he “acts” his
religious life according to the pattern set him by his chosen guide.
Thus the word “hypocrisy” in its original sense of “acting a part” is
as near the meaning as we can get. Thus although Baha’u’llah
claims that he has come to save the world, there is a big difference
between his claim and that of Christ. To Christ salvation meant
salvation from sin and its attendant horrors, to Baha’u’llah it meant
salvation from superstition, and from priestcraft, for the outcome
of the doctrine of “taqlíd” is a priest-ridden people. We shall see in
another chapter that Baha’u’llah did not succeed in his purpose, so
a full discussion is not necessary here. It was inevitable that
Baha’u’llah should give great importance to the need of salvation
from superstition and priestcraft. A large number of Traditions
have grown up around the person of the Mahdí, and when the Bab
made the claim that he was the Promised One, he was rejected by
the majority of

Sur., p. 41.
ibid., p. 79.
Aqdas, p. 166.
ibid., p. 167.
ibid., p. 168.
The Baha’í Faith encourages ijtihád, rather than taqlíd.
92 Religion of the Bahais
Moslems because he did not fulfil the general expectation as to the
way of his coming. Baha’u’llah declares that no Prophet must be
rejected on the ground that he does not fulfil all that has been said
about him, rather must all such sayings be adjudged true or false,
according as to whether they are fulfilled by him or not.1 It must be
admitted that the Shí‘ah beliefs concerning the Mahdí are for the
most part superstitious in the extreme, and there was every
justification for the Baha’í refusal to accept them, but, on the other
hand, it must not be forgotten that the word “superstition” did not
convey the same meaning to Baha’u’llah as it does to us to-day. We
find, for instance, that he himself wrote certain prayers which are
in the nature of charms, the use of which would be condemned by
us as superstitious. He included within the meaning of the term all
interpretations of prophecy that were not favourable to his own
claims. In Islam (Shí‘ah) interpretation is a science in itself, and the
right to interpret belongs to the “mujtaheds” alone.2 In
condemning the current interpretations of the Traditions, and of
the Qor’an, he was also compelled to condemn the “mujtaheds” as
false guides. So, too, the clergy of all the great religions are accused
of misleading the people, and of spreading superstitious ideas.
Baha’u’llah’s claim therefore results in the doctrine that he, and he
alone, is in a position to interpret Holy Scriptures, and men of all
creeds are freed from superstition and priestcraft when they accept
him. All interpretations of Scripture which differ from his are
superstitions, so he is the infallible interpreter. His gospel is
therefore the gospel of the infallibility of

Aqdas, p. 36.
Mujtahid, pl. Mujtahidun.
7. The doctrine of the person of Baha’u’llah 93
Baha’u’llah. This is further borne out by his own statement: “In
one sense the name ‘Infallibility’ is true of one whom God hath
guarded against sin, transgression and unbelief, infidelity,
polytheism, and the like. But ‘The Most Great Infallibility’ is applied
only to One whose station is sanctified above commands and
prohibitions, and purified from sin and forgetfulness. Verily He is a
light which is not followed by darkness, and a rectitude which is
proof against error. If He declares water to be wine, or heaven to be
earth, or light to be fire, it is true and there is no doubt therein; and
no one has the right to oppose Him, or to say ‘why’ or ‘wherefore’;
and he who disputes with Him is, verily, of the opposers in the Book
of God, the Lord of the creatures!”1

“Scrip.”, pp. 240 f.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá and the spread of Baha’ism
After the death of Baha’u’llah his followers became divided into
two camps. Whilst the majority followed ‘Abbas Effendí, best
known by his title of ‘Abdu’l-Baha, a small number followed his
half-brother, who was called Mohammad ‘Alí. It is not our purpose
to enter into a lengthy discussion of the events of this period, but
some account must be given, for the writings of ‘Abdu’l-Baha
contain so many references to the schismatics, that to understand
them it is necessary for the student to have some knowledge of the
course of events. At the outset it is well to realise that Baha’u’llah
in his “Testament” did definitely nominate ‘Abdu’l-Baha as his
successor, with Mohammad ‘Alí as the next in succession.1 The
accusations made against him are therefore concerned with the
claims made by ‘Abdu’l-Baha when he came into office, and the
rights which he regarded as his in virtue of his position. There are
other charges made against him, such as those of depriving his
brothers of their allowance, and of trying to abduct the widow of
his brother Zia’u’llah by force,2 but as it is impossible to know the
truth, or untruth, of these stories, they need not be considered
here. The real cause of the schism was that ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s
conception of his duties seemed to some of the more con-

Ad‘iat, p. 418.
“Materials”, p. 85.
96 Religion of the Bahais
servative Baha’ís to be in excess of his rights as set forth in the
writings of Baha’u’llah. The quarrel was certainly very bitter, and
‘Abdu’l-Baha is accused of assaulting Mírza Aqa Jan (Khademu’llah),
who had been Baha’u’llah’s chief adviser, and of seizing his papers,
holy portraits, and Tablets when he (Mírza Aqa Jan) died. The
followers of Mohammad ‘Alí called themselves “Unitarians”
(Muvahhedín), but their opponents referred to them as the
“Covenant-breakers” (Naqesín-i Mísaq), by which name they are
constantly called in the writings of ‘Abdu’l-Baha.
The position became so serious that the Ottoman Government
was compelled to interfere, and the brothers were confined in Acre.
Another brother, Badí‘u’llah, was at first a supporter of Mohammad
‘Alí, but later went over to the side of ‘Abdu’l-Baha, declaring that
he had come to the conclusion that the trouble was entirely due to
Mohammad ‘Alí, who was out to further his own ends.1 Badí‘u’llah
made one attempt to settle the dispute between the brothers, and
wrote a letter asking all the members of the family to meet and to
thrash the matter out. This letter has been printed and published
in the form of a pamphlet, and is a valuable index of the state of
things within the movement at this time. Badí‘u’llah sees the
inconsistency of the Baha’í position, and appeals to the family to
unite in spreading the teachings of Baha’u’llah, He pointedly asks,
“Is it fitting that we should turn our backs on the holy
commandments, and that our actions should be contrary to their
teachings? How can we possibly call the people of the world to
unite and to put away all strife, when we ourselves are

“S. of W.”, Vol. III, No. 7, p. 17.
8. ‘Abdu’l-Baha and the spread of Baha’ism 97
divided and at loggerheads with each other.” Mohammad ‘Alí
would have nothing to do with the proposal, so Badí‘u’llah and his
family went over to ‘Abdu’l-Baha.
The quarrel was not confined to verbal wrangling, but so bitter
did it become that even murders were committed. Even were the
right with ‘Abdu’l-Baha, his conduct at the time would be, to say the
least, very inconsistent with his teachings. Even if he knew nothing
of the murder of Mírza Yahya, the Unitarian at Jedda—which is
doubtful in view of his having foretold the man’s death—he
certainly must be regarded as having approved of the act.2 His
writings, too, show a bitterness towards them which is in strange
contrast to his teachings about love. Furthermore, he attributes the
same feelings to Baha’u’llah, for he tells us to refer to all the Tablets
of Baha’u’llah, and says, “Verily, in a thousand places he
[Baha’u’llah] utters prayers, saying, ‘O God, destroy the Covenant-
breakers, and overcome those who oppose the Testament.’”3 We
have only to read the Tablets of Baha’u’llah to see that in a
thousand places he curses the Covenant-breakers.4 Men have said
that ‘Abdu’l-Baha is a despot, and that he turns people out, and, like
the Pope, excommunicates them, but nothing could be further from
the truth. All those who have left the sect have done so of their
own accord, and as a result of their own misdeeds they were
excommunicated. To criticize ‘Abdu’l-Baha for his attitude towards
them is to criticise Baha’u’llah himself, for he it was who forbade
his followers to have anything to do with the Covenant-breakers.5
All his writings bear the mark of his hatred

Ta‘lím, p. 9.
“Materials”, pp. 155 ff. Mírza Yahya died of old age in Famagusta on 29
April 1912 at the age of about eighty.—M.W.T.
Mok., Vol. III, p. 86.
ibid., Vol. III, p. 414.
ibid., Vol. III, p. 415.
98 Religion of the Bahais
of the Unitarians, and it is evident from the few sayings quoted
above that though he preaches that men should love their enemies,
he himself found it impossible to feel anything but hatred for his
opponents.
He was in the right in so far as he really was nominated by
Baha’u’llah as the next in succession, and the American attempt to
make the title given to him by Baha’u’llah prove his right over
Mohammad ‘Alí is both unnecessary and unjustifiable. The title
given to ‘Abdu’l-Baha, Al-Ghusnu’l-A‘zam, means “the Most Mighty
Branch”, whilst that given to Mohammad ‘Alí, Al-Ghusnu’l-Akbar,
means “the Most Great Branch”, both adjectives being superlatives.
Furthermore, the two words are from totally different roots, and to
translate them as “the Greatest Branch” and the “Greater Branch” is
to ignore the meaning of the words in an attempt to exalt ‘Abdu’l-
Baha at the expense of Mohammad ‘Alí.1
Baha’u’llah in the book “Aqdas” declares that anyone coming
forward and laying claim to the prophetic office before the
completion of a full thousand years is a liar and a prevaricator,2 and
to prevent any attempt at “interpreting” this verse he adds that,
“Any man who interprets this verse, or comments upon it in any
way that departs from the clear meaning of the verse as it was sent
down, will be cut off from the Spirit of God, and the mercy of God.”
Having himself interpreted the “Beyan” to suit his own ends, he had
no intention of letting another make a similar use of his book! The
charge against ‘Abdu’l-Baha which concerns us most is that he did
claim to be the bearer of a new Revelation. It is not proposed to
consider the

“Scrip.”, p. 261.
“Aqdas”, p. 13.
8. ‘Abdu’l-Baha and the spread of Baha’ism 99
various charges made by Mírza Javad, for though he professes to
quote a number of the sayings of ‘Abdu’l-Baha,1 he gives no
references, the reason being that the writings of ‘Abdu’l-Baha were
not then to be had in book form, and he was quoting from isolated
Tablets. ‘Abdu’l-Baha had a fertile pen, and a large proportion of
Baha’í literature consists of Tablets written by him, and from these
we can gather what were the charges made against him, and what
position he did claim for himself.
Dr Kheiru’llah, the first Baha’í missionary to America, taught a
doctrine which, though based on Baha’í teaching, was in no sense a
true representation of the beliefs of the sect. According to this
teaching, Baha’u’llah was God incarnate, and ‘Abdu’l-Baha was
Jesus Christ returned. There is no justification for saying that this
was ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s own teaching, but inasmuch as he accepted and
hailed Dr Kheiru’llah as a pioneer missionary, he must be regarded
as acquiescing in the doctrines taught by him. Dr Kheiru’llah’s
position is also somewhat difficult to appreciate, for though he
taught that ‘Abdu’l-Baha was Jesus Christ, and that he was the Son
of God, for Baha’u’llah was God,2 he yet went over to the side of
Mohammad ‘Alí, giving as one of his reasons the fact that ‘Abdu’l-
Baha laid claim to divinity, and as another the fact that his actions
were those of a double-faced man.3 This teaching spread, and it
obviously became an obstacle to some people, and ‘Abdu’l-Baha
finds himself compelled to deny it: “I am not Christ, I am not
Eternal God, I am but the servant of Baha.”4 This denial

“Materials”, pp. 76 ff.
ibid., pp. 137 f.
ibid., p. 111.
Mok., Vol. III, p. 189.
100 Religion of the Bahais
gives us an indication of the way the teaching of Kheiru’llah became
exaggerated, and some even said that ‘Abdu’l-Baha was Eternal
God! How frequent and persistent were the charges made against
him is obvious from the frequency with which he is compelled to
deny them: “I have never made, nor do I make, any claim (for
myself), nor have I hitherto uttered a word that would imply any
relationship with the Blessed Threshold”;1 “‘Abdu’l-Baha has no
Cause to the obedience of which he could call men, save that of
spreading the teachings of Baha’u’llah (lit., the breezes of God)”;2 “If
he should desire a position for himself, which God forbid, what
greater position could he have than that of being a branch of the
Ancient Stock?”3 The “Ancient Stock” is a name given to himself by
Baha’u’llah, each one of his sons being a Branch. Who, then, is
‘Abdu’l-Baha? He is the slave with the ring in his ear and the
emblem of servitude on his shoulder. He is but the “dust of the
Threshold”, and his station is that of “guardian” or “doorkeeper”—
in fact he is just what his name implies, the Servant of Baha,4 and
his one hope is that his Servitude will become acceptable.5
At first sight it would seem that all the accusations of his
opponents are devoid of foundation, but there is no smoke without
a fire, and we can expect to find some truth underlying these
accusations, even if we decide that they are gross exaggerations, so
it is necessary that we seek to understand what were the privileges
and rights that seemed to ‘Abdu’l-Baha to belong to

Mok., Vol. I, p. 346.
ibid., Vol. III, p. 71.
ibid., Vol. II, p. 255.
ibid., Vol. II, p. 252.
“Scrip.”, p. 284.
8. ‘Abdu’l-Baha and the spread of Baha’ism 101
him in his humble capacity of “doorkeeper” and “servant”.
“All that emanates from the Centre of the Covenant (‘Abdu’l-
Baha) is right, and under His (Baha’u’llah’s) protection and favour,
while everything else is error.”1 “All must obey him; all must turn
to him; he is the expounder of my Book and he is informed of my
purposes. All must turn to him. Whatsoever he says is true, for
verily, he knoweth the texts of my Book. Other than he, none
knoweth the Book.”2 This last passage, which is said to be from the
“Testament” (Book of the Covenant) of Baha’u’llah, must be
regarded as evidence of the position which ‘Abdu’l-Baha claimed
for himself, for the words are not found in the “Book of the
Covenant”, and therefore are not the words of Baha’u’llah, as he
would have us believe. It would certainly seem that ‘Abdu’l-Baha
was not above manufacturing proofs for upholding his claim, nor
can we wonder at this when we remember that he had previously
undertaken the task of providing a “history” that would bear out
his father’s claim. Again he tells us, “They (the believers) must
obey the Centre of the Covenant, and must not deviate one hair’s
breadth from obedience to him …. He [Baha’u’llah] has shown the
interpreter of the Book [Aqdas], and has closed the doors of outside
interpretation. Everyone should thank God that in this Blessed
Cause He has tranquillised all, and has left no place for hesitation.
Therefore obedience and submission must be shown, and the face
turned completely to him.”3 Of the authority the “Servant” claims
there can be

“Scrip.”, p. 547.
ibid., p. 282. See The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 323.
“S. of W.”, Vol. III, No. 7, p. 17. Tablet to Mr. Remey.
102 Religion of the Bahais
little doubt, for he demands implicit obedience. “[The Station of
Servitude is] not a servitude liable to interpretation; but an
unconditional and unqualified servitude. This is the real fact.
Whosoever expresses any other interpretation, I will not be pleased
with him. This is my advice to you. This is my counsel to you. This
is my desire. This is my good pleasure.”1
Thus from his own writings it is clear that ‘Abdu’l-Baha claimed
to be the sole interpreter of Baha’í Scripture, and that this claim
meant that he must be regarded as infallible, and that implicit
obedience must be rendered to him.
How far was he justified in making this claim? The passage in
the book “Aqdas” on which the claim is founded is as follows:
“Refer what you do not know from the Book to the Branch that
springeth forth from this upright Stock.”2 This passage is
ambiguous, for whilst it can be read to mean that ‘Abdu’l-Baha has
the right of interpreting the book, it can also be read to mean that
all matters not dealt with in the book are to be referred to him. It is
therefore a matter of doubt whether he really had the right to
interpret the “Aqdas”, but, if he did have it, there were conditions to
be observed. “He who interprets anything which has been sent
down from the Heaven of Revelation in such a way as to deprive it
of its clear meaning, verily he is of those who corrupt the words of
God Most High.” 3 That ‘Abdu’l-Baha did interpret the “Aqdas” in
such a way as to deprive it of its clear meaning is evident enough
from his writings. In the “Aqdas” we are told that the inheritance
laws are compulsory: “It is God’s appointed law. Do not digress
from it to suit

“Scrip.”, p. 285.
“Aqdas”, p. 60.
ibid., p. 37.
8. ‘Abdu’l-Baha and the spread of Baha’ism 103
your own purposes, but follow what you have been ordered to do
by the Source of Light.” 1 The clear meaning of this verse is that the
law is to be binding upon every believer, and that none has the right
to dispose of his property as he thinks fit. God has appointed a law,
the believer must obey. ‘Abdu’l-Baha, however, declares that the
inheritance laws of the “Aqdas” are to be enforced only when a man
dies intestate, and that every man has the right to dispose of his
property as he thinks fit, which is obviously a direct contradiction
of the “Aqdas” law.2 We are thus forced to the conclusion that he
did exceed his powers, and the charges brought against him were
not without some foundation. Right of interpretation does not
include the right to alter and amend, for the slightest alteration is a
corruption of “the words of God Most High”. We saw in a previous
chapter that in the “Aqdas” the only prohibition as regards marriage
is that a son may not marry his father’s wives. ‘Abdu’l-Baha
declares that this does not mean that he is free to marry any other
woman, but that the more distant the relationship between a man
and woman the better it is, and that when men become steadfast in
the Baha’í religion marriage between near relatives will become of
rare occurrence.3 Instances can be multiplied of the way in which
he “interprets” his father’s laws, but the above are sufficient to
make his method clear.
Another “Aqdas” verse declares that “Anyone who speaks in
such a way as to differ from that which is sent down in the ‘Tablets’
is not from me.” 4 This verse is more comprehensive, and provides
a test which

“Aqdas”, p. 10.
Mok., Vol. III, p. 372.
ibid., Vol. III, p. 370.
“Aqdas”, p. 41.
104 Religion of the Bahais
is to be applied to all the teachings given by any of Baha’u’llah’s
followers. Not only is the “Aqdas” protected against speculative
interpretation, but there is no room for originality within the
movement. The “Tablets” of Baha’u’llah are to be the balance in
which the teachings of his successors are to be weighed. He who
dares to be original is not of Baha’u’llah. ‘Abdu’l-Baha was nothing
if not original, and he changed the whole nature of the movement.
It can hardly be maintained that his opponents realised from the
beginning that the official teachings of the sect under ‘Abdu’l-Baha
would undergo a complete transformation, but they must be given
credit for realising the probable trend, of affairs under the new
leader. They may not have been just in all the charges they made
against him, but history proves that they knew their man.1
Whilst this bitter quarrel was being waged at Acre, Baha’í
missionaries were busily engaged in the propagation of the new
faith in America. The first of these missionaries was Dr Kheiru’llah,
whom we have already mentioned above, and whose life and
teachings are fully discussed by the late Prof. Browne.2 A Syrian by
birth, and a Christian, he was educated at the American University
of Beirut, and became a convert to Baha’ism in 1890, whilst residing
in Egypt. In 1892 he went to America, and in the following year he
began to teach the new religion. The teaching given by Dr
Kheiru’llah was in no sense a true representation of the teachings
of Baha’u’llah, for he introduced new elements into the system
which have left their mark on all the later teachings of the
American branch of the movement. It was as a direct result of his
teachings

See, further, Chapter XIII.
cf. “Materials”.
8. ‘Abdu’l-Baha and the spread of Baha’ism 105
that Baha’í doctrine in America took on the allegoric apocalyptic
form in which Baha’u’llah is represented as the Incarnation of God
the Father, and, although he condemned some of the doctrines of
the Christian Scientists,1 yet there was much in his teaching that
would prove attractive to members of that sect, and it was from
among them that the new teaching won many of its converts.2 It is
impossible to estimate the true value of the work done by Dr
Kheiru’llah, but it is a significant fact that either he or some of his
converts introduced the movement into at least eleven of the
eighteen states in which there were Baha’í assemblies in 1926. But
if the movement in America owed its success to Dr Kheiru’llah, it is
also true to say that to him it owed the first severe check that it
encountered. In 1898 he visited ‘Abdu’l-Baha at Acre, and the result
of that visit became evident when, after his return to Chicago, he
went over to the side of Mohammad ‘Alí, taking a large number of
his converts with him. Thus it was that almost from the very start
American Baha’ism became divided, and there can be little doubt
but that the secession of Dr Kheiru’llah was a severe check to the
growth of the movement in that country. Many attempts were
made to win him back, and a number of missionaries were sent by
‘Abdu’l-Baha to work a reconciliation, but all in vain. By far the
most interesting of these emissaries was Mírza Abu’l-Fazl of
Gulpaygan, who remained in America for some three years, and
carried on the work abandoned by Dr Kheiru’llah.3
The movement was introduced into France by Hippo-

“Materials”, p. 137.
Roemer, pp. 149 f.
“Materials”, pp. 146, 151 ff.
106 Religion of the Bahais
Dreyfus, a Jew, and the character of the teaching varied accordingly.
The general tone of the movement is rationalistic, and we find, for
the first time, that a claim is made that the new religion is in perfect
harmony with Science.1 Thus the movement spread into other
European countries, and Western Baha’ism came into being. This
new development worked a complete change in the character of the
movement. ‘Abdu’l-Baha was not slow to realise the possibilities,
and he was wise enough to accept the new elements which came
into the movement from America and France, and moulded his own
teaching accordingly. He realised full well how essential it was to
let these branches develop along their own lines, and his Tablets
show how careful he was to avoid interfering in any way, and how
wisely he refrained from introducing into the West the teachings
then current in Eastern Baha’ism. It was only when American
Baha’ís started visiting him in Acre, and asking him direct questions
on doctrine, that he allowed himself to speak.2 In the meantime, he
had been kept fully informed of developments in the West, and he
framed his doctrines accordingly.
With the spread of Baha’ism, Acre became a place of pilgrimage
for Baha’ís from East and West, and it enabled him to keep in touch
with leading Baha’ís from every country in which the new
movement had taken root.
He himself was confined to the town of Acre until 1908, when he
was released after the Turkish Revolution. He did not, however,
make use of his freedom and leave Acre, but decided to remain
there. Roemer has

Roemer, p. 150.
ibid., p. 149.
8. ‘Abdu’l-Baha and the spread of Baha’ism 107
pointed out that policy made it necessary for him to remain in Acre.
The Bab and Baha were both buried in Acre, which was therefore
the central shrine of the Baha’í world. (The Bab’s body is said to
have been rescued by some of his followers, and buried in a secret
place, from which it was afterwards brought to Acre.) Acre had
become famous as the “Most Great Prison” and the glory of
martyrdom which had surrounded his residence in Acre made it an
ideal place for his purpose. Moreover, the place was a gate into
Palestine, a land holy to Christians, Jews and Moslems. Was it not
mentioned in Scripture? “I will give her the valley of Achor for a
door of hope”1 is interpreted by all Baha’ís as a reference to Acre. It
was equally convenient as a gate to the East, and were he to leave
the town he would be giving Mohammad ‘Alí an excellent point of
vantage.2
In 1911 he visited London and Paris, and returned to Syria by
way of Egypt. In the following year he visited America, and
remained there seven months, travelling all over the country, and
preaching and lecturing whenever possible. In Chicago he
dedicated the ground for the “Mashrequ’l-Azkar”, or Baha’í Temple,
which is to be symbolical of the universality of Baha’ism. On the
return journey he revisited England and France, and paid his only
visit to Germany and Austria, whence he returned to Haifa, calling
once more in Egypt. That he was disappointed in the results
achieved by these journeys is evident from his writings, and though
they did serve to give the new religion publicity, yet very little was
achieved through them.

Hosea 2:15. See ‘Abdu’l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-
Bahá, p. 162.
Roemer, pp. 146 f.
108 Religion of the Bahais
He did not again leave Haifa and Acre, but the Great War
brought him once more into prominence, and he was awarded a
knighthood by the British Government for his work in organising
agricultural operations near Tiberias, whereby much was done to
relieve the famine-stricken population. He died on November 28,
1921, and was buried in a mausoleum erected by himself on Mount
Carmel. Jews, Moslems and Christians attended his funeral, and
paid tributes to him, whilst messages of condolence were sent from
many famous people, including Mr Winston Churchill and Viscount
Allenby.
The new Baha’ism and the West
As we saw in the last chapter, there began under ‘Abdu’l-Baha a
new era in the history of Baha’ism, an era which saw a complete
change in teaching and outlook. Hitherto Baha’ism had been to all
intents and purposes a new development of Islamic thought, but
with the spread of the movement westward, and particularly with
its spread to America and France, there had come in new
tendencies and new ideas which were to change the whole
character of the movement. Another factor which helped to bring
about the change in the movement was the personal character of
the new leader. He inherited much of his father’s forceful
personality and commanding presence, whereby he exerted a
remarkable influence on his followers. We saw how Baha’u’llah
was able to win over the disciples of Mírza Yahya to his own side, in
spite of the fact that they knew the latter to be the true leader; now
we shall see how ‘Abdu’l-Baha was able to make the main body of
Baha’ís accept him, in spite of the fact that the claim he made for
himself was unjustifiable in view of the plain teaching of
Baha’u’llah. Ambitious and capable, he turned his attention to the
West, fully determined to make the most of the new door opened to
him by Dr Kheiru’llah. The exaggerated claims made for

110 Religion of the Bahais
him by the latter undoubtedly served a purpose, for it drew the
attention of the West to him, whilst the position claimed by him,
and granted him by his followers, gave him tremendous prestige
wherever Baha’ism spread.
Baha’u’llah had drawn up his teachings in accordance with the
life to which he was accustomed—the life of the East. When the
movement spread westward, ‘Abdu’l-Baha was wise enough to let
it adapt itself to its new surroundings, whilst he himself looked on
and observed its development. He followed it with an intelligent
interest, and took pains to acquaint himself with Western
movements and Western thought. The scientific discoveries made,
and being made, were demanding a revision of religious thought.
Age-old conceptions were being overthrown, and men were setting
themselves to a fearless and thorough investigation of the very
foundations of religion. On all sides was seen the growth of a revolt
from narrow sectarianism, and a new appreciation of the good in
other creeds. New ideas were spreading, and the old economic
system was breaking down. New facilities for travel were making
the world more neighbourly, for they brought the nations into
closer contact with each other. The age of national isolation was
forever past. In short, the new inventions and discoveries were
changing the whole conditions of life. We know how scientific
discoveries troubled the religious world, and an echo of that was
found in the development of the Baha’í movement in France, where
the new religion was set forth as a system which harmonised
religion and science. There was, too, a growing consciousness that
religion must be adapted to meet the new conditions of
9. The new Baha’ism and the West 111
life. Even to-day the same problem is facing the Church, so rapidly
have the conditions of life been changing. Here was an opportunity
that seemed to augur well for the new religion, and there came to
‘Abdu’l-Baha the vision of a Baha’í world.
Before we come to consider the principles of the new religion as
set forth by ‘Abdu’l-Baha, it is of interest to note what were the
fundamental principles according to Baha’u’llah. Thus, and only
thus, can we appreciate the great change that now takes place, and
understand how far the movement advanced under ‘Abdu’l-Baha.
Baha’u’llah gives five “foundations” upon which rests the
administration of peoples. They are:
1. The ministers of the House of Justice must promote the Most
Great Peace, in order that the world may be freed from
onerous expenditure. (This “House of Justice” must not be
confused with the Universal House of Justice, which will be
discussed in the course of this chapter. It is interesting, too,
that though he does tell us later that wars bring trouble and
distress, Baha’u’llah was appalled most of all by the immense
expenditure they entailed.)
2. Languages must be reduced to one, and that one language
must be taught in all the schools of the world.
3. All must adhere to the means which are conducive to love and
unity. (Surely nothing could be more delightfully vague than
this “foundation”!)
4. Men and women must place a part of what they earn by trade,
agriculture or other business in charge of a trustworthy
person, to be spent in
112 Religion of the Bahais
the education and instruction of the children. That deposit
must be invested in the education of children under the advice
of the trustees of the House of Justice.
5. Complete regard should be had to the matter of agriculture.
Although this matter is mentioned in the fifth, yet in reality it
is endowed with the first station (i.e. it is a matter of first
importance).
Following on these he gives a number of “glad-tidings” which
are equally interesting. Some of these must be regarded as
explaining the foundations. These glad tidings are fifteen in
number, and are as follows:
1. Religious warfare is abolished. (In the Qor’an believers are
enjoined to make war against the infidels in the name of God.)
2. All nations of the world are allowed to consort together. (This
means that the Islamic teaching which forbids intercourse
with all non-Moslems, who are ceremonially unclean, is
abrogated.)
3. The study of languages is enjoined, and the kings, or the
counsellors, of the earth must consult together, and appoint
one of the existing languages, or a new language, as a common
language which must be taught in all the schools of the world.
4. All the kings of the earth must rise to protect and assist the
Baha’í community, and vie with each other in serving it.
5. Baha’ís must be loyal to the Government of whatever country
they may reside in.
9. The new Baha’ism and the West 113
6. This is the tidings of the Most Great Peace.
7. Men are permitted to have their choice in the matter of
habiliment, and in the cut of the beard and its dressing.
8. Monasticism is abolished, and with it celibacy, and permission
is given to all monks and priests to marry, that they may beget
children.
9. Confession of sins to a priest is forbidden. Sins must be
confessed to God alone.
10. Permission is granted to read books. (In the “Beyan” all books
except the “Beyan” and those which explained it were
forbidden.)
11. The study of all sciences and arts is allowed, as long as they
are profitable and conducive to the welfare of mankind.
12. It is incumbent on every believer to engage in some one
occupation or trade.
13. The affairs of the people are placed in charge of the men of the
House of Justice.
14. Pilgrimages to tombs are not necessary; it is better to give to
the House of Justice the money that would be so spent.
15. “Although the republican form of government profits all the
people of the world, yet the majesty of kingship is one of the
Signs of God. We do not wish the countries of the world to be
deprived thereof. If states combine the two into one form,
their reward will be great before God.”
There is nothing essentially religious in any of these principles
or “good tidings”. It is obvious at once that some of them are mere
modifications of the Qor’an, or of the “Beyan”, others are directed
against prac-
114 Religion of the Bahais
tices of the Churches with which he came in contact. To Western
ears the seventh of the “good tidings” sounds absurd; it is clearly
the voice of an Oriental speaking to his fellows. But perhaps the
most significant thing about these “good tidings” is that they are an
indirect confession of the weakness of Baha’ism. To be effective it
has to appeal to the kings of the earth to give their support in order
to put these decrees into practice.1
We cannot in the course of a short chapter try to trace the
gradual growth of the new teachings as set forth by ‘Abdu’l-Baha,
but must confine our study to the “finished article” as found in
present-day Baha’í literature.
In a pamphlet entitled “9”—which number corresponds to the
numerical value of the name “Baha”—we find that the basic Baha’í
principles are twelve in number.
1. The oneness of the world of humanity.
2. Independent investigation of truth.
3. The foundation of all religions is one.
4. Religion must be the cause of unity.
5. Religion must be in accord with science and reason.
6. Equality between men and women.
7. Prejudice of all kinds must be forgotten.
8. Universal peace.
9. Universal education.
10. Solution of the economic problem.
11. A universal language.
12. An international tribunal.

See “Scrip.”, pp. 139–144.
9. The new Baha’ism and the West 115

The writer of the pamphlet states that, “These twelve basic
Baha’í principles were laid down by Baha’u’llah over sixty years
ago and are to be found in his published writings of that time.” 1 It
is the purpose of this chapter to show that all of these principles
did not come from Baha’u’llah, but mark a departure from, as well
as development of, his teachings.
It will be noticed first of all that the Islamic and Babí element
which was so marked in the teachings of Baha’u’llah has now
disappeared. The distinctly Oriental ideas have also been displaced
by others which are essentially Western. We seem to move in an
altogether new atmosphere. Some of the principles are taken over
directly from the teachings of Baha’u’llah, others are new and
appear for the first time. One is a development of Baha’u’llah’s
teaching on a more ambitious scale. Those principles which are
drawn directly from the teachings of Baha’u’llah need not be
considered here, as they are of no particular importance to our
study.
The international tribunal is a development of the House of
Justice of Baha’u’llah. The House of Justice was primarily intended
to control the affairs of the Baha’í community, and, according to the
“Aqdas” each Baha’í community was to appoint representatives,
who must be nine or more in number, to form such a house.2 The
House of Justice conceived by Baha’u’llah was in no sense an
international tribunal, but a purely denominational court.
Baha’u’llah, as we saw, looked to the kings of the earth for support
in establishing peace, and advocated war as a means to end war.
The

“9”, published by the American Baha’í Assembly.
“Aqdas”, p. 11.
116 Religion of the Bahais
international tribunal is ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s development of the House of
Justice. From where, then, would this international tribunal derive
its authority? The answer is obvious—from the Baha’í community.
The election of members is in the hands of the Baha’ís of the world,
but as yet (‘Abdu’l-Baha’s own life-time) such an international
tribunal is impracticable.1 This court or tribunal cannot be formed,
it would seem, until the Baha’ís are strong enough numerically to
control the governments of the world. It is the executive committee
of a Baha’í world. If Baha’ism can rid the world of all its evils, the
task of that tribunal will be an easy one, but what earthly use is a
tribunal that cannot be formed until the world has become Baha’í?
It cannot help a sick world. It would seem that the restoration of a
sick world to health is left to others, and when the task is
completed the tribunal guarantees to look after the now healthy
world.
Independent investigation of truth never was a principle of
Baha’u’llah’s teaching. Baha’u’llah claimed to be the infallible
interpreter of all Scriptures, and the infallible teacher of mankind.
None has the right to question his statements, but if he declares
water to be wine, the believer must unhesitatingly accept his
statement. In the same way, ‘Abdu’l-Baha allows no room for
independent investigation; whatever he says is true, and must be
accepted by all believers. The true teaching of Baha’ism does not
allow independent investigation, but demands servile submission
and unquestioning acceptance of the doctrine of Baha’u’llah and
‘Abdu’l-Baha. Baha’u’llah claimed to free men

Mok., Vol. II, pp. 304 f.
9. The new Baha’ism and the West 117
from priestcraft, but instead of freedom he offers them bondage.
‘Abdu’l-Baha feared independent investigation and deterred his
followers from giving Baha’í literature to any but those likely to be
won over.1
We have already seen that the fifth of these principles came into
the movement when it spread to France. It is interesting to notice
that ‘Abdu’l-Baha in his Paris addresses constantly refers to the
discoveries and inventions whereby man has conquered land, sea
and air. Yet his writings show that he utterly failed to appreciate
the principles of science, and that his use of scientific doctrines was
purely opportunistic. He accepted or rejected the teachings of
science according to the need of the moment. Francis Bacon once
said, “Nature can only be controlled by being obeyed”, and this is
the principle on which modern science works. ‘Abdu’l-Baha utterly
failed to recognise this truth. He declares that man breaks the laws
of Nature at will, and quotes as examples the conquest of sea and
air, and the harnessing of electricity to serve the needs of man. 2 To
‘Abdu’l-Baha the laws of Nature were fixed, and all these wonders
of modern science signified man’s violation of law. He did not
realise that the word “law” when applied in this sense means no
more than an observed uniformity in the behaviour of things, and
the universe is in no sense “governed” by these laws of Nature.
Science is very largely engaged in discovering these laws, and in
formulating them. The conquest of sea and air, the harnessing of
electricity, all the wonders of modern science were made possible
by our increased knowledge of these laws. Men are

“S. of W.”, Vol. III, No. 7, p. 18; Mok., Vol. III, p. 448.
Khat., Vol. I, pp. 196, 228.
118 Religion of the Bahais
controlling Nature by obedience to her laws, not by violating them.
Again, ‘Abdu’l-Baha proves how little he cared about modern
science by the use he makes of its teachings. Writing to a
Westerner, he accepts the theory of evolution,1 but when an
Oriental is disturbed by that theory, he has no hesitation in
rejecting it, and declaring it to be vanity or imagination on the part
of European scholars.2
The teachings of Baha’u’llah know nothing of the doctrine of the
equality of men and women. In all his legislating there is a
distinctly Islamic conception of the rights of woman. A man is
allowed to have two wives, according to the “Aqdas”, and both the
divorce and inheritance laws allow privileges to men which are
denied to women. Education of girls is enjoined, but this does not
justify the statement that equality of the sexes is a principle of
Baha’ism. The idea is foreign to the mind and thought of
Baha’u’llah, and is a Western conception which came in with the
spread of the movement. It is interesting to note that a Persian
tract printed in Shíraz declares that in Baha’ism no man has the
right to have more than one wife at a time, and no woman has the
right to have more than one husband at a time,3 and this statement
purports to be a translation of the English words “Monogamy is
universally recommended”.4 The implication of the teaching of the
tract, which was printed for purposes of propaganda in Persia, is
that the equality of the sexes is recognised in Baha’ism, and it is
interesting because it points to the trend of modern thought in

Mok., Vol. III, p. 388.
ibid., p. 257.
Istekhraj, pp. 4 f.
Questions, viii.
9. The new Baha’ism and the West 119
Persia, and the Baha’í attempt to win over Persian womanhood.
We have already seen that Baha’u’llah’s laws were drawn up
with a view to Eastern conditions, and they contain nothing that
might be said even to suggest a solution of the economic problems
of the West, yet the writer of the little booklet “9” declares that the
economic problem “has been thoroughly solved in the teachings of
Baha’o’llah.” The outlook of Baha’u’llah is made perfectly clear by
his own teaching. We saw how much stress he laid upon
agriculture, and this will easily be understood by all who have seen
his native Persia, with its vast stretches of desert, and its primitive
methods of cultivation. No one can deny the importance of
agriculture, but the great problems of the West are industrial,
whilst those of the Near East are still mainly agricultural. We have
from the mouth of ‘Abdu’l-Baha some teaching as to the solution of
the economic problems of the West. Dealing with the question of
strikes, he said that “It is and will be for a long time the subject of
great difficulties.” Strikes are caused by the rapacity of capitalists,
or the excesses, avidity and ill-will of the workmen. But behind
these is a greater cause—the laws of the present civilisation. The
whole article cannot be discussed here, but it is significant that he
follows Baha’u’llah in that he appeals to the civil power to solve the
problem. The Government must interfere in such disputes and put
matters right. As far as the Baha’í religion goes, it would seem that
the only solution it can offer is in the law that the wealthy should
give over a certain part of their fortune annually for the
maintenance of the poor and unfortunate. “That is the foundation
of the Religion
120 Religion of the Bahais

of God, and the most essential of the Commandments.” 1 Now that
no such law is enforced by the Government, it will, he says, be a
thing much praised if a man does that by the natural tendency of
his good heart. A study of this article serves to show how little
fitted ‘Abdu’l-Baha was to deal with such problems, and how
absolutely devoid of power the Baha’í religion is.
These twelve principles are at first sight very imposing, but
when we examine them, we find that they are without any
foundation. They are but a gay cloak wrapped around a skeleton,
colour without life.
Far more important for an understanding of the spread of the
movement are the “missionary” Tablets he wrote. They give us a
glimpse of his activities and methods. We have already noticed his
missionary journeys, but it remains for us to consider the methods
by which he followed up the successes he had gained. From the
beginning he realised the possibilities of America as a centre for the
movement, and he writes to the Baha’ís there urging them to make
their country the centre of Baha’í missionary effort.2 He
encourages them to work, pointing out that Armenia was won to
Christ through the efforts of one man.3 He points out strategic
positions that ought to be occupied, such as Panama, which
commands two oceans,4 and singles out individuals for praise.5 He
calls for missionaries from Europe and America to go round the
world preaching the new religion, and promises them great
success.6 He deplores the fact that after twenty-three years
Baha’ism has not spread as it should in America.7 He urges the
formation of missionary

“Strikes”, pp. 317 f.
Mok., Vol. III, p. 43.
ibid., p. 43.
ibid., p. 17.
ibid., pp. 21, 22, etc.
ibid., p. 33.
ibid., p. 42.
9. The new Baha’ism and the West 121
schools, and warns his followers against indulging in heated
arguments.2 He incites them to publish literature, and to translate
Baha’í books,3 and gives them instructions as to how to teach the
new religion.4 He restrains them from doing anything that might
hinder the progress of the movement, and discourages the Baha’ís
of ‘Ashqabad (Russia) from making a special Baha’í burial-ground,
declaring that such a cemetery would be a hindrance to the
missionary success of the movement, but comforts them by
foretelling a time when such cemeteries will be permissible.5 There
is scarcely a country in the world which is not mentioned in these
Tablets.
These Tablets are interesting, too, because they show us his
method in dealing with his followers from among the Christians.
The language of these Tablets is perfectly distinct from that which
he used in his writings to Persian Baha’ís. It is obvious at once that
he took the Epistles of St. Paul as his pattern when writing to
Christians. The phraseology throughout is definitely Christian. He
makes mention of them regularly in his prayers,6 and bids them
value the time,7 assuring them that a crown is laid up for them. 8
When St. Paul found Christ he resolved to know nothing but Christ,
and he hopes that that spirit will be found in them.9 Here is no talk
of ‘Amru’llah (Cause of God), but of Malekutu’llah (Kingdom of
God). They are constantly promised the help of the Holy Spirit, and
are encouraged to be like the good husbandman, phrases which
occur too often to make references

Mok., Vol. III, p. 32.
ibid., p. 33.
ibid., p. 23.
ibid., p. 250.
ibid., p. 287.
ibid., p. 8.
ibid., p. 94.
ibid., p. 16.
ibid., p. 390.
122 Religion of the Bahais
necessary. Over and over again they are told to be like the morning
star.1 They are not to think for the things of the world, but are to
lay up treasures in heaven.2 He urges them to missionary work,
quoting the great commission of Christ in a slightly changed form,3
and bids them go forth to heal the sick, restore the blind and raise
the dead.4 They have entered the Kingdom of God, and have been
baptised with the water of life, the fire of the love of God, and the
Holy Spirit.5 Women have Mary Magdalene held up to them as an
example,6 and men have the apostles as their pattern.7
By this lavish use of Scriptural terms he succeeded in concealing
altogether the true nature of the movement. The cause to which
they are called is made out to be the cause of Christ. It is their
privilege to be called to bring in the Kingdom of God. They are not
asked to give up anything they value, but are told that every true
Christian is a Baha’í.8 The result of this teaching is that Baha’ism in
the West is totally distinct from the movement in the East. In the
West we find that Baha’ís retain their membership of their
Churches, and regard themselves as true Christians, little realising
what Baha’ism really is. Yet, in spite of all, Baha’ism is on the wane
in Western countries, and census statistics show that its day is past.
‘Abdu’l-Baha dreamed of a Baha’í world, but that dream will
never be realised. Like Baha’u’llah, he set himself a task which he
was unable to perform. He failed to understand what it is that
mankind needs,

Mok., Vol. III, pp. 24, 62, etc.
ibid., pp. 47, 56.
ibid., pp. 4, 11, 16, etc.
ibid., pp. 56, 94, etc.
ibid., pp. 88 f.
ibid., p. 79.
ibid., p. 89.
Mok., Vol. I, p. 354.
9. The new Baha’ism and the West 123
and did not realise that he had not the wherewithal to satisfy those
needs. Like Baha’u’llah, he conceived of salvation as intellectual,
whereas what men need is something more than that, something
that goes deeper than that. What men want is a power that will
change the human heart, a power that can save them from
themselves. Men need to know God, and knowledge of God was
beyond the power of ‘Abdu’l-Baha to give. Brought up in an
environment of dissimulation and dissension, he never came under
the influence of true religion. He saw how Baha’ism was made, he
had helped to make it, and he tried to re-make it to suit the new
conditions. Intellectually capable, he lacked the training and the
background necessary for such a task, and his teaching is at the
best shallow, and often opportunistic. He lived in an atmosphere of
make-believe, and that atmosphere influenced the whole of his
teachings. His spiritual teaching is vague, lifeless, and forced. He
drew his water from another’s well, but never drank deeply of it
himself. He utters sayings which our Lord hallowed by His death,
but he never fathomed the meaning of them, and did not try to live
them. This will be seen more clearly when we consider his teaching
about love. He failed to help others because he had nothing he
could give them to satisfy their needs. He, again, offered a stone to
a world that cried for bread.
Another cause of the failure of the new movement undoubtedly
lay in the exaggerated claims made on his behalf, and on behalf of
Baha’u’llah, which repel, rather than attract, the Western mind.
The West accepts Jesus as Lord because experience testifies to the
truth of His claim. The basis of Western religion is not a “revealed”
book, but a living experience.
124 Religion of the Bahais
Furthermore, the doctrine of infallibility is repulsive to the
Western mind. Finally the history of Baha’ism, with its bitter
schisms and dissensions, was bound to repel many people, and it is
perhaps safe to say that when the schism spread to America, it
sealed the fate of the new religion.
The teachings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá
Part I: God, man and immortality
It will be impossible in the course of one short chapter to enter
into a full and detailed study of the Baha’í teaching on these three
important questions, but an attempt will be made to show what is
the real nature of these teachings, and what is their religious value.
Modern Baha’ism is the religion of ‘Abdu’l-Baha, for, though
Baha’u’llah is still regarded as the founder and Prophet of the sect,
it is the teachings of ‘Abdu’l-Baha that underlie all its doctrines. Dr
Hermann Roemer has shown us that the teachings of Baha’u’llah
were very largely built on a Sufí foundation, and that some of his
writings were undoubtedly based on older Sufí works. His book
“The Seven Valleys” is purely Sufí in character, and is undoubtedly
based upon the great Sufí classic, the “Seven Valleys” of Farídu’d-
Dín.1 The teachings of Sufism are very largely pantheistic in
character, and though ‘Abdu’l-Baha was undoubtedly influenced by
the new ideas that came into the movement as it spread westward,
he yet retained in his teaching a strong pantheistic element. This
will become clear when we consider his teaching about God.
Before we come to consider that teaching, it is im-

Roemer, pp. 81 f.
126 Religion of the Bahais
portant to realise what were the prevalent tendencies in Western
religious thought at the time.
The hypothesis of evolution was the guiding principle of
physical science during the last century, and it naturally influenced
the religions thought of the day. We have already seen that when
Baha’ism spread to France, it was claimed for the new religion that
its teachings were in harmony with the scientific doctrines of the
day. The Sufí element in the new religion was not altogether out of
harmony with the new tendencies that were appearing in modern
theology. The general tendency of religious thought in the
eighteenth century was deistic, with the emphasis on God’s
transcendence. The nineteenth century brought in a revolution in
religious thought, and the tendency now became pantheistic, with
the stress on the immanence of God. “A cosmic evolution, if it is to
be interpreted theistically, demands not a transcendent static but
an immanent dynamic God, a God who is present and active in His
world.”1 Roman Catholic Modernism was based, as Dr Garvie
points out, on a philosophy of immanence, and the New Theology
associated with the name of Dr R. J. Campbell undertook a re-
statement of the Gospel on the basis of the principle of the divine
immanence. It was at such a time that Baha’ism spread to the West.
a) God
It has been said that “religion is the divinity within us reaching
up to the divinity above.” The problem of God can be approached
from several directions, but we are concerned with two only, the
philosophical and the religious. The main concern

Garvie, p. 15.
10. The teachings of ‘Abdu’l-Baha : Part I 127
of philosophy is knowledge of God, resulting in mental peace and
satisfaction. The purpose of religion is the making possible of
friendship and harmonious relations with God. It aims at
something more than mental satisfaction—it aims at life. Man
seeks through religion to bring himself into harmony with the will
of God. Philosophy is theoretical, religion is practical. The God of
Philosophy is the impersonal Absolute, the God of Religion is
essentially personal. He is the Living God. “One, therefore, to
whom, at least analogically (to borrow a term of scholasticism), we
must attribute will, feeling, thought, and whatever, in short, is
essential to a personal life. At the very outset, therefore, we are
faced with the charge of anthropomorphism. We are told that we
make God after our own image and ascribe to Him attributes of our
finite individuality, and characteristics of our human life such as
can, in the nature of things, find no place in any intelligible concept
of Deity. We are guilty of the folly of colouring ultimate reality with
the imperfections of our shadow life.”1 But, to quote Relton again,
“If it be true that He made us in His image, we cannot be far wrong
in assuming that He is not so totally unlike us as to render all
human analogies meaningless when we seek to form some
conception of His Being and Character.”2 None will deny that there
are difficulties in connection with this view of a personal God.
When we argue from the human to the Divine, we are certainly
working from the imperfect to the Perfect, from the finite to the
Infinite, and we have to be careful not to transfer the imperfections
and limitations of our finite personality

Relton, pp. 10 f.
ibid., p. 73.
128 Religion of the Bahais
into our thought of God. But this objection has been answered by
Lotze in the words, “We are not so much complete persons, as on
the road to personality. Perfect personality is in God only; to all
finite minds there is allotted but a pale copy thereof; the finiteness
of the finite is not a producing condition of this Personality, but a
limit and a hindrance to its development.” 1 This belief in a personal
God is of the very essence of religion. Belief in Revelation
postulates belief in a personal God, who purposes that man should
become like unto Him, and belief that man is so constituted that he
can respond to God’s advances. If we hold these two beliefs, then
we have reasonable grounds for believing that God will take steps
to reveal Himself to man.
Baha’ism claims to be a revealed religion, but ‘Abdu’l-Baha does
not believe in a personal God. The human mind cannot
comprehend God. That which man comprehends and calls God has
no existence outside the mind of man. 2 The peoples of the world
are “revolving around imaginations, and are worshipping the idols
of thoughts and conjectures.”3 The Creator and the creature have
nothing in common, and no resemblance or likeness exists between
them. That which we attribute to the creature we must deny for
God.4 Yet all things reveal God, and the existence of man from the
beginning is essential, for without the existence of man the
perfection of God is not revealed. Every existing thing reveals one
of the names of God, but man’s true nature reveals the perfection of
God. Did man not exist, the creation would have neither meaning
nor purpose, for the purpose of its existence is

Quoted by Relton, p. 78.
Mok., Vol. II, pp. 380 ff.; Vol. II, pp. 30 f.
Mof., p. 13.
Khat., Vol. I, pp. 90 f.; Mof., pp. 216 f.
10. The teachings of ‘Abdu’l-Baha : Part I 129
to show forth the perfection of God. A creator without a creature
is impossible. If we could imagine a time when no beings existed,
this imagination would be a denial of the Divinity of God. 2 “If there
was a time when God did not manifest His qualities, then there was
no God, because the attributes of God presuppose the creation of
phenomena.”3 As the existence of God is everlasting and eternal, so,
too, the universe has neither beginning nor end.4 Though the world
of contingency exists, yet in relation to the existence of God it is
non-existent and nothingness. The existence of beings in
comparison with the existence of God is but illusion and
nothingness; it is an appearance like the image reflected in the
mirror. But though an image which is seen in a mirror is an illusion,
the source and the reality of the illusory image is the person
reflected whose face appears in the mirror.5 The God of ‘Abdu’l-
Baha is therefore the Absolute of speculative philosophy introduced
into religion. He is the God of Pantheism. There is an element of
truth in Pantheism, for the human mind is reluctant to exclude God
from any part of His creation. But God is not dependent upon His
creation He is complete without it. “The All is God. This excludes
Divine Personality. God is the All. This rejects finite individuality as
in any sense having an existence in its own right over against the
All of which it is but a transitory appearance.”6 Such a belief can
have no real religious value, for it denies the possibility of an ethical
relationship between God and man. “There is no cure for
Pantheism like

Mof., pp. 149 f.
ibid., pp. 136 f.
“Scrip.”, p. 402.
Mof., pp. 136 f.
ibid., pp. 205 f.
Relton, p. 82.
130 Religion of the Bahais

a sharp fit of penitence.”1 It is when we can conceive of God as a
Father that we have a true conception of sin. “I can only declare my
conviction that to regard sin as an offence against a personal
authority, and still more to regard it as an affront to a loving Father,
is a more intelligible and a more ethically significant way of
thinking about it than it is to conceive it after the analogy of a
physical defilement or an automatic mechanism.”2 Baha’í writers
make much of the fact that Baha’ism has no anthropomorphic
conception of God,3 but they fail to realise how much they lose.
What has the Absolute of Philosophy to offer to a man bowed down
by the burden of sin? What is there in this teaching to satisfy the
deep longings of the human soul for fellowship with God? If God
ceases to be a Person for the mind, the love of God becomes
meaningless for the heart. “God so loved the world” is the one
message that can satisfy the needs of man. It is when men can
kneel and say “Our Father” with hearts overflowing with love, when
they can cast their burden upon Him, and rise up refreshed and
strengthened by the consciousness of His forgiveness, that they can
face each new day with thankful hearts and quiet minds. The man
who is conscious of sins forgiven does not need proofs of the
existence of God, for God is alive to him—a living, loving Father.
What, then, can we say of ‘Abdu’l-Baha? His teachings provide the
answer; he failed to satisfy the longings of the human heart, and
that failure is marked by the fact that he had to adduce proofs for
the existence of God. To a sin-burdened

Mackintosh, p. 176.
Webb, “God and Personality”, p. 250; quoted by Mackintosh, p. 176.
Vide Questions, p. 4, footnote.
10. The teachings of ‘Abdu’l-Baha : Part I 131
humanity needing love, redeeming love, he offered scientific proofs
of the existence of God.1
b) Man
As is to be expected, his teaching about man is largely
concerned with the origin of the species. The theory of evolution
which caused so much unrest in religious circles was also a source
of difficulty to ‘Abdu’l-Baha. We saw above that, according to his
teaching, man must have existed from the very beginning. Did man
not exist, the creation would have neither meaning nor purpose, for
the purpose of the creation is to show forth the perfection of God.
If it is proved that there was a time when man was in the animal
world, or when he was merely an animal, the perfection of
existence would have been destroyed.2 “If there was a time when
God did not manifest His qualities, then there was no God,”3 and, as
the world without man could not show forth the perfection of God,
to deny that man existed from the beginning is to deny the
existence of God. The Pantheism of ‘Abdu’l-Baha made it
impossible for him to accept the theory of evolution, for it would
imply that God is a growing God or a developing being. He was,
therefore, faced with a real difficulty. We have already seen that he
is inconsistent in his teaching on this subject, flatly denying the
truth of the theory in one Tablet, and admitting in another that
there have been stages in the development of man,4 which is surely
an indication of the difficult position in which he found himself.
But even in his denial there is a suggestion of a compromise,

“Scrip.”, pp. 290 ff.; Mof. pp. 3 f.
Mof., pp. 134 f.
“Scrip.”, p. 402.
Mok., Vol. III, pp. 257 and 388.
132 Religion of the Bahais
and this is an indication of his true teaching. He finds it impossible
to disprove the theory, and is compelled to seek a solution in the
form of a compromise. He admits the possibility of change in the
form and body of man; indeed, he goes further, and declares that it
is certain that the human embryo did not at once appear in this
form, nor did it at once become a manifestation of the words,
“Praise be to God, the best of Creators.” It passed gradually through
various conditions and different shapes until it reached its present
form, and signs of reason and maturity appeared. But from the
beginning of man’s existence he is a distinct species. He may have
had organs that have now disappeared, but he was man all the time.
There never was a time when he was an animal.1 It was a clever
attempt to solve the difficulty, but it did not succeed. It maintained
that man existed from the very beginning, and at the same time
allowed room for a theory of evolution, but it did not solve his
problem. According to this teaching, man did not from the first
possess reason, nor was he from the first a manifestation of the
words “Praise be to God, the best of Creators”, so there was a time
when God did not manifest His qualities, there was a time when
existence was imperfect, and this is tantamount to denying the
existence of God as ‘Abdu’l-Baha conceives Him. This becomes still
clearer when he admits that it is possible that man came into
existence after the animal,2 thus directly contradicting his own
statement that man must have existed from the beginning. Only
two solutions to the problem were open to him—he could either
deny the theory of evolution altogether, or he could accept it, and
modify

Mof., pp. 139 f., 147 f
ibid., p. 147.
10. The teachings of ‘Abdu’l-Baha : Part I 133
his teaching of God so as to allow the possibility of growth and
development in God. Western ideas made the first alternative
impossible, whilst the second would appeal to neither East nor
West.
We come now to his teaching of the nature of man. However
much man may have in common with the lower animals as regards
sense perception, he is yet distinct from them. He possesses a
power which is shared by none of the animals. The sciences, arts,
inventions, trades and discoveries which stand to the credit of man
are all the results of his use of this power.1 Furthermore, he is able
to comprehend those things which have no external existence, such
as reason, spirit, virtues, love and grief. He is lord over the animals,
and can bend them to his will. One ten-year-old Arab boy can
subdue two or three hundred camels, and with one shout make
them come or go as he pleases. One Indian of frail physique can
subdue the huge elephant. Man is lord of Nature, and bends it to
his will.2 All existing things are tied by the laws of Nature, and
cannot digress one inch from their appointed path, but man is
master of Nature, and, in direct opposition to its laws, he sails the
sea and flies in the air.3 He is privileged above all the animals in
that he possesses reason and knowledge.4 He was created to reveal
the Divine Perfection, and all the attributes of God have their
counterpart in him.5 Yet the existence of man in relation to the
existence of God is non-existence. It is but illusion and
nothingness. It is an appearance like an image in a mirror. The
image is an illusion,

Mof., p. 141.
ibid., p. 144; Khat., Vol. I, pp. 196, 228.
Khat., Vol. I, pp. 246 f.; Mof., p. 144.
Khat., Vol. I, p. 226.
Mof., pp. 134 f.; Khat., Vol. I, pp. 244 f.
134 Religion of the Bahais

the reality is the thing reflected.1 Finite individuality has therefore
no value of its own. How different is the teaching of Jesus! The
Gospel of Jesus is in a very real sense the gospel of the value of the
individual soul. When Jesus looked on the multitudes, he was
moved with compassion, for He saw, not a crowd, but individuals in
need of love, and He loved them. How very little the individual
counts in the creed of ‘Abdu’l-Baha will become clearer still when
we consider the following teaching. Man’s nature is twofold. The
physical nature he inherits from Adam, but the spiritual nature is
inherited from the Reality of the Word of God, which is the
spirituality of Christ. The physical nature inherited from Adam is
the source of all imperfection, but the spiritual nature is of the
bounty of the Holy Spirit, and is a reflection of the Sun of Reality.2
The spiritual nature of man is from above; it is, as it were, a ray
from God. It is not in the body, it cannot be said to enter or leave it,
but its relation to the body is that of the sun to the mirror. In other
words, the spiritual nature of man is only a reflection of the Divine,
and has no individuality. It is not in any way affected by the
condition of the body, and death simply means the end of the
connection between it and the body, in the sense that the
connection between the sun and the mirror is ended when the
latter is broken, or the sun ceases to shine upon it.3 According to
this teaching, individual existence must be regarded as ceasing with
death, for it is a mere transitory appearance, “an illusion and
nothingness,” to quote ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s own words once more.

Mof., pp. 205 f.
ibid., pp. 89 f.
ibid., p. 173; Mok., Vol. I, p. 174.
10. The teachings of ‘Abdu’l-Baha : Part I 135

c) Immortality
If we accept the teaching given above, we must conceive of
immortality as an attribute of the cosmic spirit rather than as
pertaining to the individual soul, for the latter is but a transitory
appearance of the former. ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s teaching, however, is not
consistent, and the subject must therefore be considered more
fully. This will best be done by considering some of the various
questions which arise from a belief in immortality.
i. Eternal life
When we speak about eternal life and entering the Kingdom of
Heaven, we are using phrases which must not be interpreted
literally. The Kingdom is neither temporal nor local; it is a spiritual
world, a divine world, the centre of God’s sovereignty. Place and
time surround the body, not the mind and spirit. The spirit is
placeless, and earth and heaven are both one to it. The meaning of
eternal life is the gift of the Holy Spirit, it is the life of the spirit,
which is placeless. Entrance into the Kingdom is through the love
of God, through holiness and chastity, through truthfulness and
purity, through steadfastness and faithfulness, through self-
sacrifice and detachment from the world.1 When the disciples of
Christ received the gift of the Holy Spirit, which is eternal life, they
detached themselves from the world, and even forgot their own
existence2—in other words, they attained to ecstatic union with the
Deity. Eternal life is found in this union, which means the losing of
individuality, and the suppression of self.
ii. Life after death
Death, we saw, is simply the breaking of the connection
between soul and body. The

Mof., pp. 181 ff.
ibid., pp. 81 f.
136 Religion of the Bahais
body is as a cage, and the soul or spirit is as a bird. Death means
the breaking of the cage, and the freeing of the captive soul.1 There
is, then, no need to prove that the soul does not die with the body,
for reason shows clearly that it cannot. To imagine that because the
cage breaks, the bird must die, is foolish. The condition of the body
does not affect the soul, or spirit, at all. The body may be crippled
and subject to all imperfections, but the soul will be free from them.
But when the body is “wholly subjected to disease and misfortune”,
it is deprived of the bounty of the spirit; like a mirror which, when
dirty or broken or dusty, cannot reflect the rays of the sun.
Elsewhere he describes the “bounty of the spirit” as the “bounty (or
grace) of the Kingdom”, which emanates from God and is reflected
in the reality of the creatures. Furthermore, this bounty specifies
and individualises itself according to the capacity, worthiness, and
intrinsic worth of things.2 But this does not mean that there are
individual souls: it simply means that the bounty of the spirit as
reflected in man is to be distinguished from that reflected in the
animal. All things have not the same power of manifesting this
bounty, but each creature reflects it according to its capacity and
intrinsic worth. The soul, which is an emanation from God
reflected in the reality of the creature, is no more affected by the
condition of the physical man than is the sun’s ray by the dirt or
dust on the mirror, so it cannot be said to have any real
individuality, and is certainly not affected by death. It is by nature
immortal and eternal. In view of this teaching, it is difficult to
understand how he can conceive of life after death as

Mof., p. 171.
ibid., p. 218.
10. The teachings of ‘Abdu’l-Baha : Part I 137
possible for the individual. True, he docs tell us that man cannot
imagine the nature of that life,1 but from various teachings
scattered throughout his writings it is clear that he did have a belief
in the survival of the individual. He tells us that all souls will not be
equal. When souls make their appearance in the carnal world they
are all equal, good and pure, but in this world distinctions appear,
and these will become manifest after death, when some will find a
high station, others a medium, others a low.2 Life without growth is
impossible, so in the next life there must be progress. But all souls
will not develop to the same degree, for each one will develop
according to the station in which it finds itself. Peter, however
much he may develop, will never reach the same position as Christ,3
for they occupy different stations. How, then, will the soul of man
make progress in the after-life? There are three ways in which it is
possible—through the grace of God alone, or through the
intercession and sincere prayers of other human souls, or through
charitable deeds and good works which are performed in its name. 4
This teaching of the survival of individual souls is somewhat
unexpected, and would seem to the present author, who, however,
lays no claim to any profound understanding of philosophical
thought, to be thoroughly inconsistent with the rest of his teaching,
yet it is not without interest, and is therefore worthy of some
consideration. Prayers for the dead are made by all true Moslems,
for Mohammad is said to have made them incumbent upon his
followers. “God most certainly exalts the degree of a virtuous
servant in Paradise,

Mok., Vol. III, pp. 388 ff.
ibid., Vol. III, p. 405.
Mof., p. 176.
ibid., p. 181.
138 Religion of the Bahais
and the virtuous servant says, ‘O my Lord, from whence is this
exalted degree for me?’ and God says, ‘It is on account of your
children asking pardon for you.’”1 In Shí‘ah Islam the practice of
good works in the name of the dead is very common. It is held that
by such works it is possible to remit some of the punishment
incurred by the dead as a result of their sins. Behind all such
teaching lies a legalistic idea of religion. Every man has a duty to
perform, but by doing more than is his duty he can claim an extra
reward. Such good works make God man’s debtor, and therefore
they accumulate merit. This merit is transferred to the dead, who
thus reap the reward of these good works. This doctrine has much
in common with that of the Roman Church, which teaches that
“after providing what is needful to make satisfaction for sin and for
the attainment of eternal life, there may be an overplus. Thus
arises the treasury of merits, primarily of Christ, but also of the
saints, from which the Church may rightly derive indulgences.”2
‘Abdu’l-Baha derived his doctrine from the common practice in
Islam, which is based on a legalistic conception of religion, so we
see that, like his father, he failed to break away from his Moslem
environment.
Finally, it is important to notice that he discards the teaching of
the resurrection of the body. St. Paul could not be satisfied with the
Greek teaching of the immortality of the soul—nothing would
satisfy him but the belief in the survival of full personality, and so
he believed in a Resurrection Body, and that belief is an essential
part of the Christian faith. The Babí-Baha’í

Hughes, “Dictionary of Islam”, Article: “Prayers for the Dead”.
Mackintosh, pp. 137 f.
10. The teachings of ‘Abdu’l-Baha : Part I 139
teaching about the Resurrection is a revolt against materialistic
conceptions, but is such a revolt not based on wrong ideas of
matter and spirit? Can man be satisfied with any doctrine which
falls short of that of the Christian Church? “Materialism, you say?
Materialism? Without doubt; but either our spirit is likewise some
kind of matter, or it is nothing. I dread the idea of having to tear
myself away from the flesh; I dread still more the idea of having to
tear myself away from everything sensible and material, from all
substance. Yes, perhaps this merits the name of materialism; and if
I grapple myself to God with all my powers and all my senses, it is
that He may carry me in His arms beyond death, looking into these
eyes of mine with the light of His heaven, when the light of earth is
dimming in them for ever. Self-illusion? Talk not to me of
illusion—let me live!”1 “Listen to Unamuno, the man of flesh and
blood,” says Relton; yes, listen, it is the voice of a man giving
expression to the longings of the human soul; it is the agonizing
demand of human personality for the certainty of survival of death.
It is not the voice of a man, it is the voice of man. Is there anything
in this teaching of ‘Abdu’l-Baha that can respond to that cry? There
is nothing. If we accept ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s teaching we make the
resurrection of Christ of no account, we deny its implications, and
deny ourselves that comfort and hope which cost God so much to
give us. It is not necessary here to discuss what is meant by the
Resurrection Body, but it is important that we should realise how
much we throw away when we discard the belief in it. “Flesh and
blood cannot inherit the kingdom of

Unamuno, quoted by Relton, p. 160.
140 Religion of the Bahais
God” but that does not imply that only a disembodied soul survives.
“Thou fool” said St. Paul, and he meant it. The present author can
truly say that a study of Baha’í teachings has made him realise as he
never did before the wonder of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ,
and the splendour of the Christian hope of the resurrection to
Eternal Life.
iii. Rewards and punishments
Christ was a man, and Caiaphas was a man; Moses and Pharaoh,
Abel and Cain, Baha’u’llah and Yahya all were men. But what a
contrast they offer! The first-named of each pair show to what
heights man may rise, whilst the second show to what a degree of
baseness he may sink. Man is at the last degree of darkness, and at
the beginning of light. If he follows the divinely appointed Guide or
Prophet he can grow in light, but if he does not, his condition
becomes one of utter darkness. Thus it is that, whilst some souls
grow, others sink lower and lower. The progress of man both in
this world and the next is therefore dependent on his acceptance of
the divinely appointed Guide.1 The terms “reward” and
“punishment” are misleading. That which they are meant to denote
is a spiritual state or condition which defies definition.2 The body
is only the instrument of the soul. The sword is not punished for
shedding innocent blood, nor is a spear punished for wounding a
captive foe, for both are instruments, not agents. Rewards and
punishments are therefore to be understood as referring to the
soul alone.3 The greatest possible torment is separation from God, 4
so

Mof., pp. 179 f.
Mok., Vol. II, p. 160.
ibid., Vol. I, pp. 458 f.; Vol. II, p. 71.
Mof., p. 199.
10. The teachings of ‘Abdu’l-Baha : Part I 141
it would seem that the term “reward” is used to signify nearness to
God, whilst “punishment” implies separation from God. Those who
have not received divine instruction through a Prophet are sinning
in ignorance, so God forgives them, 1 whilst those who do not know
God, but have good principles and good characters, are worthy of
pardon. Nevertheless, good actions alone, without the knowledge
of God, cannot win for man eternal salvation, and entrance into the
Kingdom of God.2 What, then, does forgiveness mean? It would
seem that entrance into the Kingdom is barred even when they
have been forgiven.
All this teaching is necessarily vague and unsatisfactory,
because he has no true belief in a personal God, and no real
appreciation of the meaning of finite individuality. Forgiveness,
punishment, eternal life, salvation, knowledge of God are all terms
which are more or less devoid of meaning if we deny the doctrine
of a personal God and of the value of finite individuality. His
teachings are therefore of very little value, and are best explained
by referring to the circumstances in which they were given. They
are almost without exception answers given to questions raised by
people brought up in a Christian environment, and, consequently,
possessed of Christian ideas. Behind the questions was a
background of Christian ideas, behind the answers was a
background of Oriental Pantheism and Moslem legalism, and the
attempt to harmonise them ended in mere confusion of thought.

Mof., p. 200.
ibid; pp. 179 f.
The teachings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá
Part II: The Trinity, Jesus Christ,
the Holy Spirit and baptism
In the West it is the custom for Baha’ís to retain membership of
whatever branch of the Christian Church they may have belonged
to before their acceptance of Baha’ism. Horace Holley, who is
Secretary of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’ís of the
United States and Canada, declares that “one may be a Baha’í and
retain active membership in another religious body.” 1 Similarly,
Miss Musgrove, who is in charge of the Meeting Room at Walman
House, Regent Street, London, is herself a member of a Christian
Church. When interviewed by the Rev. F. Lawrence, she said, “You
need not give up such membership to join the Baha’í movement.”
Mr. Lawrence, who visited Walman House on behalf of the present
author, declares that “she was very emphatic that the ‘movement’
must not be called a ‘religion’.” It is not the purpose of the present
chapter to consider Baha’í propaganda methods in the West, but it
is important to bear these statements in mind when considering
‘Abdu’l-Baha’s teaching on some of the fundamental doctrines of
the Christian Faith.

“Census”, pp. 10 f.
144 Religion of the Bahais

a) The Trinity
Man cannot possibly comprehend or imagine the Divine Reality.
God is essentially One, and division or plurality in the Godhead is
impossible. When we speak of God manifesting Himself, we mean
that He reveals His beauty and perfection in a Perfect Man, just as
the sun reflects itself in a mirror. Christ was such a mirror, so God
was seen in Him. But God did not come down, any more than the
sun can be said to come down into the mirror. All the creatures
reflect God, all are mirrors, but only the Prophets are perfect
mirrors, and in them is seen the Divine Perfection. 1 Thus Christ is
no greater than any other Prophet, and the Christian doctrine of the
Incarnation is denied. Christ and the Holy Spirit are two reflections
of the Divine Reality. The Holy Spirit is the grace of God, and
Sonship is the state of Christ’s heart, whilst the Holy Spirit is again
the station of the Spirit of Christ.2
‘Abdu’l-Baha’s outlook is that of the ordinary Moslem, who
holds that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is incompatible with
a belief in the Unity or Oneness of God. To him the Christian
doctrine of the Incarnation would imply that God had “come down,”
and that during the period of Christ’s life on earth God was
localised. His denial of the doctrine of the Trinity is therefore
based on ignorance of its meaning.
b) Jesus Christ
The influence of the Qor’an upon his teaching about Christ is
very marked. According to the Qor’an, Jesus was born of the Virgin
Mary by the Holy Ghost.3 The Holy Ghost took the form of a man, as
an image is pro-

Mof., p. 168.
ibid., pp. 86 f.
Khat., Vol. I, p. 82.
11. The teachings of ‘Abdu’l-Baha: Part II 145
duced in a mirror, and he addressed Mary. What exactly are we to
understand by this? An image is not produced without a mirror.
Are we, then, to understand that the Holy Ghost was “reflected” in a
human mirror? Is it meant to imply that Christ, though born of
Mary by the Holy Ghost, was yet in a sense the child of a human
father? He does not explicitly deny the Virgin Birth of Christ—on
the contrary, he argues for its possibility—but the only definite
statement he makes is that Christ was born and came into existence
by the Holy Spirit,2 and in view of his explanation given above of
the Qor’an statement that the Holy Spirit talked with Mary, this
cannot be taken as a definite statement of his belief in the Virgin
Birth. He states quite definitely that there is no virtue in virgin
birth, for if being without a father is a virtue, Adam is greater than
all the Prophets, for he had neither father nor mother. In the Old
Testament it is said, “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of
the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and
man became a living soul,” and so he tells us to observe “that Adam
came into existence from the Spirit of life.” Furthermore, it is
written in St. John’s Gospel that “as many as received him, to them
gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that
believed on his name. Which were born, not of blood, nor of the
will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” From which it is
evident that the holy reality, by which is meant the real existence of
every great man, comes from God, and owes its being to the breath
of the Holy Spirit. If to be without a human father is the greatest
human glory, then Adam is greater than Christ. But Adam

Mof., pp. 66 f.
ibid., p. 69.
146 Religion of the Bahais
was less than Abraham, for the substance of Adam’s physical life
was mere earth, whilst that of Abraham was pure sperm, and it is
sure that pure sperm is superior to earth!1 The implication of this
teaching would seem to bear out the interpretation of his teaching
given above, according to which Christ was the child of a human
father. It is clear that he interprets the teaching that Christ was
born through the agency of the Holy Ghost as equally applicable to
any great man. He declares the possibility of virgin birth, but the
general tone of his argument as to its value shows that he
considered the doctrine absurd.
Christ was baptised in the Jordan by John. He was not in any
need of baptism, but as He desired that this institution of John
should be used at the time by all, He Himself conformed to it in
order to arouse the people and to fulfil the old Law.2 In the time of
Christ the Mosaic Law was no longer suited to the needs of
mankind, so He abrogated it, and thus it was that He broke the
Sabbath.3 Here again the influence of Islam is clear. According to
the Moslem doctrine, every Prophet abrogates the Laws of the
previous Prophet, so Christ abrogated the Law, and Mohammad
abrogated the Gospel. Jesus Himself declared that He came not to
destroy the Law, but to fulfil it, a statement which ‘Abdu’l-Baha,
with his Moslem training, could not understand. Nowhere in the
Gospels do we read that our Lord broke the Sabbath. True, He was
charged with doing so, but actually He kept the Law scrupulously.
What Jesus really did was ignore the “Oral Law” which had come to
be regarded as equally binding with the “Written Law”,

Mot., pp. 68 f.
ibid., p. 7o.
ibid., p. 72.
11. The teachings of ‘Abdu’l-Baha: Part II 147
and thus it was that He could accuse the Scribes and Pharisees of
leaving the commandments of God, and holding fast the tradition of
men.1
When Christ said, “I am the bread of life,” He meant that He was
offering men heavenly food. Eating that food means the receiving
the divine grace and partaking of the divine light. In the same way,
when Christ speaks of “blood” He means the spirit of life. Again, it
is written, “Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that
cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall
never thirst”2 so it is obvious that to eat is to draw near to Jesus,
and to drink is to believe in Him. The disciples had taken many
meals from the hand of Christ, so why should the Last Supper be
distinguished above the rest? When Christ said of the bread and
wine that they were His body and blood. He was with them in
person, He was present in the flesh, and could not have meant them
to take His words literally. What He meant was, “I have given you
my bounties and perfections, and when you have partaken of this
bounty eternal life is yours, and you have had a share and a portion
of the heavenly food.”3 Christians are therefore wrong when they
interpret these words of Jesus to refer to His impending death, and
the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is therefore meaningless. We
have already seen that he denies the truth of the Incarnation, and
by implication, of the Virgin Birth. Now we see that he virtually
denies the Atonement. What, then, of the Resurrection? What of
the Ascension? The Resurrection is not bodily resurrection. When
we speak of the three days in the tomb, of the Resurrection

St. Mark 7:8.
St. John 6:35.
Mof., pp. 74 ff.
148 Religion of the Bahais
and Ascension as if they were actual historical occurrences, we are
mistaken. All are spiritual conditions. After Christ’s death the
disciples were scattered, and so the teachings, the bounties and the
perfections of Christ were hidden from the world, and the cause of
Christ was as a body without life. But after three days the disciples
recovered their assurance and steadfastness, and began to serve
the cause of Christ and to spread His teachings. The Reality of
Christ once more became resplendent, His teachings were spread,
and His bounties were revealed. His religion, which had been as a
dead body, became alive once more. Such is the meaning of the
Resurrection, and the Ascension has a similar meaning. 1
In conclusion, we have to consider his teaching as to the second
coming of Christ. The first time that Christ came, He came from
heaven, but because He was apparently born from Mary’s womb,
the Jews failed to realise this. He gave a number of signs which are
to be fulfilled when He comes again, but they are not to be taken
literally, for, whilst it is true that He will come from heaven, He will
be born into the world from the womb of a mother. But Baha’u’llah
has already explained this, as will be seen, in the book “Iqan”2
Reference to the book “Iqan” shows that Christ has already come in
the person of Mohammad.3
How, then, can Baha’ís retain membership in a Christian
Church? The position is best summed up by quoting the teaching of
the Apostles’ Creed, and bracketing the clauses which cannot be
accepted by any Baha’í without denying the teaching of ‘Abdu’l-
Baha.

Mof., pp. 79 ff.
ibid., pp. 84 f., 99 ff.
ibid., pp. 21 ff.
11. The teachings of ‘Abdu’l-Baha: Part II 149

“And in Jesus Christ (His only Son our Lord, who was conceived
by the Holy Ghost), born of (the Virgin) Mary, Suffered under
Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried (He descended into
hell; the third day He rose again from the dead, He ascended into
heaven, And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead).” His
teaching is a denial of all that is fundamental in Christianity.
c) The Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit is the mediator between God and man. As the
mirror reflects the light of the sun, so the Spirit reflects the divine
light.1 It is the Spirit that enables man to attain to eternal life, to
grow in knowledge and spirituality, and to make inventions and
discoveries.2 It is adorned with all the divine perfections.
Whenever the Spirit appears in the world, the life of the world is
renewed, the darkness of ignorance fades into light, and a new age
is inaugurated.3 So far it would seem that the Spirit is endowed
with personality, and that He is a mirror of all the divine
perfections. But the fact that the Spirit is said to appear in the
world periodically implies that it is not immanent and active in the
world, and we are compelled to associate the coming of the Spirit
with that of the Prophets. This becomes clear when we consider
his teaching as to the nature of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the
divine grace, which shines forth like rays from the station of the
Manifestation. Christ was a centre from which shone forth the rays
of the Sun of Reality, and from Him the divine grace shone forth

Mof., p. 109.
Khat., Vol. I, p. 91.
Mof., pp. 109 f.
150 Religion of the Bahais
upon the disciples, for the Reality of the disciples also acted as a
mirror. This is what is meant by the teaching that the Holy Spirit
alighted upon the disciples.1 All the Prophets were centres from
which the divine grace was shed abroad.2 The Holy Spirit cannot be
said to ascend or descend, to enter or to leave, for such terms can
be applied only to material bodies. When the Holy Spirit is spoken
of as if it were endowed with personality, the reference is to some
person who is a mirror of the Spirit, so, when Christ foretells the
coming of the Spirit of Truth, He is indicating the coming of another
person who will be a mirror of the Spirit.3
It would seem, therefore, that the Holy Spirit is not really the
mediator between God and man; rather is it the thing mediated—
the divine grace. The Prophets are the true mediators. Thus, when
the world is bereft of a Prophet or Manifestation, there is no
mediator between God and man, and the world is bereft of the
divine grace or bounty. We are therefore forced to the conclusion
that during the long intervals between the coming of the various
Manifestations man is cut off from God! It is the Spirit that enables
man to attain to normal life, and to make progress, but the Spirit is
not always present in the world, and man is deprived of the life-
giving flow of the divine grace. Such is the teaching of ‘Abdu’l-Baha,
the prophet not of hope, but of despair.
d) Baptism
It is true that Jesus was baptised, but that does not mean that
baptism is necessary to-day. Jesus said

Mof., pp. 82 f.; not found in the English version.
ibid., pp. 96 f.
ibid., pp. 82 f.
11. The teachings of ‘Abdu’l-Baha: Part II 151
that baptism must be by the Spirit and fire, and another time He
said it must be by the Spirit and water. Baptism by fire is
impossible, so it is obvious that the words of Jesus must not be
taken literally. He did not mean baptism by the elements fire and
water; He meant baptism by the Spirit, by knowledge, by the fire of
the love of God. It is by this baptism that the human heart is
cleansed, and man is made a partaker of the Holy Spirit. Baptism
by water was for repentance and remission of sins, but that is no
longer necessary, for in this the age of Baha’u’llah baptism by the
Spirit and Love of God, which is the real baptism, is established and
understood.1 In the East, in both the Catholic and Orthodox
Churches, infants are baptized by immersion in water mixed with
olive oil, and many of them fall ill from shock. In other places the
priest sprinkles water on the forehead of the child. Other nations
are amazed that they should treat children in this way, for no
possible benefit is derived from the rite. It does not bring about a
spiritual awakening in the child, nor does it inspire faith in it, nor
does it work the conversion of the child. It is just an empty custom.
In the time of John the Baptist there was some meaning in it, for
those who were baptised unto repentance spent their time in
earnest expectation of the coming of Christ and of the Kingdom of
God. Times have changed, and baptism is no longer necessary, for
the needs of modern times are not those of the time of Christ.2
It is surely significant that in showing the uselessness of
baptism he confines his remarks to infant baptism, and not a word
is said about the possible significance

Mof., pp. 70 f.
ibid., pp. 71 ff.
152 Religion of the Bahais
of baptism to an adult. Life as a missionary in Persia has shown the
present author what baptism can mean, and should mean. To men
who have found in Christ their Saviour it is no empty rite, but a
sacrament in the true sense of the word.
The question “Can a Christian be a Baha’í?” has but one
answer—an emphatic “No!” for Baha’ism is a denial of all that is
fundamental in the Christian religion. The Apostles’ Creed is
almost wholly denied, and the two chief sacraments of the
Christian Church are declared to be meaningless rites, mere
customs.
The teachings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá
Part III: The Prophets, miracles,
Scriptures, sin and evil, salvation and love
a) The Prophets
The progress of humanity depends on education. Without
education man sinks to a lower level of life than that of the animals.
The wonders of the civilised world show to what heights man can
rise when education plays its part in life, whilst the condition of
cannibal tribes shows to what degrees of degradation he can fall
when education is lacking. There can be no education without an
educator. Education is three-fold: physical, human, and spiritual.
Physical education is concerned with the development and care of
the body, and is common to animals and man. Human education is
concerned with civilisation and progress, which include the art of
government, trades and crafts, sciences, and charitable works. In
short, it is concerned with all the various activities of man which
distinguish him from the animal. Spiritual education is concerned
with the acquirement of the divine perfections, and this is the true
education. Mankind, therefore, needs an educator whose authority
and teachings will be equally effective in all three branches, from
which it follows that he must be distinguished above all the rest of
mankind.

154 Religion of the Bahais
He must be a Perfect Man. The Perfect Man has appeared at
different times in the persons of the Prophets, and through them
the world has been led along the path of progress. Abraham,
Moses, Jesus, Mohammad, the Bab, and Baha’u’llah were all such
educators.1
Man can only know God through the Prophets. They are true
mirrors of the Being of God, and in them are all His perfections
revealed. We cannot know the Ultimate Reality of God, but we see
Him reflected in the Prophets in the way in which the sun is
reflected in a mirror.2 The Prophets are distinguished above other
men by the manifestation of the divine in them. In them is the
Word of God, the Eternal Grace, the Holy Spirit, which is eternal,
and has neither beginning nor end.3 So the title “Word of God”
which we are wont to give to Jesus, and which even Mohammad
gives to none but Him, can, according to this teaching of ‘Abdu’l-
Baha, be equally applied to any one of the Prophets. There are two
classes of Prophets—those who bring a new code of law and new
Books, and inaugurate a new age, and those who follow the first
and are dependent on them, and promote their teachings. The
former, who receive the bounty of the divine grace direct and
without mediation, are the mediators through which it is conveyed
to the latter. Whereas the former are like the sun, which is in its
very essence light, the latter are like the moon, which derives its
light from the sun. Among the former are the educators mentioned
above, whilst among the latter are Solomon, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah
and Ezekiel.4 There are cycles in history. Each of the divine
Manifestations

Mof., pp. 5 ff.
ibid., pp. 110 ff.; Khat., Vol. I, p. 28.
Mof., pp. 114 f.
ibid., pp. 123 f.
12. The teachings of ‘Abdu’l-Baha : Part III 155
has a cycle, and during that cycle his teachings are in force, but
when a new Manifestation appears, a new cycle begins. In addition
to these cycles, there are universal cycles. An universal cycle covers
innumerable epochs, and includes the other cycles. In such a cycle
a number of Manifestations appear with great splendour, and
finally the great universal Manifestation appears. We are in the
universal cycle which began with Adam, and its universal
Manifestation is Baha’u’llah. Other Manifestations will appear after
him, and will renew certain commandments from time to time
according to the needs of those times, but they will all be under his
shadow.1 The Prophets have no thought for themselves—their one
concern is the welfare of mankind. The reproaches and rebukes for
sin found in Holy Scriptures, which, apparently, are directed to the
Prophets, are in reality intended for the people. In the same way,
when the Prophets make confession of sin, their words must not be
interpreted literally, for all of them were sinless. Their purpose was
to encourage their followers to humility and meekness, and to
confession of sins.2 All the Prophets are sinless, but only those of
the first class mentioned above are sinless by nature. The others
are protected by God from sin, so their sinlessness is acquired. This
acquired sinlessness is granted to every holy soul. It will also be
granted to the Universal House of Justice when that is established
under the necessary conditions. All that the Prophets say is the
word of God, and all the things which they command are righteous.
Obedience to them is incumbent upon all believers, and none has
the right to criticise them. The attitude of the

Mof., pp. 120 ff.
ibid., pp. 126 ff.
156 Religion of the Bahais

believer must be one of absolute submission.1 Every Prophet
knows the contents of the Books brought by other Prophets. He
may not have seen those Books, he may not have seen those
Prophets in the flesh, but he knows all their secrets.2 The
knowledge of the Prophets is not acquired knowledge, it is divine
knowledge—that is to say, it is a divine revelation. They are aware
of “the reality of the mysteries of beings” and so they establish laws
which are suitable and adapted to the conditions of human life.3
The influence of Islam is clearly seen in his teaching of the
sinlessness of the Prophets, and in the doctrine of the prophetic
cycles, which is merely the Islamic teaching that each Prophet
abrogates the laws of his predecessor expressed in a different way.
His teaching of the universal cycle and of the universal
Manifestation is a development of the “Beyan” teaching about “Him
whom God shall make manifest,” and of Baha’u’llah’s own teaching.
Baha’u’llah taught that after a thousand years another
Manifestation can be expected, and ‘Abdu’l-Baha makes the Coming
One subservient to Baha’u’llah. His teaching about the two classes
of Prophets is a development of the ordinary Moslem teaching, and
it is chiefly interesting because it allows a place for him among the
Prophets. He can be numbered with the Prophets of the second
class, and though he is thus dependent upon Baha’u’llah, and draws
his light from him, yet he is the possessor of no mean station, and
can claim acquired sinlessness.
b) Miracles
All the Manifestations could work miracles. Nothing was too
difficult or impossible for them, for they were

Mof., pp. 129 ff.
Mok., Vol. II, p. 80.
Mof., pp. 118 ff.
12. The teachings of ‘Abdu’l-Baha : Part III 157
endowed with exceptional powers, and all of them did work
miracles.1 Though Baha’u’llah did work miracles, he does not wish
to mention them, for the listener may not accept them as true.
Those miracles were, however, numerous, and acknowledged even
by outsiders.2 Thus, though he denies the absurd story current in
Islam that Mohammad split the moon into two parts, 3 he does
ascribe miracles to Mohammad. This is contrary to the teaching of
the Qor’an, which declares that Mohammad was not given power to
work miracles. When the Jews and Christians demanded miracles
from him as a proof of his mission, Mohammad answered that the
Qor’an was his miracle, and that he was not sent with miracles, as
the infidels of old had despised them.4 With this the teaching of the
Traditions also agrees. In the Shí‘ah book of Traditions called
“Hayatu’l-Qulub” an interesting explanation is given as to why
Mohammad had no miracle other than the Qor’an. In the time of
Moses magic was the chief accomplishment of the age; in the time
of Christ healing was the great art; in the time of Mohammad
literature was considered the greatest of all arts. Thus it was that
Moses, Christ, and Mohammad each came endowed with the power
that best befitted the need of his own age. ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s teaching
is, therefore, a departure from that current in Islam. But though he
teaches that all the Prophets worked miracles, he only discusses the
miracles of Christ, and, strange to say, his discussion is a virtual
denial of the truth of those miracles! Miracles are of no
importance; they are signs and proofs only for those who see them.
They cannot be quoted

Mof., pp. 77 f.
ibid., pp. 28 f.
ibid., p. 18.
Surah Ankabut, vv. 48 ff.; Surah Asra, v. 61.
158 Religion of the Bahais
as proofs to-day, for men can always argue that the stories are
fabrications. The real miracle performed by Christ was the work
He did for the world, and the way in which He influenced the whole
of the subsequent history of the world. Were a blind man to receive
his sight it would make no difference in the end, for when death
came blindness would once more be his lot. Were a dead body
raised to life, what would be gained by it? Death would come to it
eventually. Such miracles are useless and of no importance, for
eternal life is all that matters, and the gift of that is the true gift of
life. That is what Christ Himself meant when He said to one of His
disciples, “Let the dead bury the dead, for that which is born of the
flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit.” Those
who apparently were alive were in reality dead, for life really
means eternal life. Accordingly, when the Scriptures speak of
raising the dead to life, the meaning is that souls spiritually dead
received the gift of eternal life. When the blind receive their sight, it
is spiritual sight; when the deaf have their hearing restored, it
means that they acquire spiritual hearing. That this is so is proved
by the Gospel itself, for Christ said that these are like those of
whom Isaiah said, “They have eyes but they see not, ears have they
and hear not, and I heal them.” The Manifestations could work
miracles, but spiritual sight, spiritual understanding, and eternal
life were the things that mattered to them, and the Scriptures must
be interpreted accordingly. 1
‘Abdu’l-Baha has utterly failed to see the teaching value of the
miracles of Christ, and has not understood

Mof., pp. 77 f.
12. The teachings of ‘Abdu’l-Baha : Part III 159
that Christ neither regarded them as signs and proofs, nor used
them as such. Christ did not work miracles and then demand faith.
He demanded faith and then worked miracles. The real interest of
this teaching lies in the use that ‘Abdu’l-Baha makes of the Gospels,
because it serves as an example of the method commonly followed
by all Baha’ís when interpreting other Scriptures. In the first case
he takes two sayings of Christ on totally different occasions, and
combines them to suit his own argument. In the second he
manages by slightly altering the words of Christ to convey the
meaning he wants.
c) The Scriptures
He has very little to tell us about the Scriptures, but that little is
important. The later the Book, the greater its value,1 so the Qor’an
and the Babí-Baha’í books are all of more value than the Bible. The
“Aqdas”, though totally unsuited to the needs of to-day, abrogates
all previous Scriptures,2 and yet, though Baha’ism has spread West,
no English translation is in use among Western Baha’ís! They have
accepted the prophet, but are ignorant of his teaching!
d) Sin and evil
In view of his pantheistic theology it is only to be expected that
‘Abdu’l-Baha should deny the reality of free-will. Man has the
choice of doing good or evil, but that choice is only psychological.
All effective causality is referred to the will of God.3 The only way
in which it is possible to escape from making God

Mok., Vol. II, p. 70.
ibid., Vol. I, p. 343.
Mof., pp. 187 ff.
160 Religion of the Bahais
the direct author of evil, which is the logical outcome of this
teaching, is to deny the origin of evil, and this he unhesitatingly
does. Evil is the absence of good; poverty is the absence of wealth;
imperfection is the absence of perfection; ignorance is the absence
of knowledge. All that is in existence is good, and these opposites
are referred to absence or nothingness. But if it be objected that
serpents and scorpions exist and are evil, the answer is obvious:
they are evil only in relation to man. In relation to themselves they
are not evil, but their poison is their weapon of defence. Thus evil
does not exist, and all that God created is good.1
Since evil is relative, a similar doctrine of sin is to be expected.
According to ‘Abdu’l-Baha, the teaching that death entered the
world as a consequence of the sin of Adam, and that Adam’s guilt
became the heritage of the human race, is entirely wrong, and
arose from a misunderstanding of the teachings of St. Paul. St. Paul,
he tells us, was referring to the physical imperfections when he
spoke of death. Adam was the cause of physical life, and the
physical world of man is a world of imperfections. These
imperfections are shared by the animals, but only in the case of
man can they be regarded as sin. They are strongest in man when
he has not received spiritual education, as is clear from the
condition of the cannibals of Africa. Sin is therefore the lack of
perfections, which again is due to lack of training. It is attachment
to the world, which in relation to the spiritual world is considered
as sin. The sin in man is relative to his position. His imperfections
are shared by the animals, but are not

“S. of W.”, Vol. XIX, No. 12, p. 379; Mof., pp. 198 f.
12. The teachings of ‘Abdu’l-Baha : Part III 161
sin in them, whilst his good deeds are the sins of the Cherubim (lit.,
Near Ones). Bodily power is weakness in relation to spiritual
power, and physical life is death in relation to eternal life.1
e) Salvation
Attachment to the world is the cause of the bondage of spirits,
and this bondage is identical with sin. Salvation, therefore, means
freedom from this bondage, which is eternal lite.2 But eternal life is
impossible without the knowledge of God, and as God can only be
known in His Manifestations, submission to them is a necessary
condition of salvation.3 Here we are forcibly reminded of the Sufí
teaching and practice. The first step taken by the Sufí is the putting
of himself under the guidance of a “Pír”, or spiritual director, whose
voice is to him the voice of God. The Perfect Educator of ‘Abdu’l-
Baha’s teaching would seem to fulfil the same functions as the Sufí
“Pír”. Apart from the Manifestation, the believer cannot attain to
eternal life. Good works alone are useless, unless they are
sustained by the knowledge of God. Good works become perfect
when to the knowledge of God are joined the love of God,
attraction, ecstasy, and good-will.4 By placing himself under the
guidance of the Manifestation the believer is enabled to detach
himself from the world, and to attain to ecstatic union with the
Deity.
f) Love
The first principle of God, Love, is the creative principle. It is an
outpouring from God, and is pure

Mof., pp. 89 ff., 92 ff., and 5 f.
ibid., pp. 92 ff.
ibid., pp. 110 f., 221 ff.
Mok., Vol. II, p. 305; Khat., Vol. I, p. 105; Mof., pp. 221 ff.
162 Religion of the Bahais
spirit. It is one aspect of the Logos, the Holy Spirit. It is the
immediate cause of the laws which govern Nature, and it reflects
the positive aspect of God. It is active, creative, spiritual.1 If the
love of God did not exist, the contingent world would be in
darkness, and the hearts of men would be dead, and deprived of the
sensations of existence. It is this power that unifies mankind and
removes all differences from among men. The Love of God is the
spirit of life, and it gives to man the life of the Kingdom. 2 Love is
therefore the power which keeps the world together; it is the Holy
Spirit, it is the Logos. This conception of God as Love in a cosmic
sense is also found in Sufism, the influence of which is to be seen in
almost all his teachings. To be filled with the love of God, to lose
self in the ocean of the Deity, is the highest aim of the Baha’í. When
the Holy Ghost descended upon the Apostles, they gained new life
through the spirit of the Love of God. They detached themselves
from the things of the world, they sacrificed their body and soul to
the Beloved, and even forgot their own existence.3 In short, they
attained to ecstatic union with the Deity. This, as we saw, is the
meaning of salvation, but behind it lies the Sufí conception of God
as Love in a cosmic sense. This is a very different thing from the
Christian conception of the love of God. When we can feel that God
loves us as a father loves his children, when we can feel that He
cares for us as individuals, personality has a new value, and finite
individuality comes into its own. We become in reality sons of God.
The aim of the Baha’í is to lose himself in God, but the Christian
finds himself in God. The consciousness of the Father-

“Scrip.”, pp. 300 f.
Mof., pp. 221 f.
ibid., pp. 81 f.
12. The teachings of ‘Abdu’l-Baha : Part III 163
hood of God arouses in him the consciousness of his sonship, and
instead of forgetting his existence, he realises it in its fullness. The
difference between the Christian conception of the love of God and
the Baha’í conception can be illustrated by two quotations. St. John
said, “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us,
and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.”1 Baha’u’llah
said, “O Son of existence! Love Me that I may love thee. If thou
lovest not Me, My love can never reach thee. Know this, O servant.”2
Finally, there remains to be considered his teaching about love
as a principle of conduct. Baha’ism, as we have already seen, claims
to unite all men in love, and to remove all causes of difference,3 but
every step in the growth of the movement was marked by
bitterness and strife, which even found expression in bloodshed.
‘Abdu’l-Baha himself felt nothing but hatred for his opponents, and
he declared that Baha’u’llah constantly prayed that the Covenant-
breakers be wiped out,4 and constantly expressed his hatred for
them.5 Yet, in spite of this, he bids us love our enemies, and tells us
were it not for the law of God Baha’u’llah would have been ready to
kiss the hands of those who wished to kill him. 6 We must love
others, even if they slay us, even though they are doing us harm.7
Yet he himself has no faith in the power of love to change the
human heart. “You cannot love a tyrant, a traitor, or a thief, for
kindness will only make him worse, it will not arouse his better
nature.

I John 4:10.
Kalimat, p. 3; “Scrip.”, p. 172.
Mok., Vol. I, pp. 363 f.
Mof., Vol. III, p. 86.
ibid., pp. 414 f.
Khat., Vol. I, p. 107.
“Scrip.”, p. 450.
164 Religion of the Bahais

The kinder you are to a liar, the more will he lie.”1 This was ‘Abdu’l-
Baha’s own experience; having failed to love his own enemies he
knew not the power of love. “He that loveth not knoweth not God;
for God is love.”2 The Gospel of Jesus is a gospel of redeeming love,
love that “beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things.”
‘Abdu’l-Baha knew nothing of that love, it passed his
comprehension. Jesus knew what was in man, knew to what
depths of infamy he could fall, but he believed in man. ‘Abdu’l-Baha
despairs of one liar, Jesus believes in man in spite of his failures and
sins. He died for man because He believed in man. “To make us
believe this (that reality is what God sees and not what we see) is
the greatest service the divine can do for the human. It was the
service Christ was always doing, and nothing showed His divinity
more. He took us men and He called us, unworthy as we were, His
brethren, the sons of God. He took such a one as Simon, shifting
and unstable, a quicksand of a man, and He said, ‘On this rock I will
build My Church.’ A man’s reality is not what he is in his own
feelings, or what he is to the world’s eyes; but what he is to God’s
love, to God’s yearning, and in God’s plan. If he believes that, so in
the end shall he feel it, so in the end shall he show it to the eyes of
the world.”3 Jesus alone can save the world, because Jesus alone
believes in man.

Mok., Vol. III, p. 211.
I John 4:8.
George Adam Smith, “Isaiah,” Vol. II, pp. 385 f.
The doctrine of the
person of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá
We have already seen that ‘Abdu’l-Baha denied that he desired
any position for himself save that which his title implied—the Slave
of Baha. The purpose of this short chapter is to show the position
accorded to ‘Abdu’l-Baha by his followers. It cannot be said that
‘Abdu’l-Baha was directly responsible for the growth of a doctrine
as to his person, for when questioned he invariably denied the
statements that were being made about his rank. Yet he cannot be
exonerated from all blame, for he was fully aware of the teachings
of Dr Kheiru’llah, and consented to them in so far as he approved of
him as a missionary. Furthermore, it was Mírza Abu’l-Fazl of
Gulpaygan who undertook the task of proving from Holy Scripture
that the coming of ‘Abdu’l-Baha had been foretold, and he was the
leading Baha’í propagandist, and high in the favour of ‘Abdu’l-Baha.
His “Rasaleh-i Istidlalíyeh” was written when the dispute between
‘Abdu’l-Baha and Mohammad ‘Alí was at its height, and was a reply
to a book written and issued under the name of Hají Seyyid Taqí
with the purpose of winning the Baha’ís over to the side of
Mohammad ‘Alí. It is hardly probable, therefore, that it was issued
without the knowledge of ‘Abdu’l-Baha, so we are forced to the
conclusion

166 Religion of the Bahais
that, in spite of his many denials when questioned, he did approve
of this teaching. That this doctrine did not originate with him, we
know, but his later writings would seem to show that he approved
of it sufficiently to allow room for it in his teachings. We saw, for
instance, that he teaches that there are two classes of Prophets,
independent and dependent, and two kinds of infallibility, essential
and acquired. Acquired infallibility is a quality of the dependent
Prophets, and inasmuch as he did claim such infallibility as the sole
interpreter of Baha’í doctrine, we can reasonably assume that he
claimed to be a Prophet of the second class. This becomes more
probable still when we remember that the duty of Prophets of this
class is to promote the teachings of the independent Prophet under
whose shadow they appear, and this was exactly what he claimed to
do. Thus he did allow room in his teachings for a doctrine of his
person such as that which Mírza Abu’l-Fazl set out to teach.
The teaching given in Mírza Abu’l-Fazl’s book is based, for the
most part, on Bible passages, and will best be understood if these
passages are quoted.
“Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of
the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his
wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are they that put their trust in
him.”1 It is not necessary to suppose that Mírza Abu’l-Fazl
regarded Baha’u’llah as God, but the use of Holy Scripture by him is
best interpreted by assuming that he regarded all references to God
as applicable to the Manifestations, so that here ‘Abdu’l-Baha is not

Ps. 2:10–12.
13. The doctrine of the person of ‘Abdu’l-Baha 167
the Son of God, but the son of His Manifestation. But the station
thus given to ‘Abdu’l-Baha is an exceedingly high one. Implicit
obedience to him is incumbent upon all, for salvation depends on
his good-will.1
The next two passages are interesting because they throw light
on the Baha’í method of interpreting Holy Scripture. When a
passage contains a clause, or clauses, which would render it
unsuited to the commentator’s purpose, the offending words are
omitted, and the rest of the passage is used.
“In that day shall the branch of the Lord be beautiful and
glorious, and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely for
them that are escaped.”2 The verse is cut short, and the words “of
Israel” are omitted.3
“And speak unto him saying, Thus speaketh the Lord of Hosts,
saying, Behold the man whose name is the Branch, and he shall
grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord:
Even he shall build the temple of the Lord; and he shall bear the
glory and sit upon his throne.” 4 Here again the passage is cut short,
and the words “and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the
counsel of peace shall be between them both” are omitted. Mírza
Abu’l-Fazl’s explanation of these words is as follows: “And these
gracious verses and great tidings are exceedingly clear. After the
occultation of the Blessed Lord, the Branch of His Excellency shall
sit on the throne of praise. The Branch that springeth forth from
the Ancient Stock shall take his place upon the throne of glory, and
shall build the temple of the Lord, in other

Rasaleh, pp. 13 f.
Isaiah 4:2.
Rasaleh, p. 14.
Zech. 6:12 f.
168 Religion of the Bahais
words, he shall build the place around which the arch-angels circle,
and shall make the word of God powerful and victorious in East and
West.”1 The verses refer to the appointment of Zerubbabel as king,
and Joshua the High Priest as co-ruler with him, but ‘Abdu’l-Baha
rules alone, so the final words of the passage had to be omitted! We
have already seen in a previous chapter that ‘Abdu’l-Baha is called
the Most Mighty Branch, so no further comment is necessary.
“Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun,
and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven
days, in the day that the Lord bindeth up the breach of his people,
and healeth the stroke of their wound.”2 Here the sun is said to be
Baha’u’llah, and the moon ‘Abdu’l-Baha. “In the day of the Lord the
abundant lights of the Moon of the Covenant and Centre of the
Covenant shall be as the abundant lights of the Sun of the Horizons,
and the lights of the rays of the Sun of the Horizons shall shine
seven times more bright and more glorious than did the previous
Manifestations.”3
From these passages it is evident that ‘Abdu’l-Baha, seated on
the throne of glory, was God’s vice-regent on earth, and was
clothed with a light like unto that of Baha’u’llah, which was seven
times more glorious than that of any previous Prophet.
“Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou and thy fellows that
sit before thee, for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will
bring forth my servant the Branch. For behold the stone that I have
laid before Joshua; upon one stone there shall be seven eyes:
behold, I will engrave the graving thereof, saith the

Rasaleh, p. 16.
Isaiah 30:26.
Rasaleh, pp. 14 f.
13. The doctrine of the person of ‘Abdu’l-Baha 169
Lord of Hosts, and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one
day.”1 We once more recognise ‘Abdu’l-Baha in the Branch, but the
passage tells us nothing else, for, to quote Mírza Abu’l-Fazl, “In
these verses there are subtle references, but this is not an
opportune moment to enter into details”!2
“For the Son of Man shall come in the glory of his Father with
his angels, and then he shall reward every man according to his
works.”3 “This is a clear gospel that the coming of the Spirit will be
under the shadow of the coming of the Lord, and the glory of the
Son shall appear on the day when splendour of the Father dawns.”4
“And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in
heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world have become the
kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever
and ever.”5 This is said to refer to the coming of Baha’u’llah and
‘Abdu’l-Baha, when the cycle of Islam is finished.6
“And I saw no temple therein; for the Lord God Almighty and
the Lamb are the temple of it.”7
There is nothing in the teaching of Baha’u’llah to justify this
method of interpretation, for, though he teaches that all references
to God in Scripture are to be read as referring to the Manifestation,
he definitely claims to possess an unique station which is shared by
none.8 Throughout Mírza Abu’l-Fazl’s teaching we see the tendency
to associate ‘Abdu’l-Baha with his father as possessing equal glory.
He sits on the throne of glory, and the kingdom is equally his.
Salvation

Zech. 3:8 f.
Rasaleh, pp. 15 f.
St. Matt. 14:27.
Rasaleh, p. 17.
Rev. 11:15.
Rasaleh, p. 17.
Rev.21:22.
“Aqdas”, p. 18.
170 Religion of the Bahais
depends not on acceptance of Baha’u’llah, but on obedience to his
son. It is ‘Abdu’l-Baha who judges men, and rewards them
according to their deeds. He is no longer the interpreter of Baha’í
teaching and the slave of Baha’u’llah, he is the co-ruler, showing
forth in himself all the glory that belonged to Baha’u’llah as the
perfect Manifestation. True, Mírza Abu’l-Fazl does distinguish
between them, for he tells us that the son came in the shadow of
the father, but he gives to the son a station which, from the point of
view of the “Aqdas”, belonged to Baha’u’llah alone.
In view of the immense changes that he intended to bring about
in the movement, it was necessary for ‘Abdu’l-Baha that he should
have the support of the main body of Baha’ís. The position
accorded him by Baha’u’llah was not such as he could be content to
accept, for it set definite limits to his authority, and hampered his
plans. The schism that took place soon after his accession to power
warned him of the strength of the opposition. He was careful
enough not to make any excessive claims for himself, but he made
full use of the opportunity given him by others. Wherever the
teachings of Mírza Abu’l-Fazl spread, ‘Abdu’l-Baha was hailed as a
prophet, and his writings found a place along with those of
Baha’u’llah as inspired Scripture.
There is a definite tendency in modern Baha’ism to deify
Baha’u’llah, and ‘Abdu’l-Baha is exalted along with him. So we find
him hailed by the title of “He whom God wills”, and by the still more
splendid title of “The Most Mighty Branch of God”.1 So, too, it is
suggested that he was endowed with the power of working
miracles. “With regard to what is commonly

urus, p. 30.
13. The doctrine of the person of ‘Abdu’l-Baha 171
called ‘miracle-working’. ‘Abdu’l-Baha taught that this may be
incidental to, but not alone a proof of prophethood, being but the
outworking of laws as yet little known or understood by man. But,
naturally, around His household wonderful and inexplicable things
constantly occurred. And in lives that are purified and dedicated to
His service, a divine power manifests itself in many mysterious
ways.”1 How important a place ‘Abdu’l-Baha holds in present-day
Baha’ism is clearly seen from this passage. It is not only implied
that he was a prophet, but Baha’ism is regarded as his religion, for
service is his service, and from him comes divine power to
strengthen the believer.
The position given him in Persia is clearly indicated by Sheikh
Mohammadu’n-Nateq, who declares that ‘Abdu’l-Baha was chosen
to succeed his father solely on account of his character. The
successor of Baha’u’llah needed to be distinguished above all men,
and to possess in himself the divine attributes and perfections, His
position in Baha’ism is that of ‘Alí in Shí‘ah Islam. ‘Alí was the first
Imam, and the Imams as the successors of the Prophet are
regarded as sinless. Their word is the word of God, their authority
is the authority of God. They are wiser than the most learned men
of their age, and holier than the most pious. They are adorned with
all the qualities possessed by the Prophet (Mohammad), and
obedience to them is incumbent upon all.2 ‘Abdu’l-Baha, therefore,
whilst dependent upon Baha’u’llah in the sense that the Imams
were dependent upon Mohammad, is yet endowed with all the
qualities possessed by Baha’u’llah. He is the bearer of the divine
mysteries, the possessor

Florence Pincheon in “S. of W.”, Vol. XVIII, No. 12, p. 363.
Sell, p. 97.
172 Religion of the Bahais
of the Holy Spirit, and the centre of knowledge and divine
inspiration.1 This teaching thus agrees with that of Mírza Abu’l-
Fazl.
The place ‘Abdu’l-Baha has come to occupy in modern Baha’ism
is still more clearly seen from the official Tablets of Shouqí Effendí,
the present Guardian of the Cause, and the successor of ‘Abdu’l-
Baha. The present author has in his possession a number of these
Tablets issued during the years 1924–1926, all of which bear the
signature of the copyist, who invariably describes himself as “The
sacrifice of the gate, and the servant of the threshold of His
Excellency ‘Abdu’l-Baha, may His glory be great, ‘Alí Akbar Rohaní.”
The Bab is all but forgotten; his successor Mírza Yahya, “The
Morning of Eternity”, is remembered only as Satan;2 the service of
Baha’u’llah has become the service of ‘Abdu’l-Baha, and the light of
the “Moon” has eclipsed that of the “Sun”.

Mun., pp. 226 ff.
Mok., Vol. III, pp. 411 ff.
The Bible in Baha’ism
The Bab taught that all the Scriptures were sent down to
prepare the world for the coming of “Him whom God shall
manifest”. It was only natural, therefore, that he should declare the
Gospel to be the Book of God, He brings Islam into line with the
Gospel as part of one great Revelation. The Gospel was a gift from
God to Mohammad, and the latter perfected it. It is essentially
identical with the Qor’an and the Beyan. It is obvious that he was
acquainted with the Gospel, for its influence upon his teaching is
very marked,1 but nowhere does he adduce proofs from it. His
teaching that Mohammad fulfilled and perfected the Gospel was
carried to its logical conclusion by Baha’u’llah, who devoted a
considerable portion of the book “Iqan” to the interpretation of the
Gospel.
There is a very general belief among Moslems that the
Scriptures now in the possession of Jews and Christians are
corrupt. The Traditions say that Jesus took the genuine Gospel
with Him when He returned to heaven. The impossibility of the
teaching that the Bible has been corrupted has long ago been
shown, and need not be discussed here, whilst the growth of
education makes it impossible for men to believe that our Lord
took the genuine Gospel with Him at His ascension, so

Noq., Index lxviii.
174 Religion of the Bahais
that thinking Moslems are prepared to admit the authenticity of the
Jewish and Christian Scriptures. In view of the great importance
attached to the Bible by Baha’ís, they are compelled to accept the
Christian Scriptures as genuine, even though individual Baha’ís are
wont, when defeated in argument, to resort to the old accusation
that the Christians have corrupted the Gospel. Baha’u’llah’s
teaching on the point is very definite. He declares that the
accusation has neither meaning nor foundation,1 but is an invention
of the Moslem mullas, who, failing to prove the prophethood of
Mohammad from the Bible, were compelled to compose a
falsehood.2 As for the teaching that Jesus took the Gospel with Him
to heaven, it is foolish, and the people who hold it are fools.3
But there is a sense in which the Scriptures have been changed.
Though the text of the Scriptures is undoubtedly genuine, the
meaning has been changed and corrupted by the clergy, who have
consistently misinterpreted it. The failure of the Christians to
accept Mohammad when he came was entirely due to the fact that
they had lost sight of the true meaning of their Scriptures. That, in
short, is the teaching of the “Iqan”. That being so, the next thing,
obviously, was to show the true purpose and meaning of the Bible,
and that he proceeds to do, choosing as his main subject the
eschatological teaching of the First Gospel.
Baha’u’llah must be given the credit for inventing the method of
Bible interpretation which became a distinguishing feature of
Baha’ism, and which was of great value when the movement
spread to the West. In the course of this chapter it will not be
possible to

“Iqan”, p. 73. See The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 83–4 & 86.
ibid., pp. 70 f.
ibid., p. 75.
14. The Bible in Baha’ism 175
discuss the use made of the Bible by more recent Baha’í writers, but
an attempt will be made to show the method adopted, and a
detailed criticism will be given of the interpretation by ‘Abdu’l-Baha
of certain portions of the Apocalypse.
It must be borne in mind that Baha’u’llah regards the Traditions
of Islam as of equal value with the Bible, and passages from them
are quoted along with Gospel verses, or ideas directly derived from
them are introduced into the interpretation of Gospel verses.
Although, strictly speaking, we are not concerned with his use of
Islamic Traditions, yet it is important that we should realise that
behind his interpretation of the Gospel lies a Moslem conception of
Christ. To him Christ is but one of the Prophets, who is in no sense
the Saviour of the World. He accepts the Qor’an teaching that
Christ did not die on the Cross (though the Qor’an teaching is not
consistent on this point), and thus denies the truth of the
Atonement. “What else shall I tell you? Shall I tell you what
happened to that Exalted One (Jesus) after he had said these words,
and how they behaved towards him? In the end so set were they
on killing him that he fled to the fourth heaven.”1 The influence of
the Moslem Traditions is very clear here, and need not be
discussed, but it is necessary to point out that it is this view of
Christ which makes his interpretation of Gospel passages possible.
Some of the methods of interpretation used by Baha’í writers
are already familiar to the reader. We saw in the last chapter how
Mírza Abu’l-Fazl quoted portions of Bible passages, omitting any
clauses that

“Iqan”, p. 111.
176 Religion of the Bahais
were unsuitable to his argument, and we further saw how ‘Abdu’l-
Baha combined totally unrelated passages, and slightly modified
others so as to obtain the necessary meaning,1 but a fuller
discussion is now necessary. It will be more convenient to divide
our study into three parts: (a) the use and interpretation of
corrupted texts; (b) the use and interpretation of genuine Gospel
verses; (c) the use and interpretation of lengthy passages from the
book of the Revelation of St. John the Divine. As this book is
intended chiefly for missionaries who come into daily contact with
Baha’ís, and since great prominence is given by all Baha is to the
interpretation of certain portions of the Apocalypse by ‘Abdu’l-
Baha, the author feels justified in devoting the greater part of this
chapter to a detailed discussion of the interpretation in question.
(a) One of the doctrines that Baha’u’llah took over from Babism
was the doctrine of “Rij‘at”, which implies that all the Prophets are
“returns” of one and the same Spirit, which thus appears in the
world in different ages, to different peoples, and under a different
name. So Jesus is Moses returned, and Mohammad is Jesus
returned. This doctrine is definitely and clearly expressed in the
words, “In the same way he (Mohammad) said, ‘I am the first Adam,
and Noah, and Moses, and Jesus.’”2 Baha’u’llah uses corrupted
Gospel verses to support this teaching. “He (Jesus) said, ‘I go and I
come again’, and in another place he said, ‘Another will come who
shall say that which I have not said, and fulfil that which I have
said’, and these two sayings are in reality one.”3 These words
which he attributes to Jesus are corruptions of St. John 14:25,

Chapter XII above.
“Iqan”, p. 128.
ibid., p. 17.
14. The Bible in Baha’ism 177
26, “These things have I spoken unto you, while yet abiding with
you. But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will
send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your
remembrance all that I said unto you” (R. V. translation). The first
saying is also found in a different form from that given by
Baha’u’llah in the third and eighteenth verses of the same chapter.
Baha’u’llah by corrupting these verses interprets them to mean that
Jesus foretold the coming of another Prophet, who would bring a
higher revelation than that contained in the Gospel, in that it would
add to and fulfil the latter, and the bearer of this new revelation
would be a “return” of Jesus.
In the “Baha’í Scriptures” we read: “For this reason Jesus said, ‘I
will go and come again.’ Even as the sun:”1 but the Persian original
would allow of another reading, which considerably changes the
meaning of the passage, namely: “For this reason Jesus Himself
said, ‘I go and come again like the sun.’”2 The present author has
consulted several Persians as to the true meaning of this passage,
and both explanations have been given. We must therefore regard
the words as ambiguous, and no importance can be given to the
passage, but a suspicion remains that words are attributed to Jesus
which are foreign to His thought. We can agree with Him when He
teaches that true wealth is spiritual, and worldly poverty is not the
true poverty; we can regard our Lord, who had nowhere to rest His
head, as wealthy in His poverty, having nothing and possessing all
things; but we cannot condone Baha’u’llah’s action in corrupting
Gospel texts in order

“Scrip.”, p. 8.
“Iqan”, p. 18.
178 Religion of the Bahais
to support such a teaching. He declares that Christ at His trial said,
“Do not you see that the Son of Man is sitting on the right hand of
authority and divine power?” whilst He was apparently devoid of
all power.1 The words used by Christ to refer to the future2 are
changed so as to refer to the present. The whole meaning of the
passage is thus changed, and Christ is reduced to the level of a
Prophet.
‘Abdu’l-Baha makes a similar use of corrupted verses. He
declares that in the days of previous Manifestations men were not
capable of receiving the highest teaching (lit., exceedingly strong
medicine), and so Christ said, “There are many things that must be
told, but you are not able to hear them, but when that comforting
Spirit comes, whom the Father will send, he will set forth the truth
for you.”3 The only change in the words that concerns us is the
substitution of the words “that comforting Spirit” for “he, the Spirit
of Truth”.4 The words are then made to refer to Baha’u’llah. In
another connection he makes these words apply to Mohammad,
once more using the phrase “that comforting Spirit,” but more
interesting still is his use of the phrase “that holy Spirit” for “the
Holy Spirit”, where the substitution of the demonstrative for the
definite article completely changes the meaning of the term.5 It will
be seen from the above examples that very little change is
necessary in order to make the Gospel words applicable to another
Prophet, and this is constantly done by ‘Abdu’l-Baha. For this part
of our study these examples must suffice.

“Iqan”, p. 111.
St. Matt. 26:64.
Mok., Vol. III, pp. 251 f.
cf. St. John 16:13.
Mok., Vol. II, pp. 59 ff.
14. The Bible in Baha’ism 179

(b) We now come to the interpretation of genuine Gospel
verses. The only Gospel verses discussed at any length by
Baha’u’llah are eschatological in character, and a considerable part
of the book “Iqan” is devoted to their interpretation. In the Gospel
we read: “Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the
sun be darkened and the moon shall not give her light, and the
stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be
shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in
heaven; and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they
shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power
and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of
a trumpet.”1 The interpretation of these verses by Baha’u’llah
became the model for all later Baha’í attempts to interpret the
Scriptures, and it is therefore given in full. A procedure which is
also made necessary by the statement that the Christians rejected
Mohammad because they had failed to understand the meaning of
this passage.
In the “Iqan” the passage is interpreted clause by clause, and the
same method will therefore be followed here.
“Immediately after the tribulation of those days”—the
“tribulation” precedes the coming of every Manifestation. It is a
period of spiritual darkness when the warmth of the rays of the Sun
of Truth is no longer felt and the fruits of the tree of wisdom have
vanished from among men. It is a time when men are in the
thraldom of ignorance, and the gates of the Unity (God) and of
knowledge are closed to them. At such a time men do as they like,
and God is but a name to them,

St. Matt. 24:29–31a; 31b is omitted.
180 Religion of the Bahais
whilst desire for God never goes beyond words. In short, it is a time
when men are spiritually dead. Such a period precedes the coming
of every Manifestation, indeed it is an essential prelude to it.1
“Shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her
light, and the stars shall fall from heaven”—the sun and the moon
have a figurative meaning here. This meaning is twofold. In the
first place, these words refer to the clergy of the religions founded
by previous Manifestations. In the day of their own Manifestation
they were bright lights to guide people, but when new
Manifestations came and they failed to recognise them, their light
became darkness.2 Secondly, sun, moon and stars are figurative
expressions for the laws of previous Manifestations which are
abrogated at the coming of a new Manifestation. In their day these
gave light to men, but their light now becomes darkness. Both
these meanings are implied in this verse.3
“And the powers of heaven shall be shaken”:—the word
“heaven” is here figuratively used for the religion of a former
Manifestation, which was in its day great and powerful, but is
abrogated at the coming of a new Manifestation.4
“And then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man”—which sign
is the glory of the Promised One.5 This sign is to appear in heaven,
and this again has two meanings. The appearance of every Prophet
has been marked by the appearance of some sign in the heavens. A
star marked the place where Jesus was born, and similar portents
marked the coming of Moses, Mohammad and the Bab, and this is
the first meaning of the verse.

“Iqan”, p. 25.
ibid., pp. 28 ff.
ibid., pp. 32 ff.
ibid., p. 34.
ibid., p. 22.
14. The Bible in Baha’ism 181
The second meaning is spiritual. John the Baptist was like a star in
the spiritual heaven, and he was the herald of Jesus. The coming of
every one of the Prophets was announced by a herald, and this is
the second meaning of the verse.1
“And then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn”—for in those
days the saints shall mourn the disappearance of the Sun of the
divine grace, of the Moon of knowledge, and of the Stars of
wisdom.2 “And they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds
of heaven with power and great glory”—they shall all realise the
great and lofty station of the Manifestation, for that is the meaning
of the word heaven in this sentence.3 The clouds, too, have a
figurative meaning, and represent all the various things that cause
people to doubt, and prevent them from accepting the
Manifestation. Among these may be mentioned the poverty of the
Prophets, and their oppressed state, together with the fact that
they were innovators, and offended people by the changes they
introduced. Their power and glory are clearly seen from the fact
that they all exerted a tremendous influence on the course of the
world’s history.4
“And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet”—
and these angels are undoubtedly those who, burning with zeal,
serve the cause of the Manifestation.5
Far-fetched as this interpretation is (four meanings were
necessary for the one word “heaven”), it is yet superior to those
which we shall consider next, for it is free of the inconsistencies
which are such a

Iqan”, pp. 52 ff.
ibid., pp. 55 f.
ibid., p. 56.
ibid., pp. 59 ff.
ibid., p. 66.
182 Religion of the Bahais
marked feature of the interpretations given by ‘Abdu’l-Baha.
The interpretation, clever though it may be, cannot be taken
seriously, for it ignores the background of the passage, and
substitutes a background of Islamic legend and tradition. For
instance, he tells us that before Abraham (who is one of the great
Prophets according to Moslem teaching) was born, Nimrod had a
dream and summoned the soothsayers, who warned him that a
new star had appeared in the sky. The coming of Moses was
similarly marked, and a wise man appeared among the children of
Israel, who consoled and assured them of the coming fulfilment of
that recorded in their books.1 This interpretation, therefore,
presupposes a belief in both the Qor’an and the Traditions of Islam,
according to which Abraham was granted “books” whilst Nimrod
was the tyrant who oppressed Abraham and desired to make war
on Abraham’s God. 2 It is noteworthy that the only reference to
Nimrod contained in the Old Testament implies that he was a
worshipper of Yahweh.3
It is important to notice that according to the interpretation
here given the Bab was no mere herald of Baha’u’llah, but a
Prophet of equal importance with Jesus and Mohammad, whose
coming was heralded by the appearance of a new star in the
phenomenal heaven, and by two bright lights, Ahmad and Kazem
(the Sheikhí leaders), in the spiritual heaven.4 The Christian
missionary is therefore never called upon to refute this
interpretation; all he need do is show that, if this teaching is true,
the Bab was in no sense the herald of

“Iqan”, pp. 52 f.
cf. Sale, “The Koran”, p. 246, footnotes.
Gen. 10:3 ff.
“Iqan”, p. 55.
14. The Bible in Baha’ism 183
Baha’u’llah, and the claims made for the latter are devoid of any
justification.
(c) We now come to the interpretation of certain passages from
the Apocalypse. This interpretation is found in the book
“Mofavezat”, which consists of table-talks given by ‘Abdu’l-Baha.
As the purpose of this discussion is the refutation of ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s
interpretation, only those verses are quoted which are necessary to
the fulfilment of that purpose. The Revised Version of the Bible is
used throughout, because it corresponds with the version used by
‘Abdu’l-Baha. Two chapters of the Apocalypse are interpreted by
him, and these will be considered separately.
a) Interpretation of Rev. of St. John chap. 11
“And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and one said,
Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that
worship therein. And the court which is without the temple leave
without, and measure it not; for it hath been given unto the
nations: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two
months.”1 The reed mentioned in this verse signifies a perfect man.
When a reed is empty and hollow, it produces perfect melodies, but
those melodies come from the musician and not from the reed. In
the same way, when the sanctified heart is emptied of all but God, it
becomes the channel of divine inspiration. So the perfect man is a
reed, and as such he can also be likened to a rod, for as the rod of
the Divine Shepherd he guards the latter’s flock, and leads them
about the

St. John 11:1–2.
184 Religion of the Bahais
pastures of the Kingdom. This interpretation is undoubtedly
ingenious, but it hardly explains the verse. If the reed is a person,
then who is the person addressed, and what is meant by the giving
of the reed to him? By measuring the temple of God, and the altar,
and them that worship therein is meant the discovering of the true
condition of the worshippers, and the acquirement of the
knowledge of the mysteries of those holy souls who dwell in the
Holy of Holies in purity and sanctity. It is obvious that the Holy of
Holies is here interpreted in a figurative sense. Two interpretations
are given by him, but we are concerned with one of them only—
namely, what he calls the outward meaning of the verses. It is
somewhat strange to find that in his interpretation of the next
verse he accepts the literal meaning of the words. He tells us that
when the Holy City was conquered at the beginning of the seventh
century after Christ, the Holy of Holies, “that is to say, the house
which Solomon built”, was outwardly preserved, whilst the outer
court was taken and given to the Gentiles. Obviously, ‘Abdu’l-Baha
knew nothing of the history of the Temple, for the building erected
by Solomon was destroyed in the year 586 BC, whilst the later
Temple was finally destroyed by the Emperor Titus in AD 70, and
‘Abdu’l-Baha’s interpretation is therefore historically impossible.
The forty and two months in which the nations tread Jerusalem
underfoot is, he tells us, the cycle of Islam. Forty and two months is
equivalent to 1,260 days, and as each day stands for a year, this
makes 1,260 years. This calculation is based upon the verse, “I have
appointed thee each day for a year,”1 which is regarded

Ezek. 4:6. A.V.
14. The Bible in Baha’ism 185
as the key to the chronology of the Bible! The Bab appeared in AH
1260, so the forty-two months are thus made to refer to the period
from the Hegira to the coming of the Bab, which is the cycle of the
Qor’an. This interpretation is in itself inconsistent, for if we accept
his statement that the handing over of the outer court to the
Gentiles, and the conquest of Jerusalem by them, refers to the
seizing of the city by the Moslems, then we cannot count the 1,260
years from the Hegira, for the conquest of Jerusalem took place in
the year AH 15, and the period of forty-two weeks would therefore
end in AH 1275, nine years after the death of the Bab.
“And I will give (power) unto my two witnesses, and they shall
prophesy a thousand two hundred and three-score days clothed in
sackcloth. … And when they have finished their testimony, the
beast that cometh out of the abyss shall make war with them, and
overcome them, and kill them. And their bodies lie in the street of
the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where
also their Lord was crucified.”1 According to ‘Abdu’l-Baha, the two
witnesses are Mohammad and ‘Alí, whilst the beast is the Omeyad
tribe which deprived ‘Alí of the Khalifate. The dead bodies are
figurative for the Law of Islam, which during this period was
scorned and neglected by men, and resembled a body without
spirit. In making this interpretation he has ignored the fact that the
two witnesses are to prophesy for a thousand two hundred and
three-score days, and that the beast will appear when the period of
their testimony is finished. This had to be ignored in order to
identify the beast with the

St. John 11:3, 7, 8.
186 Religion of the Bahais
Omeyad tribe. If we accept the statement that the 1,260 years began
with the Hegira, and that they are the cycle of Islam, then we have
to place the appearance of the beast at the end of that period, so it
coincides with the appearance of the Bab, who certainly did try to
abrogate the laws of Islam!
Furthermore, the dead bodies of the two witnesses are to lie in
the street of the city “where also their Lord was crucified.” If the
two witnesses are Mohammad and ‘Alí, Jesus must be their Lord,
and no Baha’í can accept this without denying the doctrine of
“rij‘at”, according to which Mohammad is Jesus returned.
Further comment is really unnecessary, for all that he has
succeeded in doing is to testify to the Lordship of Jesus, and to
point to the Bab as the beast out of the abyss, which appeared at
the end of the 1,260 years in order to kill the two witnesses.
Before we leave the interpretation of this chapter, we must
pause to consider one more verse, which offers an excellent
example of the method adopted by ‘Abdu’l-Baha.
“And after three days and a half the breath of life from God
entered into them, and they stood upon their feet, and great fear
fell upon them which beheld them.”1 We saw above that he
interpreted the dead bodies to mean the Law of Islam, or the
religion of God, which during the 1,260 years was as a dead body, so
now the three and a half days are said to refer to the same period.
The implication is that at the end of that period the Bab appeared
and renewed religion. But how can three days and a half be made
into 1,260 years? If one day stands for one year, then three and a
half days

St. John 11:11.
14. The Bible in Baha’ism 187
will be three and a half years. He gets over this difficulty by
reducing the three and a half years to months, and the forty-two
months thus obtained are reduced to days, and so we get 1,260 days,
each of which then becomes a year. Thus one day comes to
represent three hundred and sixty years! Unfortunately, even this
will not avail to prove his case, for the three and a half days begin
with the death of the two witnesses at the end of the forty and two
months, and cannot possibly refer to the coming of the Bab, even if
we accept his chronological scheme, for the resultant date will be
AH 2520!1
b) Interpretation of Rev. of St. John chap. 12
“And a great sign was seen in heaven; a woman arrayed with
the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown
of twelve stars”2 The woman is said to be the Law of God that
descended upon Mohammad, so the sun and moon represent Persia
and Turkey respectively, both of which countries are Moslem. The
twelve stars are the Twelve Imams, who promoted the Law of
Islam. This interpretation is interesting because it would seem that
‘Abdu’l-Baha now accepts the Twelve Imams. We saw in Chapter 1
that there is considerable historical doubt as to whether there ever
was such a person as the Twelfth Imam, and it would seem that
neither ‘Abdu’l-Baha nor the Baha’ís in general accept him as a
historical personage. Ja‘far, the brother of Imam Hasan ‘Askari,
declared that his brother had died heirless, and the Shi‘ahs have
consequently bestowed upon him the opprobrious sobriquet of
Ja‘far the Liar (Kazzab),

Mof., pp. 35 ff.
St. John 12:1.
188 Religion of the Bahais
but ‘Abdu’l-Baha declares that “Ja‘far out of truthfulness and
sincerity spoke one word, and hitherto they have called him a liar.”
(This is taken from a Tablet by ‘Abdu’l-Baha, a copy of which is in
the author’s possession, and which is No. 15 in the MS. book entitled
“Kitab men al-Ba qabl-i Ha”.) Mírza Abu’l-Fazl likewise declares
that the Shi‘ahs are content to accept the testimony of “one woman
and an ignorant servant” on such an important question as the
existence of the Twelfth Imam,1 whilst in a Baha’í teachers’
handbook it is definitely stated that the Immaculate Imams were
eleven in number.2 So it would seem that they only accept the
Twelfth Imam when they find him indispensable.
“And there was seen another sign in heaven; and behold, a great
red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his heads
seven diadems.”3 The dragon is said to be the Omeyad tribe, and
the seven heads and seven crowns are the seven countries over
which they ruled. In order to get the seven, he is compelled to
group some countries together and to leave others out altogether.
But it is his interpretation of the ten horns that is interesting.
These are said to be the ten Omeyad Khalifs. But these Khalifs
were fourteen in number—namely Muavia, Yezíd, Muavia, Mervan,
‘Abdu’l-Melek, Welíd, Suleiman, Omar, Yezíd, Hisham, Welíd, Yezíd,
Ibrahím, and Mervan. It will be seen that in this succession the
names Muavia, Welíd and Mervan occur twice, whilst Yezíd is
found three times, so ‘Abdu’l-Baha declares that for the purpose of
this interpretation these names must only be counted once, and the
number is thus reduced to nine. In

Fara’ed, p. 156.
“Durus”, p. 9.
St. John 12:3.
14. The Bible in Baha’ism 189
order to bring them up to ten, he adds the name of Abí Sofian, the
father of the first Muavia, whom he declares to have been the first
of the Omeyad line, but this is incorrect, for the Omeyads are the
descendants of Umaiyah, the son of ‘Abdu’l-Shams, and the
grandfather of Abí Sofian. The division of Mecca into Hashimites
and Omeyads goes back to the time of Umaiyah, so it was necessity,
and not history, that accounted for the inclusion of Abí Sofian’s
name in this list.
“And she was delivered of a son, a man child, who is to rule all
the nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto
God, and unto his throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness,
where she hath a place prepared of God, that there they may
nourish her a thousand two hundred and threescore days.” 1 The
child is said to be the Bab, who was caught up to heaven at his
death. The 1,260 days again represent the cycle of Islam from the
Hegira to the coming of the Bab. The impossibility of this
interpretation is evident from the fact that the period of 1,260 days
begins with the translation of the child and the flight of the woman.
As the Bab was killed in AH 1266, this period would come to an end
in AH 2526!2
It is of interest to note that this chapter had been previously
interpreted by the unknown author of the book “Dala’il-i ‘Erfan”
(the author’s signature is in the unreadable Khatt-i Badí‘, and the
book bears the date AH 1313), with which ‘Abdu’l-Baha was
undoubtedly acquainted. Here we find the statement made that
each day must be counted a year when interpreting this passage,
but the rest of the inter-

St. John 12:5–6.
Mof., pp. 52 ff.
190 Religion of the Bahais
pretation differs somewhat in that the woman is said to be Fatimeh,
the sun Mohammad, and the twelve stars the ‘Imams, the last of
whom is the Mahdí (Sahibu’l-‘Asr ve al-Zaman). The child is the
Bab, and the dragon represents the Omeyad and Abbasid Khalifs
together with the Kings of the powerful nations. 1 The
interpretation given is a bare outline, but it may well have
influenced ‘Abdu’l-Baha.
These are but a few of the many passages of the Bible which are
used by Baha’í writers, but they are sufficient for our purpose, and
the reader must be referred to the various books mentioned and
quoted for further examples. The writings of Mírza Abu’l-Fazl of
Gulpaygan, and in particular his book “Fara’ed”, should be read by
all who desire to acquaint themselves with Baha’í thought.

“Dala’il”, pp. 111 f.
Worship in Baha’ism
The conception of worship varies greatly in the different
religions, and no study of Baha’ism would be complete without
some consideration of the place given to worship in that religion.
Our conception of worship must depend on our conception of
God and of the relationship in which man stands to God. Judaism,
in spite of its legalism, provided the background for the Psalms,
because the God of the Jew was essentially a personal God. Even
the Priestly narrative shows us an intensely personal God. Neither
the elaborate ritual of the Temple worship nor the numerous
regulations governing that worship could conceal the wonder of
the God of Israel. The description of the Tabernacle and of its
furniture may be tiresome to read, but even there the character of
the God of Israel shines out in a glorious flood of light. He is a
personal God taking a personal interest in the worship offered Him,
He is even interested in the pattern of the candlesticks used!1 Thus
it was that in Judaism worship at times degenerated to mere
formalism, whilst at other times it was the expression of real
personal devotion to an intensely personal God. Islam, like
Judaism, is legalistic, but it lacks the

Exod. 25.
192 Religion of the Bahais
conception of God that made Judaism great. In Islam, too, we see
men revolting against the formalism that so easily creeps into
legalistic worship, but that revolt generally finds expression in a
pantheistic mysticism like the Sufí philosophy. Nowhere do we see
the intensely personal God of the Old Testament looking down
upon us.
True prayer is only possible when God is conceived of as
personal. The poor publican could stand in the Temple and pray
because God was to him a personal God, and sin was a reality to
him. The Pharisee had no such sense of sin, and could have no such
conception of God.
We saw that behind Baha’í teaching about God there lies a
background of Moslem legalism and Sufí pantheism, and that,
therefore, there is no true belief in a personal God in Baha’ism. The
result will be seen in the Baha’í conception of worship.
The student of Baha’í literature is at once struck by the great
difference in the tone of the teaching of Baha’u’llah about worship
compared with that of Baha’í books that have their origin in the
West. We have already seen that Western Baha’ism is totally
distinct from that of the East, and we can expect to find a distinct
Christian influence helping to mould the thought of the former.
An American Baha’í writes as follows: “Conscious prayer may
be of two general kinds: first, the wordy, automatic, formalistic
prayer that results from habit, and fails to touch the core of the
heart; and, second, the sincere, heartfelt aspiration of the soul
expressed in thought, attitude or word, or in both attitude and
word” and he then quotes some words attributed to
15. Worship in Baha’ism 193
‘Abdu’l-Baha. “God knows the wishes of all hearts, and answers
them according to the individual need. But the impulse to pray is a
natural one springing from man’s love to his Creator. If there be no
love, if there be no pleasure or spiritual enjoyment in prayer, do not
pray. Prayer should spring from love; from the desire of the person
to commune with God.”1 If God is not a personal God, then
communion with Him is impossible, and this quotation in no way
represents the Baha’í teaching about prayer. The real Baha’í aims
not at communion with, but at union with God. But alongside this
Sufí tendency in Baha’ism there runs another which finds its chief
expression in the book “Aqdas”—the legalistic conception of
worship derived from Islam through Babism. But it must not be
thought that these two elements are contradictory, for even the
Sufis accept the discipline of the “Sharí‘at” or Law,2 and Baha’u’llah
himself, in the book “Haft Vadí”, which is purely Sufí in character,
declares that “On all these journeys (through the Seven Valleys) the
pilgrim must not deviate one hair’s breadth from the Sharí‘at which
is in truth the secret of the way (taríqal), and the fruit of the tree of
Reality.”3
We are therefore justified in regarding the laws of the “Aqdas”
as a discipline to be undergone by all who would attain to union
with the Deity.
a) Congregational prayer
“Worship unites us in a fellowship of adoration; and, when it is
worthily offered, can become for us all a joy as well as a duty, and
brings us that refreshment and encouragement for which
thousands are really

Dr Orrol L. Harper, “Why Pray?” “S. of W.”, Vol. XIX, No. 5, p. 146.
Hughes “Dictionary”, article “Sufism”.
“Haft Vadí”, p. 37.
194 Religion of the Bahais

hungry, though they know not for what they hunger.”1 Jesus always
attended the synagogue services, and congregational worship
became an essential part of the life of the Christian Church. From
the very beginning Christians found joy and strength by uniting in a
fellowship of adoration. In Islam congregational prayer is
recognised as of great importance, particularly among the Sunnis.
Baha’u’llah, however, declares that congregational prayer is
unnecessary except in the case of the burial of the dead,2 a law
which he took over directly from the Bab.3 In view of what was said
above, it was not to be expected that congregational worship
should be enjoined, for that is foreign to the spirit of Sufism. That
an exception should be made in the case of the burial of the dead is
only natural and needs no explanation.
The burial service resembles that of the Mohammedans in many
ways, and the influence of Islam is clear throughout. At the
graveside the “Takbír” is to be said six times. In Islam only the
Imam (or among the Shi‘ahs the Mujtahed) is allowed to recite the
“Takbír”, but Baha’u’llah declares that any person can recite it as
long as he is able to do so in the correct way, but should no one be
present who is able to intone it correctly, it may be omitted.4 The
full form of the service is not given in the “Aqdas”, but is found in
the book of prayers called the “Ad‘iyat-i Hazrat-i Mahbub”,5 and
should be compared with the Moslem service as given by Hughes.6
Baha’í meetings are generally opened and closed

Lambeth Conference Report, 1930.
“Aqdas”, p. 6.
Noq., Index lxxxv.
“Aqdas”, p. 5.
p. 105 ff.
Hughes “Dictionary”, article “Burial of the Dead”.
15. Worship in Baha’ism 195
with a prayer (salwat), which is formally intoned by a chosen
leader. The prayers thus used are usually from among those
composed by ‘Abdu’l-Baha, and are generally in the Arabic
language.
b) Private prayer
Prayer is ordained for all believers, and must be made morning,
noon and night. In towns and places where it is difficult to
ascertain the times of prayer watches or sun-dials may be used.
The daily prayer consists of nine rak‘ats (prostrations), not
seventeen as in Islam, and the believer is bidden to turn towards
the place where Baha’u’llah is when saying the prayers. After
Baha’u’llah’s death his grave became the qibleh. Fur is no longer
ceremonially unclean, and the believer may wear the skins of the
marten, the beaver or the squirrel when performing the prayers. In
the same way nothing that is “soul-less”, such as bone, etc., can
render prayer null and void, and when prostrating in prayer the
believer may rest his head on anything that is clean. These
regulations are obvious modifications of those current in Islam,
with which they should be compared.
Special prayer in times of distress (Salvatu’l-Ayat) is forbidden,
but when the believer is frightened he may mention the name of
God, and recall His greatness and power, by saying, “Greatness
belongs to God, the God who sees, but is never seen, the Lord of the
Worlds (or Creatures).” Shortened prayers are incumbent upon
every traveller. When he reaches a place of safety he must say his
prayers, but only one sajdah (prostration in which the forehead
touches the ground) is necessary, during which he must repeat the

Salah, pl. salawat.—M.W.T.
196 Religion of the Bahais
words “Praise be to God, the Possessor of Greatness and Glory,
Bounties and Graces” or the shorter form, “Praise be to God”, may
be said instead. After the sajdah he must sit back upon his knees
and say, “Praise be to God the Possessor of Dominion and Glory”
eighteen times.
Menstruating women are exempted from these prayers, but
they must perform the ceremonial ablutions (see below) and
repeat ninety-five times during the twenty-four hours from noon to
noon the following words, “Praise be to God the Possessor of
Beauty and Grace.” The physically weak and the diseased are
unconditionally exempted from prayer.1
It will be seen that the numbers nine and nineteen or their
multiples are continually introduced; the reader is therefore
referred to Appendix I at the end of this book.
The shortened forms of prayer given above have very much in
common with the Sufí zekr, though the latter is much more
elaborate, and the purpose of the repetition of these prayers is to
draw the mind of the believer away from the world, so that he may
attain to ecstatic union with God. This is perhaps most clearly seen
in the directions given to the believer who is in a frightened
condition. By dwelling upon the name of God and meditating on
His greatness and power, the believer becomes unconscious of the
world around and attains to inward peace in an ecstatic union with
God.
The fuller forms of prayer show a similar Sufí tendency of
thought. The form of morning prayer is rich in Sufí ideas. The
worshipper is unconscious of all but God, and sees God in
everything. He dwells

“Aqdas”, pp. 5 ff.
15. Worship in Baha’ism 197
on the riches of God which he sees through his own poverty.
Separation from God turns his heart into water, but the love of God
sets his whole being aflame. He passionately desires to attain to the
things of God, who is the only God. The numerous repetitions of the
“Takbír” and of such phrases as “God is greater than all the great”
are also in harmony with this tendency.1
In short, these prayers show Baha’ism to be a type of Sufí
mysticism set in a frame of Moslem legalism.
c) Ceremonial ablutions and fasting
As in Islam, so also in Baha’ism, ablutions are a necessary
preliminary to prayer, but whereas in the former the believer is
bidden to wipe the face and hands with sand when water is not
available, in the latter it is only necessary for him to repeat five
times “In the name of God the Most Pure of the Most Pure.” Both
prayer and fasting are incumbent upon all who have attained to the
age of maturity. The fast lasts nineteen days, and is preceded by
five intercalary days during which the believer is bidden to give
gifts to relatives and to the needy poor, and to praise and exalt the
name of God. The fast month is the last of the Baha’í year (March 2
to March 20, inclusive), and during these days all believers are to
abstain from food and drink from sunrise to sunset. Every day the
face and hands must be washed, and the believer, facing Acre, must
repeat ninety-five times “God is Most Glorious”. The physically
weak, the diseased, all travellers, pregnant women and nursing
mothers are

“Ad‘iyat”, pp. 70 ff.
198 Religion of the Bahais
exempted. These regulations need not be discussed; it is sufficient
to point out that they are modifications of those current in Islam.
d) Prayers composed by Bahá’u’lláh
Both Baha’u’llah and ‘Abdu’l-Baha wrote numerous prayers, the
majority of which are in the Arabic language. These are interesting
because they show a conception of prayer that is utterly foreign to
Christian thought. A large number of the so-called prayers of
Baha’u’llah are not prayers at all, but consist of brief accounts of all
his troubles and expressions of disappointment that men did not
accept him at once. Some of them are mere recitals of his claim,
and we are reminded of the prayer of the Pharisee in the Temple.
They were composed to be read by others, as is obvious from their
contents, and are not prayers in the true sense of the word.2
But most important of all for our theme is his prayer for healing.
This prayer consists for the most part of a monotonous recital of
the attributes of God, and it concludes with the words: “I abjure
Thee that Thou protect the bearer of this blessed (prayer) sheet,
and him who reads it, and him upon whom it is placed, and him
who passeth by a house in which this sheet is found. Grant healing
by this prayer to every sick person, every weak person, every poor
person, and (protect them) from every calamity, every adversity,
every evil and every grief. And by this prayer do Thou guide every
person who would enter the way of Thy guidance, and the channel
of Thy grace and Thy forgiveness. Thou art the Glorious, the
Sufficient, the

“Aqdas”, pp. 5 f.
Vide “Ad‘iyat”, pp. 221–252.
15. Worship in Baha’ism 199

Healer, the Protector, the Bountiful, the Forgiving, the Merciful.”1
This prayer is an interesting commentary on the claim of
Baha’u’llah to free men from the chains of superstition, for it bears
out our contention that the word superstition as used by him is
simply a term for those ideas and beliefs which find no place in his
teachings, and must not be interpreted to mean more than that.2
This prayer is obviously meant to be used as a charm. When
carried in the pocket it protects the bearer; when kept in the house
it protects both inmates and passers-by; when laid upon the sick it
brings them healing; in short, it possesses magic properties. The
use of prayer sheets as charms is common throughout the East, and
this prayer serves to show that Baha’u’llah was a true Oriental.
e) The marriage service
Baha’u’llah himself provided no form of marriage service,
though he did write certain Tablets which were to be read as
“sermons” on such occasions.3 The form of service regularly used
by Persian Baha’ís was drawn up by ‘Abdu’l-Baha. This service is
important on account of its implied teaching. We saw that the
“Aqdas” allows a man to have two wives, but this service would
imply that monogamy was the law—“O peerless Lord, who by Thy
great wisdom hast ordained companionship for pairs ….”4
Furthermore, the contract is referred to as “a contract of
permanent marriage”, which would imply that it cannot be broken.
In Shí‘ah Islam permanent marriage does not mean

“Ad‘iyat”, pp. 183 ff.
Chapter 7 above.
“Ad‘iyat”, pp. 286 ff.
“Qabaleh”, pp. 2 f.
200 Religion of the Bahais
this, but is a term used to distinguish between marriage as such
and temporary marriage. In Baha’ism this is not the case, and the
term must therefore be interpreted to mean that death alone ends
the contract—“till death us do part” is the Christian equivalent.
The Christian Church lays great stress on the sanctity of marriage,
but the same cannot be said of Baha’ism, for divorce is not only
possible, but easy. A court decree is not necessary. All the husband
needs do is desert his wife; should he fail to return at the promised
time or to inform her of his failure, she must wait nine months,
when, if she is still without news of him, she may remarry. If a man
and his wife fail to agree, the man is bidden to wait one year to see
what happens, but if at the end of a year matters have not changed
he must divorce her.1 Thus though God is bidden to make the
marriage in heaven,2 it is very easily dissolved upon earth!
f) Hymns
Music is generally held by Moslems to be contrary to the
teachings of Mohammad, but the Sufis believe that “the beauties of
nature, music and art revive in men the divine idea, and recall their
affections from wandering from Him to other objects.”3 Poetry
became a natural medium for expressing Sufí ideas, and the works
of the mystic poets are very popular in Persia. As the Baha’í
movement grew it was natural that some of its teachings should be
expressed in verse, and some of these have now been published in
book form. The best known of these is the collection of the poems
of Aqa Mírza Na‘ím Isfahaní, many of which have been set

“Aqdas”, pp. 24 f.
“Qabaleh”, p. 3.
Sell, p. 107.
15. Worship in Baha’ism 201
to music, and are sung at Baha’í meetings. They deal with a variety
of subjects, among which the doctrine of “rij‘at” is very prominent. 1
The eschatological sayings of Jesus2 appear once more in verse
form, and some of His other sayings are put into couplets. “Should
the heavens and the earth both pass away, my word and my faith
shall remain always” is an almost literal translation of one of these
couplets.3 The old Moslem argument that by the Paraclete is meant
Mohammad once more appears,4 and a new argument in support of
Mohammad is brought forward, based on the parable of the grain of
mustard seed.5 This book, called “Kulliyat-i Na‘ím”, is of real
interest to every student of Baha’ism, but for our present purpose
the above remarks must suffice.
These hymns are sung by choirs of children (boys generally) at
all Baha’í festivals, but as there is no such thing as congregational
worship, these festivals are more in the nature of sacred concerts.
The purpose of the poems is obviously didactic rather than
devotional, and the spirit of worship is consequently lacking. Some
of these verses are, however, tinged with Sufism, and do to a
certain extent create a devotional atmosphere, but the number of
them is comparatively small.
In conclusion it must be pointed out that in the West it is the
custom of Baha’ís to retain membership of Christian Churches and
to join in the worship of those Churches, whilst the “Aqdas” is not
available in English, and consequently private prayer as
commanded by Baha’u’llah is not observed by them.

e.g., “Kulliyat”, p. 224, where Baha’u’llah is said to be Jesus returned.
St. Matt. 24.
“Kulliyat”, p. 23.
ibid., p. 234.
ibid., p. 235.
Shouqí Effendí and the Bahá’í constitution
According to the Will of Baha’u’llah, the succession should have
fallen to Mohammad ‘Alí when ‘Abdu’l-Baha died, but, in view of
the schism that took place after Baha’u’llah’s death, it was not to be
expected that this should come to pass.
‘Abdu’l-Baha in his Will nominated Shouqí Rabbaní as his
successor. Shouqí Effendí, as he is commonly called, is the son of a
daughter of ‘Abdu’l-Baha and is descended on his father’s side from
the family of the Bab. He will be succeeded by the first-born of his
lineal descendants,1 and so the leadership of the Baha’í movement
is made hereditary. Such an arrangement could very well lead to
abuses, and ‘Abdu’l-Baha has tried to guard against that danger by
stipulating that should the first-born not possess the spiritual
qualities necessary to such an office, it is incumbent upon Shouqí
Effendí to choose another of his sons to succeed him.2
The succession of Shouqí Effendí was not accepted by all the
Baha’ís, but, strangely enough, Mohammad ‘Alí seems to have
accepted the Will without much hesitation, contenting himself with
a somewhat mild protest.3 But opposition came from unexpected

“Organisation”, p. 178.
ibid., p. 180.
cf. the deductions made from this by Ruth White, “Organisation”, p. 126.
204 Religion of the Bahais
quarters. In Cairo a book was published which caused a schism
among the Baha’ís of Egypt, many of them breaking away from and
opposing the Spiritual Assembly. The author of the book seems to
have visited Syria and to have carried on active propaganda
amongst the Syrian Baha’ís. The extent of the trouble thus caused
can be gauged by the fact that the Spiritual Assembly of Haifa was
eventually compelled to issue a circular letter setting forth the
claims of Shouqí Effendí and warning all Baha’ís against the author
of the said book. A copy of this circular dated May 1924, and signed
by the secretary, Nuru’d-Dín, is in the possession of the present
author.
In America, too, the Baha’ís became divided. A strong section
led by Mrs Mary Hanford Ford refused to accept Shouqí Effendí as
anything more than “business manager or errand boy”,1 but this
attitude is totally unjustifiable. Acceptance of Shouqí Effendí
presupposes acceptance of ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s Will, and there can be no
question as to the position accorded therein to Shouqí Effendí.
Whatsoever he decides is of God, and disobedience to him is
disobedience to God. Denial of him is denial of God, and deviation
from him is deviation from God. 2 The only consistent attitude,
therefore, is that of Mrs Ruth White, who not only refuses to accept
Shouqí Effendí, but goes so far as to declare the alleged Will of
‘Abdu’l-Baha to be fraudulent.3 It is interesting to notice that Mrs
White, who refuses to accept Shouqí Effendí because she believes
that the office of “Guardian of the Cause” is

“Organisation”, p. 74.
ibid., pp. 178 f.
See further the Appendix to “Organisation”.
16. Shouqí Effendí and the Baha’í constitution 205
foreign to the true teachings of Baha’u’llah and ‘Abdu’l-Baha, yet
knows so very little about those teachings that she believes that
Baha’u’llah himself regarded ‘Abdu’l-Baha as the possessor of a
loftier station than that possessed by him!1
Mrs White has published a translation of the Will of ‘Abdu’l-
Baha together with a facsimile of the original,2 but her obvious
ignorance of Persian has led her to make several serious mistakes.
The English translation of the Will is divided into three parts, and
this gave rise to some very rash statements on the part of Mrs Ruth
White. She declares that “in the original document there is no
indication which is Part I, II or III. This arrangement was made by
the beneficiary and alleged successor Shoqhí [sic] Effendí himself,
as was also the above translation,”3 from which it would seem that
she accuses Shouqí of dividing the Will into sections to suit his own
purpose. But there is not the slightest justification for this charge,
for the sections in the Will are clearly marked. Each section opens
with an Arabic ascription meaning “He is God” (in the case of the
third section the words “the Witness, the All-Sufficing” are added),
and closes with the seal and signature of ‘Abdu’l-Baha.
Mrs White then draws the attention of the reader to a supposed
contradiction in the Will itself. “There is no mention made in Part
II that there is to be a successor and a continual line of successors.
On the contrary it confirms what both Baha’u’llah and Abdul-Baha
said during their lifetimes, that the power of the Baha’í Religion
was to vest in the Houses of

“Organisation”, p. 119.
ibid., pp. 165 ff.
ibid., p. 198.
206 Religion of the Bahais

Justice whenever they would be established.” 1 The clause in the
Will which Mrs White refers to is as follows: “Unto the Most Holy
Book (i.e. the “Aqdas”) everyone must turn, and all that is not
expressly recorded therein must be referred to the Universal House
of Justice.”2 But the contradiction is only apparent, for in the first
section of the Will we read: “Unto this body (the Universal House of
Justice) all things must be referred. It enacteth all ordinances and
regulations that are not found in the explicit Holy Text. By this
body all the difficult problems are to be solved, and the guardian of
the Cause of God is its sacred head, and the distinguished member
for life of that body.”3 The functions of the Universal House of
Justice as set forth in the first two sections of the Will are therefore
identical, the only difference being the omission of all mention of
the Guardian in the second section, but this can hardly be said to be
a contradiction. In connection with this it is of interest to note that
the handwriting expert engaged by Mrs White to report on the
writing in the Will declares that pages 4–8 were all written by one
and the same person, and both the passages quoted above are
found in those pages. It is somewhat doubtful how much value can
be set on the report in question, for the author of it himself declares
that “any conclusions to be drawn from an examination of the
photographic enlargements must necessarily be of a provisional
character contingent upon the accuracy of the photographic
records.”4 The present author is of the opinion that the evidence
produced by Mrs White in support of her contention

“Organisation”, p. 198.
ibid., p. 189.
ibid., p. 183.
Appendix to “Organisation”, p. 14.
16. Shouqí Effendí and the Baha’í constitution 207
that the Will is fraudulent is not sufficiently strong to merit
acceptance, and the question must remain unsettled until such a
time as Shouqí Effendí sees fit to allow the original copy of the Will
to be examined by an expert versed in the various types of Persian
script. For our present purpose it is best to regard the Will as the
authentic work of ‘Abdu’l-Baha.
But another question now arises: Did ‘Abdu’l-Baha possess the
right to nominate his successor? It does not seem that he did, so
his action, in nominating Shouqí Effendí and his heirs as Guardians
of the Cause, and the creation thereby of a hereditary office, was
totally unexpected and unjustifiable. It was not the intention of
Baha’u’llah that the leadership should be vested in his descendants,
but he definitely directed that after Mohammad ‘Alí the House of
Justice should assume control of the affairs of the Cause. That
‘Abdu’l-Baha ignored the directions of Baha’u’llah in making this
Will is shown by the fact that whereas in the “Aqdas” it is definitely
laid down that after ‘Abdu’l-Baha and Mohammad ‘Alí the House of
Justice will assume the control of all vaqf property (i.e. pious
endowments), ‘Abdu’l-Baha declares that Shouqí Effendí and his
successors are the trustees for all monetary gifts.1 The fact that
‘Abdu’l-Baha calls this money offering “Huquq” does not materially
affect the argument. The present Baha’í Organisation is therefore
foreign to the thought and intention of Baha’u’llah.
At the head of the Organisation (which as yet exists only in part)
is Shouqí Effendí, the virtual dictator of

Compare “Aqdas”, p. 16, and “Organisation”, p. 122, with “Organisation”,
p. 184.
208 Religion of the Bahais
the movement, whose every word is of God. He is supported by a
body of nine men elected from among themselves by the “Hands of
the Cause” who in their turn are nominated and appointed by
Shouqí Effendí himself, and who are in duty bound to obey his
every command. This body would seem to form the Executive of
the Movement. Then comes the International House of Justice,
which is the legislative body, the members of which are elected by
the various National Assemblies. Implicit obedience to the
Guardian of the Cause is incumbent upon all the members of the
Universal Court of Justice also. The members of the National
Assemblies are elected by the representatives of the general body
of the believers in each country, so that the movement has a
semblance of representative government. Last of all come the local
assemblies which can be formed wherever the number of believers
is nine or over. The position of Shouqí Effendí according to this
arrangement is that of dictator, for obedience to him is incumbent
upon all.1 The functions of the House of Justice are clearly set forth
in the Will. Under the direction of the Guardian it is to deal with all
matters which cannot be settled by reference to the Holy Books,
and whatsoever they decide has equal authority with the Holy
Books. It has also the power to alter and change laws according to
the exigencies of the time, but this only refers to laws enacted by
the House of Justice itself.2 The Government (Hukumat) referred to
in Part I of the Will3 is probably the Executive Authority composed

“Organisation”, pp. 178 ff.; “S. of W.”, Vol. XIX, No. 1, p. 6.
“Organisation”, pp. 183 and 189 f.
ibid., p. 184.
16. Shouqí Effendí and the Baha’í constitution 209
of the Guardian and the Hands of the Cause, which is to work in
harmony with the Universal Court of Justice, and to enforce the
enactments of the latter.
It must be borne in mind that the House of Justice as conceived
by Baha’u’llah was a very different thing from that found in
present-day Baha’ism, for Baha’u’llah looked forward to a time
when the laws of the “Aqdas” would be adopted generally and a
House of Justice would be formed in every town. These Houses of
Justice would have the right of imposing fines and penalties, and
would also be the educational authorities in each town.1 The
changed outlook in Baha’ism is responsible for the fact that the
House of Justice has given place to the Spiritual Assembly (Mahfel-i
Rohaní),2 which has very little in common with it.
Mrs White will have nothing to do with these Assemblies, but
declares that they are foreign to the spirit of Baha’ism, and were
first started by Dr Kheiru’llah.3 Furthermore, she quotes ‘Abdu’l-
Baha as saying that there are no officers in the Baha’í cause,4 and
that the organisation the Baha’ís have among themselves has
nothing to do with the teachings of Baha’u’llah.5 ‘Abdu’l-Baha may
have said this, indeed it is more than probable that he did, but he
often said things that he did not really mean! That he did not mean
what he told Mrs White is clear from the fact that he himself wrote
to the Baha’ís of Bombay giving them instructions as to how to start
an Assembly (Mahfel), and bidding them elect a president and obey
the person elected and submit to his ruling.6 It is clear therefore
that ‘Abdu’l-Baha not only approved

“Aqdas”, pp. 19 f.
Mahfil-i-Rawhaní.—M.W.T.
“Organisation”, pp. 35 ff.
ibid., pp. 11 f.
ibid., p. 18.
Mok., Vol. III, pp. 505 f.
210 Religion of the Bahais
of the formation of the Assemblies, but also gave instructions that
officers be elected.
Mrs White objects also to the rule that “the individual
conscience must be subordinated to the decisions of the Spiritual
Assembly”,1 and declares it to be a complete inversion of the
teachings of Baha’u’llah and ‘Abdu’l-Baha. But here again Mrs
White is mistaken, for in the Tablet to the Baha’ís of Bombay
quoted above ‘Abdu’l-Baha himself declares that the individual
must accept the majority decision of the Assembly at all times, and
once that is given no member has the right to oppose it either in or
outside the Assembly.2
There is no such thing as freedom of conscience or of opinion in
Baha’ism. The decisions of the Spiritual Assembly are binding upon
all believers; these in their turn are bound to submit to the
decisions of the National Assemblies, which are again bound by all
the decisions of the International Court of Justice, which is but a
tool in the hands of Shouqí Effendí, the infallible and absolute
Guardian of the Cause. This system is justly condemned by Mrs
White, but she is at fault when she declares it to be foreign to the
teachings of ‘Abdu’l-Baha.
Finally, a few words must be said about the Guardian of the
Cause, Shouqí Effendí, and the policy adopted by him.
Shouqí Rabbani was twenty-five years of age when, in the year
1921, ‘Abdu’l-Baha passed away. He was at the time a student at
Balliol College, Oxford, which he entered in 1919, after having
pursued a course of study in the American University of Beirut. He
was young to undertake the duties of his new office, but

“Organisation”, p. 34.
Mok., Vol. III, p. 507.
16. Shouqí Effendí and the Baha’í constitution 211
he had the benefit of the experience of men who had been long in
the movement. There was no House of Justice to act as legislative
body, so the movement was controlled by Shouqí aided by his
secretaries and the Spiritual Assembly of Haifa. He devoted his
attention to the consolidation of the Baha’í organisation, and the
rapid political changes in the Near East helped him greatly. The
Baha’ís began to enjoy greater freedom than had hitherto been
their lot, and, urged by Shouqí Effendí, they began to form
Assemblies. In 1925 the number of Spiritual Assemblies in the Near
East was very small, and Persia could boast of one only. In a Tablet
to the East written in that year Shouqí Effendí gives a list of these
Assemblies, and urges the Baha’ís to pay more attention to
organisation, pointing out that the House of Justice cannot be
formed until the local Spiritual Assemblies are properly organised.
Since then the local organisations in Persia have grown
considerably, though the numbers of the adherents of the
movement in the different towns show no corresponding increase.
In the same Tablet he points out that it is necessary to try to secure
possession of all places which are of historic interest to Baha’ís
through their association with the Bab or Baha’u’llah,1 and urges
them to make every effort to bring this to pass. In another Tablet,
written two years later, he gives more detailed instructions as to
how to set about the task. The Assemblies should appoint
committees consisting of old and experienced Baha’ís, and these
committees should undertake to make inquiries concerning all
those places which are of peculiar interest

Tablet dated Mehr 12th, 1304 [5 October 1925.] (AD 1932 corresponds to
the year 1310–11, Persian solar reckoning).
212 Religion of the Bahais
to believers, such as the graves of martyrs and the scenes of their
martyrdom, and report to the Assemblies concerned. Copies of
these reports, together with photographs of the places mentioned
in the reports, should be sent to Haifa, where Shouqí Effendí has
made arrangements to have them preserved. It is incumbent upon
the Assemblies to see that all such places are kept immune from
damage until such time as it shall be possible to acquire possession
of them for the Baha’í organisation. Shouqí Effendí hopes that in
the course of time it will be possible to erect a Baha’í temple
(Mashrequ’l-Azkar) near every such place.1 Both Baha’u’llah and
‘Abdu’l-Baha were prolific writers, and in addition to their books
and Tablets to Baha’í groups scattered throughout different lands,
they both wrote a large number of Tablets to individuals. Shouqí
Effendí urges upon the Assemblies that every effort should be made
to collect these, that none be lost. Many of them are now in the
possession of non-Baha’ís, and every effort should be made to
obtain copies of these. There can be no doubt as to the wisdom of
this policy. The possession of a number of shrines in Persia would
be a great asset to the movement. Nothing would promote the
Cause in Persia better than a constant stream of Western Baha’ís
coming on a pilgrimage to such shrines. The house occupied by the
Bab in Shíraz has been secured, and is visited by many pilgrims.
The author knows of Baha’ís from America, and of one from
Australia, coming to visit the “Beit”, as the house in question is
called by the Baha’ís. The coming of all such pilgrims is given every
publicity, and as a result the

Tablet dated Mehr 3rd, 1306 [26 September 1927].
16. Shouqí Effendí and the Baha’í constitution 213
impression is created that Baha’ism has become a real force in the
West. The importance given to the collection of scattered Tablets1
is readily understood in view of the fact that they are all “scripture”,
and should be reverenced as such. Scattered all over Persia are
Moslem shrines, many of them in a state of dilapidation and ruin,
but they play a great part in the religious life of the common people.
Reverence for the Qor’an and for their shrines is characteristic of all
Moslems, and the possession of shrines and of a recognised canon
of Scripture would be of undoubted value to the Baha’í movement.
Such an ambitious policy—for such it is—calls for self-sacrifice
on the part of all Baha’ís, for it cannot be carried out without
money, and so Shouqí Effendí urges the Spiritual Assemblies to
start a Benevolent Fund (Sanduq-i Kheirieh) in order to acquire
these shrines and to promote other good works.2
In his general policy he follows ‘Abdu’l-Baha, and forbids the
Baha’ís to interfere in political affairs. They must belong to no
political party and be obedient to the Government and civil
authorities.3 They must be concerned only with the things that
belong to their religion, such as the promotion of education and the
raising of the position of women. Above all, they must be
missionaries. Nothing must be allowed to interfere with that side
of their work, for the Baha’í religion is essentially missionary.4
Consolidation of the Faith and propagation of its doctrines are
thus seen to be the guiding principles of Shouqí Effendí’s policy.3

Tablet dated Aban 4th, 1305 [27 October 1926].
Tablets dated Isfand 15th, 1304 [6 March 1926], and Mehr 3rd, 1306 [26
September 1927]. Arabic al-Sanduq al-Khayr.
Tablets dated Isfand 15th, 1304 [6 March 1926], and Aban 4th, 1305 [27
October 1926].
Tablet dated Mehr 3rd, 1306 [26 September 1927].
Bahá’í missionary methods
The main purpose of this chapter is to show some of the
methods adopted by Baha’ís in their missionary efforts, and
particularly those methods which were adopted by ‘Abdu’l-Baha.
Much has been written by others about the methods adopted by
Persian Baha’ís, so only the briefest mention of them is necessary
here.
Prof. Browne has pointed out that as early as 1887–88, when he
himself was in Persia, the Baha’ís were well represented in the
postal and telegraph services,1 and these two departments have
continued to be almost entirely staffed by Baha’ís. Needless to say,
the postal service offers unique opportunities for missionary work,
and a journey by post-lorry gives a splendid insight into the
activities of these “missionaries”. It can be truly said that
membership of the Baha’í organization is almost a sine qua non for
admission into the service of the postal department. Baha’í
influence has spread into other departments of the Persian Civil
Service, and many young men join the movement simply and solely
because they hope thereby to obtain good positions. Where they
hold positions of authority, Baha’ís not only use that authority to
spread Baha’í influence, but also take advantage of their position to
do all in

“Materials”, Introd., p. xvi.
216 Religion of the Bahais
their power to hinder the work of Christian missionaries. The
Baha’í Assemblies are first and foremost missionary institutions,
and exist in order to propagate Baha’í doctrines. Everything is done
to attract the young, and organised classes for children are a great
feature. Graded lessons have been drawn up, and the children are
awarded certificates and prizes for lessons well learnt. In Shíraz
many young men were attracted to the movement by the prospect
of learning to play the “tor”1 (a string instrument) free of charge.
An orchestra was formed, and became a great attraction, and is
even to-day the chief “draw” for young men. But these manifold
activities are but helps or aids in the work, and the true secret of
Baha’í missionary success (though that success is somewhat
superficial, as will be seen) is the amount of personal work done.
Every Baha’í becomes a missionary, and it is the influence of friend
upon friend that accounts for a large number of young men joining
the movement. The remarkable thing is that whilst every effort is
made to induce young men to join the movement, almost nothing is
done to keep them in it afterwards. The majority fall away, others
remain in the movement because their work depends on it, others
again are afraid to break with the organisation lest influence should
be brought to bear upon their employers to discharge them. This
fear is very real, and the author has in his possession a letter from
the Shíraz Spiritual Assembly to a young man suspected of
associating with the “enemies of the Cause”; though the young man
in question is secretly an enemy of the Baha’í cause, he does not
dare leave it and show his true colours. Religious dissimulation
(taqieh)2 is practised by all

Persian tar, a long-necked, waisted lute family instrument.
Taqíya. “In Persia, … when life was in danger, and complete freedom
offered to those who indicated they were Muslims and not Baha'ís, the
Guardian [Shoghi Effendi] not only deprived anyone who did not
openly declare his Faith of his voting rights, but even indicated they
were Covenant breakers. (From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi
Effendi to two believers, 30 April 30 1957) (Lights of Guidance,#215, p.
61)
17. Baha’í missionary methods 217
Baha’ís; amongst the Moslems they pose as Moslems, and amongst
the Christians they pose as inquirers. Some have even become
baptised members of the Christian Church in order to be able to
carry out their purpose of trying to win over the Christians. Nearly
every Christian hospital in Persia can tell of a Baha’í becoming
Christian in order to be able to carry on propaganda within the
hospital. The spirit of Baha’ism is the spirit of lying, and herein lies
its power. It is an enemy that must be fought in the dark. Finally, it
need only be said that paid missionaries are found in nearly all the
big towns of Persia, whilst others are engaged in itinerating work in
the villages. These missionaries function as clergy, and officiate at
marriages and other ceremonies, so the Baha’í boast that the
movement knows nothing of a clerical caste has no foundation in
fact.
But far more interesting is a study of the missionary methods of
‘Abdu’l-Baha, for these not only throw a light on his character, but
also show clearly the true nature of the movement which owes so
much to him. We have seen in a previous chapter how he himself
undertook two great missionary journeys to the West, and
appealed to Western Baha’ís to undertake similar journeys to
further the Cause, and the response made to his appeals will be
considered later on in this chapter. More important even than his
journeys are the innumerable Tablets he wrote, and a study of
these will serve to show perfectly clearly the method he adopted in
order to quicken interest in the movement in both the East and the
West. His policy can best be summed up by saying that he incited
the West to greater efforts by telling them remarkable stories of
the growth of the
218 Religion of the Bahais
movement in the East, whilst in his Tablets to the East he pointed to
the West as offering an example of what missionary zeal can do. In
other words, he resorted to a campaign of lies (for such, indeed, it
was, as this chapter will show) in order to spread his doctrines.
The failure of the movement in Persia was a source of great
disappointment to him, as his Tablets show. The Persians are deep
in a nightmare sleep;1 overcome by the sleep of negligence, they are
completely ignorant of the fact that the intelligentsia of the West
are being drawn into the movement. Those who are far away in
distant lands are being drawn close, but those who are near are as
yet cut off from him.2 His real feelings towards them are seen from
a Tablet he wrote to Mrs Dreyfus, who herself was acquainted with
the conditions in Persia. After declaring what Mohammad had
done for Mecca, he says: “If only they (the Persians) consider they
will understand that the Cause of Baha’u’llah will make Persia
prosperous and the Persians great. But what is the use?—they lack
intelligence! They think they can revive Persia by their ‘bon jour’
and ‘good morning’—in other words, by learning French and
English. Lack of intelligence is the worst thing in the world. These
Persians not only lack intelligence but are self-satisfied as well!
They think that they are each one the Plato of this age, whereas in
reality they know nothing at all.”3 These statements show perfectly
clearly that he thought the prospects of the movement in Persia to
be anything but promising. But how differently he speaks when
addressing the West! He then sees wonderful visions of a Baha’í
Persia. The Persians will come into the

Mok., Vol. III, p. 348.
bid., pp. 215 f.
ibid., p. 315.
17. Baha’í missionary methods 219
movement in troops, and all the Shi‘ahs will become Baha’ís. So
great has been the effect of these teachings on the Jews that the day
is not far off when there will not be a Jew in Persia who has not
become a Baha’í! As for the Parsees, who were always so bigoted
and exclusive, the majority of them have already become Baha’ís.1
That ‘Abdu’l-Baha knew these statements to be devoid of truth is
obvious from his own words quoted above, but it is not unfitting to
point out that, except for a large number of Jews from the Hamadan
and Kashan districts who have become Baha’ís, the movement has
had very little success among the Jews and Parsees of Persia, the
percentage of converts being almost negligible.
He encourages the Baha’ís of the Persian town of Najafabad by
telling them the story of a poor Manchester woman, who, having
nothing else to give, sacrificed her wealth of hair in order to
contribute something towards the erection of a “Mashrequ’l-Azkar”
(Baha’í Temple) in America,2 and urges the American Baha’ís to
hurry on with the building of it, telling them that in most of the
cities of Persia, and even in some villages, a “Mashrequ’l-Azkar” has
been founded.3 This statement again was entirely devoid of truth.
There neither was nor is a “Mashrequ’l-Azkar” in Persia, and, as we
saw in the last chapter, Shouqí Effendí looks forward to the time
when it will be possible to erect such buildings near the Babí-Baha’í
shrines. That he does not believe it will be possible to erect such
temples in the near future is obvious from the fact that he urges the
Persian Baha’ís to found a “Hazíratu’l-

Mok., Vol. III, Pp. 124 f.
ibid., p. 292.
“S. of W.”, Vol. II, No. 5, p. 13.
220 Religion of the Bahais
Quds” (Enclosed Sanctuary) wherever possible as a centre for their
meetings.1 It only remains to point out that ‘Abdu’l-Baha was also
very disappointed with the slow growth of the movement in the
West, and knew full well that there was no ground for the
statements he constantly made in order to encourage the Persian
Baha’ís. In 1917 he wrote to the Baha’ís of America urging them to
greater efforts, and complaining that although twenty-three years
have gone by since the movement was first introduced into that
country, the progress made is far below what was expected, and the
movement has not yet become alive.2 Nor was he satisfied with the
condition of things within the movement in America, for, when
invited to revisit that country, he declared that he would only come
when harmony and unity were established among the American
believers.3
He also knew the importance of emotion as a religious factor,
and in his Tablets to the West he gave great prominence to the
sufferings of Baha’u’llah, and the stories he told should be
compared with the true story as found in this book, for they serve
to explain why so many good and sincere Christians could be
attracted to the Baha’í movement.4 Sometimes this habit of
exaggeration and misrepresentation of facts led to his making the
most impossible statements, but none in the West would know
that. He tells us, for instance, that in the town of Yezd in Persia the
persecution was so fierce that five thousand Baha’í households
went in daily fear of their lives, expecting every

Tablet of Shouqí dated Mehr 12th, 1304 [4 October 1925].
Mok., Vol. III, p. 42.
ibid., pp. 78 and 90.
cf. Appendix II.
17. Baha’í missionary methods 221
minute to be attacked and killed by the fanatic Moslems. They
feared for their homes, and feared for their women-folk and
children.1 Assuming that each household consists of six persons (a
very conservative estimate for a Persian household), the Baha’í
community of Yezd would thus number some 30,000 souls.
According to the Persian Official Calendar for the year 1930–31, the
total population of Yezd is forty thousand to fifty thousand, and of
these some ten thousand are Parsees, so that if we accept the story
told by ‘Abdu’l-Baha, we must picture a community of thirty
thousand Baha’ís living in daily dread of a small Moslem
community which would consist of ten thousand people at the
most! None will deny that the Baha’ís in Yezd were persecuted, but
the truth is that they were only a small portion of the community,
as is proved by reference to a history of the martyrs of Yezd written
by a Baha’í who was acquainted with most of them, and witnessed
some of the events of that period. He tells us that when Prince
Jalalu’d-Dawleh was Governor of Yezd for the last time, there was a
lull in the persecutions, and the Baha’ís were able to indulge in
mission work. Ibn-i Abhar, a well-known Baha’í from Teheran,
visited Yezd, and as a result a large number of people became
Baha’ís. Indeed, so popular did his meetings become that the
number of Baha’ís increased, till there were from four to five
hundred present at each meeting.2 It is obvious, therefore, that
‘Abdu’l-Baha had little or no regard for the truth, and it is not
surprising that Shouqí Effendí should adopt a similar policy.
The Tablets of Shouqí Effendí to the Baha’ís of the

Mok., Vol. III, pp. 136 f.
Shuhada’-i Yezd, pp. 80 f.
222 Religion of the Bahais
East make very dull reading, but they show clearly that he is a true
disciple of ‘Abdu’l-Baha. He keeps the believers informed of the
triumphs of the movement in the West, and prophesies a brilliant
future for the Cause. Over and over again he refers to the fact that
Queen Marie of Rumania and the Princess Ileana have become
Baha’ís as significant of the new outlook in the West.1 He is
overjoyed at the coming of Australian pilgrims to Haifa, and sees in
their coming the fulfilment of a saying of Baha’u’llah that “if they
conceal the light on the land, it will appear in the middle of the sea.”
All this signifies the dawn of a new day for Persia, for the believers
from the West shall come to that land and shall establish factories
and promote agriculture.2 The West has come to realise the value
of the Baha’í teachings, and all men now confess that the solution of
the world’s problems is in the hands of the Baha’ís.3 But still more
interesting are some of the statements to the West. A good example
is furnished by a letter he wrote to the Esperantists in conference at
Danzig in 1927, in the course of which he said: “It will interest you, I
am sure, to learn, that as a result of the repeated and emphatic
admonitions of ‘Abdu’l-Baha, His many followers even in the distant
villages and hamlets of Persia, where the light of Western
civilisation has hardly penetrated as yet, as well as in other lands
throughout the East, are strenuously and enthusiastically engaged
in the study and teaching of Esperanto, for whose future they
cherish the highest hopes.”4 Shouqí Effendí was too well informed
of the

cf. Appendix III.
Tablet dated March 6th, 1925.
Tablet dated Isfand 15th, 1304 [6 March 1926].
“S. of W.”, Vol. XVIII, No. 7, pp. 209 f.
17. Baha’í missionary methods 223
conditions prevailing in Persia not to have known that the
statement he was making was utterly and wholly devoid of truth.
A more detailed study of the Tablets is impossible here, but it
may be pointed out that they should be read by all who desire to
get a real insight into the nature and methods of Baha’ism. The
Tablets to individuals, and particularly those written to various
Baha’í missionaries, are of peculiar interest for the light they throw
on the method of carrying on “personal” work.1 Of peculiar interest
to English people is his advice to a missionary as to how to deal
with the then Prince of Wales, now His Majesty King George,2 and
his plan to win the interest of Lord Curzon,3 which show ‘Abdu’l-
Baha in the character of a spider quietly spreading his net.
We have now seen some of the methods employed in Persia,
and we have had a glimpse at the leaders of the movement at work,
but this chapter would not be complete without some account of
methods employed by the Western organisation. There is no
international House of Justice as yet, so the movement is controlled
by Shouqí Effendí aided by the Hands of the Cause. The real
missionary organisation, however, is the National Spiritual
Assembly of the Baha’ís of the United States of America and
Canada, and it is with the activities of that body that we are now
concerned. It will be remembered that ‘Abdu’l-Baha appealed to
the American believers to undertake missionary journeys to spread
the new teachings, and his appeal did not fall on deaf ears. The
spread of Baha’ism owes

cf. Mok., Vol. III, pp. 250 f., 444, and 448.
ibid., p. 455.
ibid., pp. 446 and 455.
224 Religion of the Bahais
much to the labours of those people who responded to this appeal.
We read of some of these missionaries visiting Honolulu, Japan,
India, Burma, Australia, Tasmania, New Zealand, and almost all the
countries of Europe. At first these missionaries were voluntary
workers, but later some of them became paid teachers. Mrs Ruth
White records an offer made to her in 1914 to travel as a paid
teacher, but she refused it on principle.1 In addition to these
travelling missionaries, there are some who undertake institutional
work, and medical and educational missionaries have been at work
in Teheran, the Persian capital, for many years.
“The Baha’í movement works through existing institutions for
their betterment and final perfection,” says Mr Horace Holley, the
paid secretary of the American organisation, but this statement
does not give a true idea of the extent to which this is done. There
is hardly a movement having for its purpose the promotion of
peace or of the rights of women which is not used by Baha’ís to
promote their own teaching. Geneva, the home of the League of
Nations, offered unique opportunities, and a Baha’í bureau has
been established there. The Esperanto Congresses, the meetings of
the Church Peace Union, and various conferences held under the
auspices of the League of Nations are all attended by Baha’í
delegates and opportunities are invariably found for bringing the
movement to the notice of the delegates.2 But not content with
making use of existing organisations, they have also started other
movements such as the “World

“Organisation”, p. 17.
e.g., vide “S. of W.”, Vol. XVIII, No. 3, pp. 75 f.; No. 6, pp. 191 f.; No. 21, pp.
348 ff.
17. Baha’í missionary methods 225
Unity Conferences”, which are run simply and solely for the purpose
of spreading Baha’í doctrines by “follow-up work” amongst those
who attend.1
A study of the statement of accounts issued by the American
National Spiritual Assembly for the year 1926–27 will serve as a
guide to the activities of that body. Although Mr. Holley tells us
that the Baha’ís hold that spiritual instruction should not be sold 2
we find that during that year 5,064.98 dollars were spent on
teaching, and another sum of 10,062.41 dollars was spent on the
administration. During that year alone 5,816.85 dollars were spent
on World Unity Conferences, and a further 3,000 dollars were
devoted to general publicity work. The expenses in connection
with the Star of the West magazine amounted to 3,621.91 dollars,
and another sum of 1,975.32 dollars was spent on publication. The
total expenses incurred by the American organisation during that
one year amounted to the huge sum of 47,288.83 dollars.
Finally, a word must be said about the publications of the
movement. The list found at the beginning of this book will give
some idea of the amount of literature published by the movement,
but in addition to these books a large number of periodicals are
published. A complete list of these is impossible, but the following
will serve to show the importance given to this kind of publication.
The Star of the West, a magazine entitled Reality and the Bahá’í
News-letter are published in America. The German publications
include Baha’i Nachrichten (the newsletter of the German
organisation), Sonne der Wahrheit, Baha’i Weltgemeinschaft,
Rosengartlein (a paper for children), and La Nova Tago

“Organisation”, pp. 79 ff.
“Census”, p. 11.
226 Religion of the Bahais
(an Esperanto paper). ‘Asr-i Pahlaví is published in Egypt in the
Persian language, and has a wide circulation, whilst India produces
the paper called Kokab-i Hind. Freedom of the Press is as yet
unknown to Persia, but a small paper called Akhbár-i Amrí (a
newsletter) is printed for private circulation amongst the believers.
In 1926 the number of Baha’ís in the United States was 1,247, an
almost insignificant number, yet the cash receipts during that year
amounted to the immense sum of 51,039.28 dollars.1 Christians
have much to learn from the Baha’ís in the matter of giving, and
whatever may be our opinion of the movement, we are bound to
admire the zeal and enterprise shown by its adherents in the West.

“Census”, p. 6; “Organisation”, pp. 64 f.
Baha’ism and the future
It is always difficult to estimate the survival value of any new
religion. In 1903 the late Prof. E. G. Browne wrote as follows:
“Everyone who is in the slightest degree conversant with the actual
state of things in Persia now recognises that the number and the
influence of the Babís in that country are immensely greater than
they were fifteen years ago, and the conviction which I heard
continually expressed this year in Babí circles at Cairo, that in the
course of a very short time their religion would reign paramount in
their own country, and break down once and for all the power of
the Shí’ite Muhammadan mujtahids and mullas, is seriously
discussed as a possibility by European diplomatists and consular
officers.”1 With the passing of years he was compelled to modify
his opinion, and in 1917 he wrote: “Of the future of Baha’ism it is
difficult to hazard a conjecture.”2 It is important, too, to note that
whereas Prof. Browne in 1903 still referred to the Baha’ís as Babís,
in 1917 he definitely speaks of the movement as Baha’ism, thereby
showing that he had come to realise that Babism and Baha’ism are
by no means synonymous terms.
There can be no doubt but that Prof. Browne was very

Phelps, Introduction, p. xiv.
“Materials”, Introduction, p. xxiv.
228 Religion of the Bahais
much misled as to the number of Baha’ís in Persia in 1903. Cairo
talk is no index of the true condition of things in Persia, as Prof.
Browne ought to have known. He was undoubtedly influenced, too,
by the reports brought back to Europe by Western visitors to
Persia. Lord Curzon, writing in 1892, estimated the number of Babís
in Persia at something between half a million and a million, 1 a
somewhat amazingly false estimate from so acute an observer. This
estimate carrying the authority of so famous a man greatly
influenced most Western accounts of the movement, indeed it
continues to influence some Western writers, as is seen from a brief
account of the movement written by Dr Percy Dearmer during
March, 1931.2 It is somewhat remarkable that a scholar of such
eminence as Dr Dearmer should regard a book published in 1892 as
an authoritative account of the state of affairs in Persia in 1931!
The last few years have seen many changes in Persia, and rapid
progress has been made in many directions. The power of the
Mohammadan clergy has been broken, and the great nomad tribes
have been brought into subjection. It is not the purpose of this
chapter to discuss the various causes that led to the making of
Persia a united country under a strong central Government, but as
Baha’ís are fond of pointing to the teachings and influence of
Baha’u’llah as responsible for these changes, it is just as well for us
to point out that Persia owes very little indeed to its small Baha’í
population, who are forbidden by their prophets to

“Persia”, Vol. I, p. 499.
Article, “Persia and Christianity”, Church of England Newspaper, March
6th, 1931.
18. Baha’ism and the future 229
take any part in political affairs. They took no part in the
revolution, indeed ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s attitude at the time was
unsympathetic, and some of the Baha’ís in Persia were accused of
reactionary sympathies.1 The forces that went to make the
revolution in Persia eventually led to the founding of the new
dynasty under Reza Shah Pahlaví. Nor must we forget the part
played by the Great War in the moulding of modern Persia. There
can be no doubt but that the coming of foreign troops to fight each
other on Persian soil helped to create a spirit of nationalism which
had already been stirred by the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907,
which divided Persia into two zones of interest. The triumph of
Mustafa Kemal Pasha and the formation of the new republic with
its capital at Angora did much to spread the new national spirit
which was already manifest in the Near East, and certainly had a
great influence on Persia. Fortunately for the latter country, a real
leader was found in Reza Khan, who was successively War Minister
and Prime Minister before he ascended the throne in December
1925 with the title of Reza Shah Pahlaví. To him, more than to any
other, is Persia indebted for her rapid progress during the last few
years.
It behoves us now to consider the effect that all the remarkable
changes brought about by the new regime have had on the Baha’í
movement in Persia. Reza Shah Pahlaví is a Persian above
everything else, and it has been, and is, the essential part of his
policy to create in his subjects a real patriotic spirit. The
introduction of European dress and the Pahlaví hat caused much
amusement to some European visitors to

“Materials”, Introduction, p. xviii.
230 Religion of the Bahais
Persia—it would seem to be the general custom of a certain type of
traveller to laugh at everything which he does not understand. But
the change of dress is significant of the Shah’s whole policy. Miss
Rosita Forbes writes: “The introduction of European dress has
established a standard of neatness hitherto unknown, and by
abolishing the differences which used to exist between the
costumes of the various districts has enabled a man to think of
himself as a Persian rather than as a Shirazi, Isfahani, or a
Kermani.”1 “To enable a man to think of himself as a Persian”—Miss
Rosita Forbes is right when she declares that to be the purpose of
this change of dress, but it meant more than the abolition of local
peculiarities of dress. In the past there was no such thing as a
national consciousness in Persia, and a man was a Shírazí or
Isfahaní rather than a Persian, but there was another division
which went much deeper than this—a religious division. The
introduction of the new dress removed the unenviable distinction
made between Jew and Moslem, or Parsee and Moslem. Under the
old regime both Jews and Parsees were liable to every form of
persecution, and were compelled to wear distinctive dress to
distinguish them from their Moslem neighbours. The introduction
of the new dress meant a new liberty for the Jew and Parsee. No
longer are they members of despised sects—they are the Persian
subjects of a Persian monarch, and as such are free to trade as
Persians.
This change is not without its effect upon Baha’ism. The main
attraction of Baha’ism to the Jew and Parsee is now gone. The
indignities heaped upon these two

“Conflict”, p. 170.
18. Baha’ism and the future 231
peoples under the old regime served to help Baha’í propaganda
among them. It was not difficult for a Jew or Parsee to become a
Baha’í. The Jewish convert was not asked to renounce anything. He
maintained his allegiance to the Law, and the practice of taqieh
allowed him to be a Jew among Jews. He was not called upon to
make any public profession of his new faith, but continued to
worship as a Jew. Outside the circle of his Jewish friends he was
received as a brother and treated as an equal by Moslem Baha’ís
who previous to their conversion had regarded him as unclean. He
had everything to gain and nothing to lose by becoming a Baha’í.
The same was true of the Parsee, and the remarkable thing is that
so few converts were made from among these two peoples. The
introduction of the new dress has therefore deprived Baha’ism of
its chief attraction for the Jew and Parsee, and materially affected
the prospects of the movement.
In spite of the fact that the power of the Mujtaheds and Mullas
has been broken, Islam is officially stronger than it was before, for
the Government continues to be, and must continue to be, Moslem
in name if not in anything else. The proximity of Russia and the
spread of Bolshevik teachings in the north of Persia are a real
menace to the new dynasty, and the Government has been
compelled to take action to prevent the spread of all such
teachings. It can truly be said that Reza Shah owes his throne to
the Mujtaheds of the Shí‘ah religion. In 1924 there was a strong
feeling in favour of a republic, with Reza Khan as its first President.
It was just at this time that the Turkish Grand National Assembly
abolished the Khalifate and disestablished the Moslem religion.
This event
232 Religion of the Bahais
gave the Mujtaheds their opportunity, and they declared that a
republic would be contrary to the principles of the Shí‘ah faith.
Supported in their views by Reza Khan himself, they won the day,
and this eventually resulted in the founding of the new dynasty. It
is to the mutual advantage of the King and the clergy that they
should support each other, A republic, bringing with it the possible
disestablishment of the Shí‘ah faith, endangers the position of the
clergy, and a continuance of the monarchy is essential to them,
whilst it is equally essential to the throne that the Shí‘ah faith
should be strong enough to counteract any republican tendencies
among the people. Thus it is that only Moslems can be employed in
Government offices, and all anti-Islam propaganda is forbidden.
The institution of an examination for clergy, and the making of the
turban a privileged head-dress for those qualified by examination,
have removed many of the old abuses current in the religion, and
this, in time, must win a new respect for the religious teachers.
This, again, must affect Baha’ism. Those Baha’ís who work in
Government offices are compelled to practice taqieh if they are to
retain their posts. Their propaganda is hindered by the new
regulations, and the removal of many of the abuses which were
current in Islam makes that religion a far more formidable
opponent than it previously could have been.
It has been a common custom amongst Baha’ís to refer to the
Shah as if he were of their faith, and the fact that they hid the true
nature of their celebration of the “‘Aid-i Rezvan”1 by holding it on
the day of the Shah’s coronation, a public holiday, seemed to add
colour to this; but in 1931 the holiday was cancelled

‘Id ar-Ridvan.
18. Baha’ism and the future 233
at the last moment by Government proclamation, and thus the
Baha’ís were prevented from taking advantage of the public holiday
to celebrate their festival. There can be little doubt but that this
incident was meant to show the attitude of the ruler towards the
Baha’ís.
Bolstered up by the State, Shí‘ah Islam can yet live a long time,
but with the coming in the future of religious freedom its day will
draw to a close. Old institutions, like old customs, die slowly, and a
religion which has held its own for centuries will not pass away in a
night. Islam will outlive Baha’ism in Persia, for the latter is
definitely on the wane. Miss Rosita Forbes, an acute observer of
events, who can hardly be said to be prejudiced on the question,
writes: “Babism in Persia is not increasing and though their
numbers are always exaggerated, I doubt if there are more than
twenty thousand of this enlightened sect throughout the country.”1
It is almost impossible to discover what the number of Baha’ís
actually is, but the author, after collecting statistics from most of
the provinces of Persia, is convinced that they cannot number more
than thirty thousand, but are probably far less.
Baha’ism in Persia to-day is but a stepping-stone from Islam to
materialism. Strangely enough, the Baha’ís are wont to argue that
the superiority of their creed to all others is proved by the fact that
most of those who leave Baha’ism become materialists. They fail to
realise that many have entered Baha’ism because Islam could not
satisfy their need for God. Finding that Baha’ism has nothing to
give them, they lose all the faith they had in God and lapse into
unbelief.

“Conflict”, p. 168.
234 Religion of the Bahais

In 1903 the late Prof. E. G. Browne wrote: “Without doubt the
most remarkable triumph of the Beha’i religion (for the older Babí
doctrine out of which this has grown, now preserved in its
primitive form only amongst the followers of Subh-i Ezel, has been
little studied or appreciated across the Atlantic) is the marvellous
success achieved in recent years by its missionaries in the United
States of America, where, as I understand, the numbers of believers
may now be counted by thousands, not confined to one State or
city, but represented in almost all the important towns. Once again
in the world’s history has the East vindicated her claim to teach
religion to the West, and to hold in the Spiritual World that pre-
eminence which Western nations hold in the Material.” 1 It would
seem that Prof. Browne did distinguish between the Babí and
Baha’í movements when referring to the West, whilst persisting in
calling the Eastern Baha’ís Babís.2 It is obvious, too, that Prof.
Browne had again been led astray as to the numbers of converts in
America. Baha’ism never did win a real footing in the West, and it
is not surprising to find that it is now rapidly losing ground. A
study of the United States Government Census report for 1926 will
serve as an index to the true condition of the movement in America.
America, the home of all kinds of strange movements, became the
centre of Western Baha’ism, and still remains the home of Baha’í
missionary effort. In 1906 there were 1,280 members, an average of
fifty-three per Assembly, in America. In 1916 the numbers had
reached 2,884, an average of fifty-one members per Assembly, but
by 1926 the numbers had dwindled

Phelps, pp. xiv f.
See above.
18. Baha’ism and the future 235
to 1,247, an average of twenty-eight per Assembly. Thus in ten years
the number of Baha’ís in America had decreased by over 56 per
cent.1 The movement in England has practically ceased to exist,
and its leaders have come to the conclusion that the Baha’í
movement cannot be organised,2 whilst in Germany the excessive
claims made by the National Spiritual Assembly have alienated
many from the cause.3
But whilst the movement is undoubtedly losing ground, its
missionaries continue to be active, and their insidious propaganda
must be fought down. Persia is slowly coming to the cross-roads
where she must face the inevitable choice, Christ or Materialism.
God grant that the Church in Persia may so reveal Christ that, when
the choice has to be faced, Persia may yield herself to Him, and find
in Him the fulfilment of her aspirations.

“Census”, p. 6.
“Organisation”, p. 99.
ibid., p. 100.
Appendices

I
The numbers 19 and 9 in
the Bábí-Bahá’í Religion
Behind the use of the number 19 in Babí-Baha’ism is the belief in
a mystic correspondence between letters and numerals and the
transcendent Reality. In the “Abjad” arrangement of the Arabic
alphabet letters and numerals are brought into correspondence,
giving words a numerical value and emphasising the mystic
relationship between letters and numerals. According to Roemer,
letters and numerals are regarded as the “στοιχεια” [data] of the
spiritual and material world.
The Babí system centres round the number 19, which is derived
from the number of letters in the formula “Bismi’llahu’r-Rahmani’r-
Rahím” (In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful).
These letters are counted as 18, and 1 is added for God (the Abjad
value of the letter A which stands for God being 1).1 The Babí
hierarchy is composed of eighteen “Letters of the Living” one for
each letter in the above formula, together with the Bab who is the
“Point”, and represents the “Alif” or “1” which indicates, in the
phraseology of the mystics, the unmanifested essence of God.
This number has also a theological significance, for the “Abjad”
value of the word “vahed” (Unity) is also 19, so that the number is
significant of the fundamental belief in the essential Oneness of
God.

There are 19 consonants in the Islamic expression ‫ٱّلل بِس ِِْم‬
ِِٰ ‫ن‬ِِ ٰ‫يم ٱلرَّ حْ م‬
ِِ ِ‫ٱلرَّ ح‬,
and it has an abjad value of 786. As regards the Bahá’í Faith, the number is
based on wahid, which has an abjad value of 19.
238 Religion of the Bahais

The Calendar is divided up into nineteen months of nineteen
days, thus giving a total of 361 days, and this number then
represents the “Number of All Things” (‘Adad-i Kull).1 God is said
to have ordered the world according to this number, and the
chapters of the “Beyan” are arranged according to it. The “Beyan”
when completed was to consist of 19 “Vaheds” of 19 chapters each.2
The number 9 is called in the “Aqdas” the number of Baha, so its
significance is obvious. The “Abjad” value of the word Baha is 8,
and here again 1 is added for the “Alif”.3 We have already seen the
frequency with which this number appears in Baha’ism, but it did
not altogether oust the far more significant number 19, which
remains in the Calendar and in many of the “Aqdas” laws; but it
should be noticed that the majority of such laws were taken over
from the “Beyan” by Baha’u’llah. Roemer points out that the
number 9 appears as a holy number in the Avesta as well as among
the Germans and Greeks. He also points out that the numbers 9
and 5 appear as divisors in the “Beyan” Inheritance laws. Both
these numbers play a part in the Baha’í system, for 5 is the “Abjad”
value of the word Bab, and the multiple of 9 (Baha) and 5 (Bab)
gives 45, which is the perfect number, being the number obtained
when all the numbers from 1 to 9 are added together.4

Kullu-Shay’ (“all things”) has an abjad value of 361 (19 × 19).
See further Roemer, pp. 24 ff.; “Trav.”, Vol. II, Notes U and Z; footnotes,
pp. 60 and 95; Noq., Index, lxxv, lxxxi ff.
“Baha” in Arabic is really Baha’ (‫)بَهاء‬, which has an abjad value of 9.
Roemer, p. 111 f., footnote. Baha’ís consider 9 to be the perfect number,
since the higher numbers are the mere repetition of the numbers 1 to 9.
II
‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s contradictory
accounts of the life of Bahá’u’lláh
The reader will remember that when the “Taríkh-i Jadíd”,
written to displace the “Noqtatu’l-Kaf”, failed to win the approval of
the Baha’í leaders at Acre, ‘Abdu’l-Baha himself undertook the task
of writing a suitable history, and produced the “Traveller’s
Narrative”, which became the first “official” history of the Baha’í
movement. The purpose of this note is to show how, as the
movement spread to the West, ‘Abdu’l-Baha in later years
produced a new story of the life of Baha’u’llah, in which the stress
is laid on the latter’s sufferings on behalf of humanity. All the so-
called histories produced in the West (an example of which is
offered by the story entitled “The Coming of the Glory”, quoted in
the earlier chapters of this book) are based on the story of
Baha’u’llah as found in ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s writings to the West and
addresses given in the West. The new story is as follows.
Baha’u’llah was four times banished.1 He was banished from
Persia2 to Baghdad. After much suffering in Baghdad he was taken
to Europe,3 and became an exile in Constantinople.4 It should be

Mof., p. 21; “Questions”, p. 33.
“S. of W.”, Vol. III, No. 9, pp. 3 f.
Mok., Vol. I, p. 371.
Mof., p. 23; “Questions”, pp. 36 f.
240 Religion of the Bahais
noticed that the Persian Government is here said to have exiled him
to Constantinople. In Constantinople (Europe in text) he was
subjected to all kinds of troubles and annoyances,1 until the
Persians decided to remove him to Roumelia (Adrianople) because
Constantinople was a place of sojourn for various nationals
including Persians.2 Even then the Persians were not content, but
decided to send him somewhere where he would be reduced to
powerlessness, and where his family and followers would have to
submit to the direst afflictions, so they chose the prison of Acre,
which was reserved especially for murderers, thieves and highway-
robbers.3 Baha’u’llah remained for twenty-four years in the “Most
Great Prison”4 being put in chains, and being made subject to all
kinds of indignities and revilements.5
This story is absolutely devoid of truth, as will be evident to all
who have read this book, but it is interesting to see how it is
contradicted by ‘Abdu’l-Baha himself in his other writings.
According to the “Traveller’s Narrative” Baha’u’llah was not
exiled from Persia, but left at his own desire, his purpose being to
save his own skin. 6 In Baghdad he lived in ease and affluence.7
Whilst there he became a Turkish subject; thus it was that he was
removed to Constantinople, being treated with every possible
courtesy on the journey, and becoming the guest of the “glorious
Ottoman monarchy in Constantinople until

Mok., Vol. I, p. 371.
Mof., p. 23; “Questions”, pp. 36 f.
Mof., p. 24; “Questions”, p. 37; “S. of W.”, Vol. III, No. 9, pp. 3 f.
Mok., Vol. I, p. 371.
“S. of W.”, Vol. III, No. 9, pp. 3 f.
“Trav.”, Vol. II, pp. 62 f. A misreading. “No sooner had Baha’u’llah
recovered His freedom [from the Síyah Chal] than the decision of the
government was handed to Him, informing Him that … He, with His
family, was expected to leave Tihran for a place beyond the confines of
Persia.” (Shoghi Effendi, The Dawn-Breakers, p. 650)
“S. of W.”, Vol. III, No. 9, pp. 3 f.
I. The numbers 19 and 9 in the Babí -Baha’í Religion 241
a place of residence was appointed for him.” Eventually Adrianople
was decided upon, and thither he went. In Adrianople “the
materials of comfort were gathered together, neither fear nor dread
remained, they reposed on the couch of ease, and passed their time
in quietude.”1 According to the “Traveller’s Narrative” Mírza Yahya
now began to consider making a claim, and the trouble that
resulted was the immediate cause of the removal to Acre,2 but this
we know to be untrue.3 This story shows, however, that the
Persians were in no way concerned with the removal of Baha’u’llah
to Adrianople, and thence to Acre. It is significant, too, that the
“Traveller’s Narrative” contains no mention of the hardships
endured at Acre.4
Thus we see that ‘Abdu’l-Baha had no regard whatsoever for
truth. Did he really think a religion built on falsehood would stand
the assaults of time?

“Trav.”, Vol. II, pp. 88–93.
ibid, Vol. II, pp. 93 ff.
See Chapter V above.
ibid.
III
Queen Marie of Rumania
and the Princess Ileana
In January 1926 Queen Marie of Rumania granted an audience to
Miss Martha Root, one of the most active of Baha’í missionaries. As
a result of that visit Queen Marie has become known to Baha’ís
throughout the world as the first royal convert to the new religion.
Miss Root published an account of her visit in the Baha’í Magazine,
Star of the West (dated June 1926), and sent a report to Shouqí
Effendí, who immediately wrote Tablets to the Baha’ís informing
them of the Queen’s conversion. In a Tablet to the East dated Aban
4th, 1305 (27 October 1926) he gives an account of Miss Root’s
audience with the Queen, and quotes Her Majesty’s words: “It is
the solution of the difficulties of humanity. It removes the
differences between and harmonises the divergent views of the
various religions. Its foundation is the Spirit of God, and its motive
power is the love of God.” He then quotes Miss Root’s own
remarks: “So greatly has the Queen been attracted by these
teachings, and so joyful and confident has she become, that she has
directed that a copy of every Baha’í book published should be sent
to the Royal Palace, that she may teach her new daughter the laws
of Baha’u’llah from her youth up.”
In a Tablet to the East written in the following year (dated 3
Mehrmah, 1306)1 Shouqí announces the receipt of a letter from
Queen Marie herself. In this letter

26 September 1927.
244 Religion of the Bahais
Queen Marie confesses her faith in Mohammad as a Prophet of the
first rank, and declares that both she and the Princess Ileana are
busily engaged in preaching the new doctrine.
In another audience granted to Miss Martha Root on Oct. 9th,
1927, Queen Marie made the following statements: “Tell them
(Shouqí Effendí and the family of ‘Abdu’l-Baha) I hope some time to
go to Jerusalem and ‘Akka and Haifa. I should like to pray at both
graves and to meet the family of ‘Abdu’l-Baha.” “I am so happy to
think I have been able in any way to further a Cause which, I am
sure, is destined to bring happiness, if not to the world, to all those
who really have understanding of what is the real meaning of God.”
“I have been a groper1 and life has taught me many things. It is
logical that this message of Baha’u’llah should come to me. Ever
since I received these books they have been my dearest spiritual
reading next to the Bible. I am sure they will bring the same
blessing to all those to whom they come.”
Queen Marie, who is rather a novelty as a Queen, in the course
of a series of daily articles written for an American syndicate, wrote
four on the teachings of Baha’u’llah, but it is obvious that Her
Majesty has no real understanding of those teachings, or she would
not rate them as “next to the Bible” for according to Baha’í teaching
the Bible ranks after the Qor’an, which again ranks after the Babí-
Baha’í books.2
It should also be noted that the Princess Ileana is “devoted to
the work of the Rumanian Church”, which again shows that these
Royal ladies have no understanding of the true nature of the Baha’í
movement.

Someone who searches blindly or uncertainly.
See Chapter XII above.
IV
The problem of the Bahá’í “inquirer”
The author has often been asked by missionaries to suggest
some method whereby Baha’ís who pose as inquirers can be
brought out into the open and made to show their true colours. As
has been pointed out,1 it is not unusual for Baha’ís to gain
admittance into Christian institutions by pretending to be
inquirers. In many cases they have even come forward for Baptism
and Confirmation and been regular in their attendance at Holy
Communion. It is hard to see how any man can deliberately, in the
presence of God, promise to fight manfully under Christ’s banner
until his life’s end, with no other purpose than to deceive people.
Thus it is that Baha’ís are often regarded by Christian missionaries
as incurable liars. But if we look at the matter from a Baha’í point
of view, we see that the man who can come forward for Baptism,
and does so with a view to enlarging his field of operations as a
Baha’í missionary, is perfectly unconscious of having done any
wrong. The difference between the Shí‘ah Moslem who practises
taqieh in older to hide his religion and the Baha’í who practises
taqieh must not be overlooked. The former is allowed by his
religion to deny his faith if necessary, the latter may deny that he is
a Baha’í, but he is not denying his faith when he does so! To

Chapter XVII.
246 Religion of the Bahais
the Baha’í Baha’u’llah is Christ, he is Mohammad, he is Moses, he is
Zoroaster—for he accepts the doctrine of rij‘at. He can, therefore,
swear the most solemn oath of allegiance to Christ, for to him
Baha’u’llah is Christ. He can deny that he is a Baha’í, and confess
Baha’u’llah by calling himself a Christian, and this it is that creates a
problem for the Christian missionary. The missionary who has
made a thorough study of Baha’í literature finds no real difficulty in
dealing with Baha’ís, for sooner or later they are sure to give
themselves away by their use of corrupted Bible texts, or of well-
known Baha’í expressions, but unfortunately Baha’í books are not
easily obtained, so some other method must be found. It is
obviously useless to accept a mere denial of Baha’ism, for any
Baha’í is ready to give that, so some other formula must be sought.
In the Baha’í book “Shuhada-i Yezd” we read of Baha’ís denying that
they were Baha’ís. That answer having been given they were
invariably bidden by their inquisitors to curse Baha’u’llah, and
invariably they refused. Thus we are indebted to a Baha’í writer for
suggesting a method of dealing with Baha’ís. The writer would
suggest that all seekers after Baptism should be asked to declare
publicly before the whole Church that they consider Baha’u’llah a
false prophet. Some such formula as the following would probably
meet the case; “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God; that He
really died on the Cross for our salvation; that He really and truly
rose from the dead, leaving behind Him an empty tomb; that He
was really and truly seen by the disciples as the Gospels bear
witness. I believe that He alone is the Saviour of the World. I deny
the doctrine of rij‘at, by which I am to believe that
I. The numbers 19 and 9 in the Babí -Baha’í Religion 247
Jesus was Moses returned, and that Mohammad, the Bab and
Baha’u’llah were ‘returns’ of Jesus, and I declare it to be false
teaching. Accepting Jesus as my Lord and Saviour I declare
Mohammad, the Bab, and Baha’u’llah to have been false prophets
and false guides, leading men away from the truth.”
Index

‘Abbas Effendí, ‘Abdu’l-Baha, as Bab, Mírza ‘Alí Mohammad
historian, 13, 70 ff. Shírazí, birth and youth, 14 ff.
character, 104, 117 ff. claim, 20 ff.
connections with the West, 102, death, 30
104 ff. shrine of, at Shíraz, p. 205
quarrel with Mohammad ‘Alí, at Acre, 102
70 ff. teachings of, 35 ff.
succeeds Baha’u’llah, 90 Bab, the title, 19 f.
teachings, 120–158 Babís, attitude to the Crown, 28,
‘Abed, Sheikh, the Bab’s teacher, 15 58, 73
Abjad, 43, 228 cruelty of, 30
Ablutions. ceremonial, 191 decline in number of, 48 f.
Abu Bekr, 2 persecution of, 30 f.
Abu Sofian (Abí Sofian), 2, 183 revolt of, 29 f.
Abu’l-Fazl, Mírza of Gulpaygan, Babu’l-Bab, see Hosein, Mulla of
19, 71, 159 ff., 169, 182, 184 Bushraweyh.
Acre, the Most Great Prison, 48. Badasht, conference at, 28 f.
63 ff., 73, 102, 231 Badí‘u’llah, Baha’u’llah’s son, 91 f.
Adrianople (Roumelia). 61 ff., 231 Baghdad, Babís at, 53 ff.
Ahmad, Sheikh of Ahsa, founder assassination of Ezelís at 65, 73
of the Sheikhí sect, 6 ff., 176 Baha’u’llah’s exile from, 54 f.
‘Alí, Hají Seyyid, the Bab’s uncle, 14 ff. Baha’ís, distribution and num-
‘Alí ibn Abu Taleb, the first Imam ber of, 218 ff., 225
2, 3, 4, 179 f. activities of, 207 ff.
Allegorical interpretation, 39, Baha’u’llah—Mírza Hosein ‘Alí
159 ff., 167 ff. of Nur—youth, 49 f.
America, spread of movement to, acknowledges leadership of
99 ff. Mírza Yahya, 49 f., 55 f.
condition of movement in, 226 at Baghdad, 53 ff.
schism in, 100, 197 character of, 68
Aqdas, 77 claim, suspected by Babís of
quoted, 78, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, making, 54 f.
85, 86, 87, 83, 97, 98, 188, date of, 58 f.
190, 194 “Iqan” evidence re, 55 f.
‘Askarí, Imam Hasan, 5, 181 nature of, 81 f.
Avareh, Mírza ‘Abdu’l-Hosein, death of, 68
character as historian, 13 policy and methods of, 69 ff.
teachings of, 37, 40, 44, 75 ff.

252 Religion of the Bahais
Baptism, 144 ff. Fatimeh, Qurratu’l-‘Ayn’s claim
Beyan. 35 ff. to be, 32, 43
Bible, attitude of Bab and Five, the number, 229
Baha’u’llah to, 167 f. Forty-five, the number, 229
abrogation of, 153 Free-will, 153
interpretation of, 159 ff., 167 ff.;
see also 152 f. Ghaias, numerical value of, 42
Branch, the title of, 93 Gheibat, see Occultation.
Browne, Prof. E. G., 12 ff., 35, 219 f. God, the Bab’s teaching of, 37 f.
Burial, service of, 198 ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s teaching of, 120 ff.
Bushire, the Bab in, 16 ff. Jewish and Moslem conceptions
of, 185 f.
Calendar, the Babí-Baha’í, 45 Grammar, Babí contempt for, 15 f.
Charms, Prayer. see Superstition. Grammar, of Beyan, 47
Chihrík, the Bab at, 27 f. Gurgín Khan, 27
Christ. ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s teaching
about, 138 ff.; see also 82 Hasan, the Second Imam, 3
Christianity, objections to, 75 f. Hasan, Imam ‘Askarí, see ‘Askarí.
Christians, Bab’s attitude to, 74 Hashim, race of, 2
Baha’í propaganda among, “He whom God shall manifest,”
99 ff., 116 ff., 209 ff. Bab’s teaching of, 41 f.
converts from among, 137 ff. Baha’u’llah’s claim to be, 82 ff.
Clergy, 88 Heaven and Hell, Bab’s teaching re,
Communism, of early Babís, 28 f. 39
Covenant, Centre of (see ‘Abbas Histories, fabricated, 12 f., 69 ff.
Effendí), 96 Hosein, Imam, 4
Covenant-breakers (Naqesín-i Hosein, Mulla of Bushraweyh-
Misaq), 91 ff. Babu’l-Bab—given title of
Curzon, Lord, 220 Bab, 21; see also 18, 22, 48
Cyprus, see Famagusta. Hosein ‘Alí, Mírza of Nur, see
Baha’u’llah.
Deh-i Nazer Khan, massacre of Hypocrisy (Taqlíd), 87 ff.
inhabitants of, 30
Divorce, Baha’í law of, 194 Imam, the title, 2 f.
the Twelfth, 5, 181 f.
Epistles, ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s use of Imams, the Twelve, 3 ff., 181
St. Paul’s, 116 f. Immortality, see Eternal Life.
Equality of sexes. 130 Infallibility, of Baha’u’llah, 88 f.
Eternal Life, 39 f., 130 ff. of ‘Abdu’l-Baha, 96 f.
Evil, problem of, 153 ff. of Shouqí Effendi, 203
Evolution, 113, 126 ff. Iqan, the book, importance of, 55 ff.
Ezel, Subh-i, see Yahya, Mírza. quoted, 44, 55, 168, 169, 170,
Ezelís, murder of, 64 f. 171, 172, 174, 175, 176
Istidlaliyeh, Rasaleh-i, 159 ff.
Famagusta, 63, 64
Fana (annihilation), 40 Jabulqa and Jabelsa, 5, 8
Fara’ed, quoted, 182 Ja‘far-i Kazzab, 5, 181 f.
Farrukh Khan. Babí treatment of, 30
Fasting, regulations re, 191
I. The numbers 19 and 9 in the Babí -Baha’í Religion 253
Janí, Hají Mírza, 72, 52 Na‘ím, Kulliyat-i, 194 ff.
Javad, Mírza, quoted. 62 f. Naseru’d-Dín Shah, attempt to
Jesus, see Christ. murder, 30
Jews, Baha’í propaganda among, New History, 13, 69
222 f. Nineteen, the number. 228 f.
Justice, House of, 77, 108, 110 f. Níríz, insurrection at, 29
International House of (Inter- Noqtatu’l-Kaf, discovery and
national Tribunal), 109, importance of, 12
110 ff., 199 ff. suppression of, 69

Kazem, Hají Seyyid of Resht, Occultation of Twelfth Imam, 19 f.
9 ff., 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 176 Organisation, Baha’í, 200 ff.
Khadíjeh, the Bab’s wife, 18
Khalifate, 2 f. Parsees, Baha’í propaganda
Kheirullah, Dr., 94, 99 f. among, 211, 222 f.
Peace, the Most Great, 108
Language, International, 78, 107, 109 Persia, Baha’ism in, 204 f., 207 ff.,
Legalism. Moslem, 75 ff., 133, 136, 219 ff.
185 ff. Prayer, 185 ff.
Letters of the Living, 22, 23, 228 Prophets, the Bab’s teaching re, 37 f.
Literacy, of Bab, 15 f. of Baha’u’llah, 5o ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s teaching re, 147 ff.
Love, 155 ff. Punishment, right of Prophets to
inflict, 65 f.
Mahdí, the, 3 ff., 19 f. doctrine of, 135 f.
Maku, the Bab at, 27
Man, ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s teaching re, Qa’em, the, see Mahdí.
126 ff. Qor’an, Baha’í use of, 85
Manifestation, see Prophets. value of, 153
Manuchihr Khan, Mu‘tamadu’d- Beyan compared with, 46 f.
Dawla, 26 f. Qurratu’l-‘Ayn, 31 ff.
Marie, Queen of Rumania, 214, 233 f.
Marriage Laws, 79, 113, 193 f. Resurrection, 39 f., 133 f.
Mashreku’l-Azkar, 205, 211 f. of Jesus Christ, 141 f.
Miracles, 150 ff. Revelation, 38 f.
Mohammad, the Prophet, 1, 179, Reza Shah, Pahlaví, 221 ff.
180, 181 Rezvan, Bagh-i, 58 f.
Mohammad ‘Alí, Hají Mulla of Rij‘at, 43 f., 82
Barfurush, Hazrat-i Quddus, Roemer, Dr Hermann, 100, 101, 102,
becomes the “Noqteh”, 21 120
conduct at Badasht, 29 Root, Miss Martha, Baha’í,
succeeded by Mírza Yahya, 51 missionary, 233 f.
Mohammad ‘Alí, son of Baha’u’l-
lah, causes schism, 90 ff. Salvation, 87 f., 155 f.
Murder. Baha’í indifference to Schisms in Baha’ism, 60 ff., 67, 90 ff.,
ethics of, 65 f. 100, 197
Mustaghas, numerical value of, 42 f. Shamsu’l-Iom, see Rij‘at.
Sheikhí sect, 6 ff.
Shí‘ah sect, 1 ff.
Shíraz, the Bab at, 14 ff.
254 Religion of the Bahais
Shouqí Effendí, 196 ff. Vahed, 228 f.
Spirit, the Holy, 143 ff. Vahí (objective revelation), 36
Subh-i Ezel, see Yahya. Mírza. Victimisation of opponents by
Sufí, element in Baha’ism, 120 ff., Baha’ís, 208
186 ff. Virgin Birth, see Christ.
Suleimaníyeh. Baha’u’llah’s sojourn
at, 54 War, Baha’u’llah’s attitude to-
Sunní sect, 1 f. wards, 78, 106
Superstitions, Baha’í, 88, 192 f. Will, Baha’u’llah’s, 90, 96
Supper, the Lord’s, 141 ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s, 196 ff.
Support, the Fourth, 7 f. Works, doctrine of, 133, 136
Worship, 185 ff.
Tablets, of ‘Abdu’l-Baha, 115 ff.
of Shouqí Effendí, pp. 204 ff. Yahya, Mírza, Subh-i Ezel, youth,
Tahereh, Jenab-i, see Qurratu’l-‘Ayn. 49 ff.
Transmigration of souls, 44 character, 68
“Traveller’s Narrative,” 13, 70 f. ousted by Baha’u’llah, 61 ff., 69
Trinity, 138 succeeds Bab, 59
Truth, independent investigation Yahya, Seyyid of Darab, 25 f.
of, 111 f. Yezd, persecutions at, 212 f.
Baha’í disregard of, 209 ff.
Zekr, Reminder, title of Bab, 21
Unbelievers, Babí attitude to, the Sufí, 190
74 Zia’u’llah, Baha’u’llah’s son, 90
Unitarians, 91 ff.
Printed in Great Britain by
Richard Clay & Sons, Limited,
Bungay, Suffolk.

Scelga un secondo testo da leggere in parallelo — una traduzione o qualsiasi altro testo.