# The Religion of the Baha'is

*Exported from [Holy-Writings.com](https://www.holy-writings.com/) on 2026-06-23 — 1 clipping.*

---

> 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.
>
> — *The Religion of the Baha'is (Used by permission of the curator)*