exalt Baha. Yet when we examine his life we find nothing to justify such
extravagance. He was simply a man of like passions as others. It may
seem invidious to refer to scandalous stories of Baha's youth in
Teheran. But does not truth demand that it be stated that his reputation
in Persia is sullied by definite accusations of vice and immorality? I
have heard such narratives with statements of the time, place, and
associates who were partakers of his guilt. His family in riper years
exhibits no higher example than a bigamous household. According to the
narrative of Abdul Baha in the "Traveller's Narrative,"[50] he planned
in duplicity to reach the headship of the Babis; for while purposing all
the while to set forth a claim for himself, he put forward his
half-brother, Subh-i-Azal, as the successor of the Bab--to protect
himself and to insure his own safety during times of danger. He
outwardly supported Azal for many years, while secretly planning to
supplant him. While acting as Azal's trusted minister, he was drawing
the people to himself. We pass over the attempts of these brothers to
poison each other. Each accuses[51] the other, and, as the Persians
say, "God knows" whether both speak the truth. We pass over, at present,
the definite accusations against the Bahais of assassinating the
Azalis.[52] In the notorious case where Azalis were foully murdered[53]
by Bahais at Acca, and the latter were brought to trial before the
Turkish authorities, they were defended and kept in favour by Baha. He
had near Subh-i-Azal a spy named Maskin Kalam,[54] who by guile and
deceit kept away any who wished to visit Azal. He received this disciple
to his intimate circle after years of such active deception. Azal, who
is called by Bahais "the point of Satan," and is likened to Cain and
Judas, has a character gentler, more lovable, and more sincere than Baha
as the two are depicted in the writings of Professor Browne; albeit,
Baha is abler, more astute, more a leader of men. Professor Browne, in
his interviews at Famagusta and at Acca, did obeisance to each of them.
His bow to Azal may have been one of respect for his character or
disposition; his bow to Baha must rather have been out of regard for his
influence and leadership. But after all we need not wonder so much at
the delusion of the Bahais in exalting Baha, for we are familiar with
Dowie and Zion City, and with Joseph Smith and the Mormons. And we are
surely led to expect the appearance of such a deceiver who "as God
sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God." Bahais
certainly, in the words of the Apostle,[55] "have strong delusion, that
they should believe a lie."
(_b_) The Bahais claim superiority for the books and writings of Baha
Ullah.
(1) As to the rapidity of their composition, their style, and their
quantity. One of the proofs of the Bab was the rapidity with which he
composed verses,[56] "with amazing rapidity, without any reflection."
Sayid Yahya of Darab, one of his first converts,[57] was gained by such
a "sign," implying, as was supposed, divine inspiration. He propounded
certain questions. The messenger brought the answer, of which he says:
"I beheld a marvel a hundred thousandfold beyond what I sought for. Over
two thousand verses and illustrations of eloquence and beauty of style
revealed and written down during five or six hours." So also in Ispahan,
in answer to the Imam-Juma[58]: "The Bab began to write, and in three
hours wrote 1,000 verses. Then the Imam-Juma was convinced that such
power was from God, being beyond the capacity of man." In his trial at
Tabriz[59] the Bab cited as a proof of his divine mission: "I can write
in one day 2,000 verses. Who else can do this?"
In like manner the claim was made for Baha Ullah that he could compose
with miraculous rapidity. "The maximum speed of Baha's revelation is
said to be 1,500 verses in one hour." These were "written without
premeditation or reflection,"[60] and often dictated to his amanuensis.
To Baha is attributed the marvellous feat of composing and writing the
"Ikan" in a single night. This book in its English translation consists
of 184 printed pages. The translator, Mirza Ali Kuli Khan, Persian
Charge des Affaires at Washington, a zealous Bahai, says in his
preface:[61] "According to the prevailing opinion of Bahais, the 'Ikan'
was written in one night by the supreme pen." He argues (faint-heartedly
apparently) for the truth of the statement, and cites Abul Fazl as
corroborating the tradition. It is altogether probable that Baha
prepared the "Ikan" during his retirement for two years to Kurdistan, in
the region of Suleimaniyeh. It is curious to note how the Bahais have
outdone Mohammed. He made his verses (ayat = signs), and their eloquence
and beauty the signs of his mission. But Babis and Bahais add rapidity
of composition as an additional sign or miracle.
The quantity of the writings is also emphasized as proving their divine
source and power. It was a matter of boasting that the Bab's writings
were from 100,000 to 500,000 verses, and he was executed at twenty-five
years of age. Of Baha's Abdul Baha says: "The Books of his Holiness
number more than 100; each one sufficient for mankind." Abul Fazl[62]
writes: "His Holy Tablets exceed in quantity the Heavenly Books and
Divine Writings possessed by all the different nations of the earth."
The number of these tablets is stated to be over 1,000. By way of
contrast, Christ's teachings are said by Abdul Baha to consist of only a
dozen pages scattered in the Gospels.
When they speak of the style, the eloquence, the enlightening power of
Baha's writings, it is with similar superlative adjectives of high-flown
Persian rhetoric.
It is hardly necessary to call attention to the fact that this so-called
proof is simply a matter of assertion and opinion. As to rapidity, we
could wish Baha had taken more time and made such books as the
"Kitab-ul-Akdas" more systematic, for, as we have pointed out, it is
sadly lacking in plan. The veriest tyro could improve on it by
rewriting.
If quantity were an argument, the product of Baha's pen has been
exceeded by many Christian and Moslem divines. Besides, what advantage
is it for a religion to be set forth in 100 volumes? Will God be heard
for His much speaking any more than man would be? The story of
redemption and God's revelation through 4,000 years makes but one goodly
volume.
As to style, the Persians would scorn to have the beauty of their great
poets or of such writings as the "Masnavi" put into comparison with the
"Ikan" or "Akdas." The Bab's writings were not even grammatical. Baha's
are more intelligible than the Bab's, but lack his originality and
depth. Baha's style is rhetorical, verbose, prolix, but with a certain
strength. But Mirza Abul Fazl holds a more forceful and sagacious pen.
In some things Baha's writings remind one of the Church Fathers in
contrast to the Gospel narratives. The quantity of his writings, his
system of quotations from former Holy Books, his allegorical
interpretations, recall Irenaeus or Origen.
As to "verses" in general, and their rhetorical quality as a proof of
divine inspiration and revelation, it would be well for Bahais to
remember that the Bab recognized divine quality in the verses of
Subh-i-Azal, which the Bahais reject with disdain. When the "verses" of
Azal came to the Bab, he "rejoiced exceedingly,"[63] nominated him as
his successor, and left to him the completion of the "Bayan." Was he
mistaken in so important a matter? However that may be, the Bahais
contradict him and pronounce the "verses" of Azal good for nothing. M.
Ahmad Zohrab,[64] the interpreter of Abdul Baha, avers that "the
writings of Azal are most childish. They are jumbled, confused,
meaningless composition." Another Bahai, Nabil the poet, at one time
wrote "revealed verses," and Azal approved of them and sealed their
inspiration. Afterwards Nabil repudiated his own "divinity." Evidently,
then, the "proof from verses" is a very uncertain and unreliable one.
(2) They claim superiority for the contents of the Revelation. In
describing the substance and variety of it, their "great swelling
words" know no bounds. Abdul Baha says: "They are universal, covering
every subject. He has revealed scientific explanations ranging
throughout all the realms of human inquiry--astronomy, biology,
medicine, etc. He wrote lengthy tablets upon civilization, sociology,
and government." "One book of the Blessed Perfection is more
comprehensive than fifty volumes of the world's greatest wisdom." Empty
boasting!
Professor Browne[65] says: "The countless tablets are for the most part
rhapsodies interspersed with ethical maxims." Let us give a few of
Baha's "revelations" on morals, philosophy, and science. His ethics
permit bigamy and _tagiya_, dissimulation regarding one's faith; his Law
punishes habitual theft by branding, and arson by burning, and compounds
adultery with a small fine; his philosophy affirms the eternity of
matter and the emanation theory of divine Manifestations; his science
decides the purity of water by three points--"colour, taste, and
smell"--but knows nothing of analysis, and affirms that "the food of the
future will be fruits and grains"; it abolished the weeks and months and
substitutes nineteen months of nineteen days each, and a system of
nineteen units for the decimal or metric system; it creates a new
alphabet to bother childhood; its ritual for prayer, fasting, and
pilgrimage somewhat resembles the Moslem, with times and places changed.
These are samples of its new and superior (?) laws and precepts, which
are mingled with a mass of ordinary moral teaching. There is far too
much of it for a religious system, but it is entirely inadequate as a
judicial and criminal code. Abul Fazl[66] grossly exaggerates when he
writes that "Baha has enacted laws and regulations concerning every
point or subject."
As a system Bahaism is not superlative. "It is," says Professor
Browne,[67] "at most a new synthesis of old ideas; ideas with which the
Eastern mind has for centuries been familiar, and which have ere now
been more clearly and more logically systematized by older schools of
thought, though perhaps they were without a certain tincture of modern
Western terminology which is perceptible in Bahaism." "Of the doctrines
of the Bab"--and the same is true of Bahaism--"taken separately, there
was hardly one of which he could claim to be the author, and not many
which did not remount to a remote antiquity."[68] "The theories of
symbolism,[69] incarnation, and other doctrines differ in no essential
particular from those held by the Ismielis." If desirable, the doctrines
and laws could be traced severally, as has been done by Doctor Tisdall
in his "Yanab-ul-Islam" regarding the Koran, and the source of each
shown. Borrowing so much from the Shiah sects, its fundamental basis in
philosophic thought is inferior even to Islam. But because it borrows so
much from the enlightened principles and practices of advanced Christian
peoples, its moral system is an advance on Islam. Christianity may
boldly assert its unique superiority to this "half-cooked" system, to
use a Persian idiom. Professor Browne[70] vetoes its claim to
superiority, saying: "I do not admit that the Bahai or any other
religion can supply a rule of life higher than that which Christ has
given us." Discussing with the Bahais in Shiraz,[71] he said: "The
religion of Mohammed was certainly not a higher development of the
religion of Christ. It is impossible for any one who has understood the
teachings of Christ to prefer the teachings of Mohammed. As you say each
Manifestation must be fuller, completer, and more perfect than the last,
you must prove that the doctrines taught by Baha are superior to those
of Christ--a thing that I confess seems to be almost impossible, for I
cannot imagine a doctrine purer and more elevated than that of Christ."
IV. Bahaism claims to be the Universal Religion. Dreyfus called his book
on Bahaism "The Universal Religion." Remey[72] says: "The Universal
Religion is what the Bahai movement offers to the world." Phelps[73]
says: "It is divinely inspired world-religion in its first youth. Baha
Ullah is a world-teacher in a broader sense than they"--_i. e._, the
founders of other religions. This claim is not only that it is intended
"for all people, under all conditions," and is adapted to all, but that
it is so all-inclusive and latitudinarian that it can[74] "unite all
those now following many systems into one universal faith," and that
"each religious sect[75] will hear in the words of Baha its own
oft-repeated message, which has been dulled and distorted."
The latter phase of this claim we may dismiss in a word. It is simply a
gloss. It is an imagination of enthusiastic Bahais. Neither Christians,
Moslems, nor others will be thus included, except some few before they
understand Bahaism. The only inclusion it offers is by accepting the
divine character and mission of Baha and Abbas;[76] in other words, by
becoming Bahais. When they address the Hindu, saying, "We are one with
you," "We teach the original Hinduism of your fathers," it is simply to
add: "Baha is the fulfillment of your books, follow him." When they
allow the Jewish Bahai of Hamadan still to consort with the Jews as a
Jew, and to be baptized and pass as a Christian at the same time, it is
an inclusiveness which is unjustifiable and deceitful. It is teaching
_tagiya_ or religious dissimulation to other races after the manner of
the Persian Shiahs. It is, at most, merely a temporary subterfuge.
Let such double-faced Bahais read Remey's article in the _Star of the
West_,[77] entitled "Let the New follow the New," and they will see how
untenable is their position. He says: "The Bahai Cause is not merely one
of many phases of universal truth (as some say), but is the only living
truth to-day; the only source of divine knowledge to mankind. The
revelation of Jesus was for His own dispensation--that of 'the Son.' Now
it is no longer the point of guidance to the world. We are in total
darkness if we are refusing the revelation of the present dispensation.
Bahais must be severed from all and everything that is past--things both
good and bad--everything. Now all is changed. All the teachings of the
past are past. Abdul Baha is now supplying all the world." We read this,
with amazement at such pretensions, such groundless assumptions, yet are
pleased with the ring of sincerity. We, too, say, "Let a Bahai stand for
Bahaism." Even so, let a Christian stand for Christianity, and not
stultify his intellect by professing to hold to both religions. But such
teachings as Remey's absolutely negative the claim of Bahaism to be able
to include the professors of all religions. In conclusion, Bahaism aims
at being universal just as every other "ism," even as Mormonism, by
persuading the world to forsake its old faiths and adopt its new dogmas.
Baha[78] states in a tablet: "Blessed is the brave one, who, with a firm
step, walks out of the corridors of intimacy [the old religious
restrictions] and takes a place in the ranks."
Is Bahaism fitted to be a universal religion? It has copied much from
Christianity and Islam; it would not be strange if it has caught
something of the same impetus towards universality. This is specially to
be looked for in Bahaism, since it is historically a revision of
Babism--revised with an aim to broadening it. Babism was notoriously
unfitted to be universal. Dreyfus[79] confesses: "Looking at the Bab's
work, we cannot fail to notice in it a certain sectarian particularism
which would have confined to Shiah Islam its benefits." Similarly
Professor Browne pronounced it[80] "utterly unfitted for the bulk of
mankind," and refers to[81] "the useless, impractical, and irksome
regulations and restrictions" which Baha abolished in order to make it
more capable of becoming what he intended it to be--"a universal system
suitable to all mankind." The question arises, Where was the Bab's power
of supernatural revelation if he promulgated a system and regulations of
such inferiority and destined to be superseded in less than a score of
years? Among these regulations[82] were the prohibition of the learning
of foreign languages, logic, philosophy, and jurisprudence, discouraging
foreign travel, enjoining the expulsion of all unbelievers from the five
chief provinces of Persia, together with the confiscation of their
property, the destruction of all books more than 202 years old, etc.
Baha, like a tailor trying to change a misfitting garment, ripped up the
seams, cut a piece out here and there, added some patches imported from
Christian civilization, until he had a coat of many colours, which he
advertised as the latest style of religion, fitted to humanity in
general. But he should have heeded the precept not to put new cloth on
an old garment. No wonder they have never yet published the
"Kitab-ul-Akdas" in English. It would tax their ingenuity to adapt all
its regulations and laws to the world-life.
Again I return to the question, "Is Bahaism specially adapted to be
universal?" By no means. It is unfitted in the most essential
particular. It is a religion of laws, not of principles. Mirza Abul
Fazl, in "The Brilliant Proof,"[83] emphasizes the fact that Bahaism
enjoins, commands, has imperative ordinances, laws, and enactments. But
the Gospels enunciate principles. These principles of the New Testament
are conscience-educating and life-directing. They are applicable to all
conditions the world over, and to every stage of human development.
Christianity implants in the heart great ruling motives. Its laws and
regulations are few. Hence it does not find itself butting against a
wall of unforeseen circumstances. Bahaism, on the contrary, is full of
the "beggarly elements." It has regulations, as we have noticed, in
regard to personal habits, hygiene, sociology, languages, the calendar,
civil government, penology, etc. It is like an omnibus with its top
overloaded with all sorts of baggage, which will delay and finally
wreck the vehicle. It has made itself a "judge and divider of
inheritances."[84] It gives directions as to the barber and the
undertaker; how you must bathe and wash your face, and what prayers you
shall say during each process. It directs as to the use of knives and
forks, of chairs, of perfumes. It graciously permits one to shave his
beard, but "the hair must not be allowed to grow below the level of the
ear." It tells us that "the nails are to be cut at least once a week,"
that "every one should wash his feet daily in summer, and at least every
three days in winter." And alas! for antique furniture and old Persian
rugs! For house furnishings must be changed every nineteen years. In
obedience to this command my old teacher in Persia got rid of his rugs,
whose sheen was polished and colours were mellowed with age, and
refurnished his house with gaudy modern rugs. In prescribing the Moslem
fast and namaz (prayer-rite), with some modifications, Bahaism limits
the spirit of liberty, which is the essence of universality.
Copying from the Bab, Baha has seen fit to regulate the calendar.
Following the Zoroastrian custom, Baha ordains that the year begin at
the vernal equinox--March 21--because that is the spring-time, the time
of the renewal of vegetable life. Good! But in Australia it is the time
of death--of the approach of winter. The reason assigned is not
universal, and is not adapted to all climes. As has been said above, the
months are ordained to be nineteen of nineteen days each, with four or
five intercalary days in March. The week is abolished, that primitive
division of time which has such a definite place in nature, in the
phases of the moon, and is established in the three great monotheistic
religions with their weekly Sabbaths. Instead of the latter is
substituted the nineteenth day Unity feast. How do such changes aid
universality or unification? Coinage, fines, taxes, and tithes are
arranged on the number 19. Remey's book has nineteen chapters, as the
"Bayan" has. _The Star of the West_, a magazine of the American Bahais,
is published every nineteen days, and bears the Bahai calendar on its
editorial page. Instances might be indefinitely extended. But later the
number nine, the number of Baha, has come more into use. Abbas has set
apart the ninth day of the month as well as the nineteenth for certain
religious purposes. The Bahai era is sometimes dated from the
declaration of the Bab in 1844, and sometimes from the birth of Baha in
1817. Are these innovations more an aid to universality than adherence
to the established calendar and era, or than the decimal system or the
metric system which the civilized world has been striving to extend?
Professor Browne says: "What could be more impractical than the adoption
of the number nineteen as the basis of measures or calculations?" It
bears the mark of Oriental fancy rather than of divine revelation.
Another illustration of this point--namely, that Bahaism enjoins and
regulates specifically, and does not, like Christianity, inculcate
guiding principles, is seen in the law regarding civil government. In
"Glad Tidings"[85] Baha teaches, as from God, that "although a
republican form of government profits, yet the majesty of kingship is
one of the signs of God. We do not wish that the countries of the world
should be deprived thereof." "Statesmen should combine the two," and[86]
"At present the form of government followed by the British nation seems
good, for that nation is illuminated both with the light of kingship and
consultation--_i. e._, parliament." "In the principal Laws [of Bahaism]
affairs have been placed in the hands of just kings and chiefs, and the
House of Justice." As a matter of opinion, I can join with Baha in
expressing my admiration for the British Constitution, but prescribing
it as a law of revelation is a different matter. A "universal religion"
should be adapted to all conditions. It is a fact of history that when
the tablet "Glad Tidings" was sent to Russia, section 15 was omitted.
The Bahais suppressed this portion from expediency, and it appears thus
mutilated in Baron Rosen's translation.[87] Is not this a high-handed
way to deal with God's Word, as they profess to regard it? Is it not
also conceivable that republics might take offense against Bahaism
because it maintains monarchy, even as autocracies because it approves
of parliamentary government? Had not a "universal religion" better let
politics alone? Christianity could adapt itself even to the government
of a Nero.
Another institution of Bahaism, ill-adapted to all races and conditions,
and certain to bring the very conflict and strife against which it is
supposed to guard, is the House of Justice. This is a religious court,
with civil and political functions, to be set up in every town and
country. It is to be composed of nine or more Bahai men. "They are
divine agents, representatives of God." Much is said of this House of
Justice in the Books of Revelation.[88] Dreyfus devotes a chapter to
it.[89] It is to have legislative, judicial, and administrative
functions. It will regulate estates, taxes, tithes, fines, capital and
labour, marriage, divorce, inheritances, minors, servants, charities,
reforms, houses of correction, schools, besides all matters of religion
and morals. They will rule "absolutely," and be "infallible," "guided by
God." It is the old dream of theocratic rule. I must leave it to the
imagination of the student of history to picture the dire confusion
which would ensue if this politico-religious hierarchy should begin its
sway. Those who are familiar with the perpetual conflict between the
urfi and the shari, the civil and the religious law in Persia, know how
this proposed organization would work confusion worse confounded.
Similar to these invasions of the province of science and Caesar is the
attempt to improve philology by "revelation." Following the Bab again,
Baha Ullah promulgated a new alphabet. The Babi alphabet, unlike the
Arabic and Persian, was written from left to right. "Each letter
consists of thick, oblique straight lines, parallel and equidistant
from each other, running down to the left, to which thin hooks and
curves are appended to make separate letters." It is called the
Khatti-Badi. There were nineteen kinds of it; one kind was called the
Khatti-Baha. It was intended for the time when Babism would be
prevalent. It appears that Bahais have a new alphabet, different from
that of the Babis.
In the Akdas and in the sixth Ishrak[90] it is commanded that the "House
of Justice" must select one tongue out of the present languages, or a
new language, to teach the children in the schools of the world. Let us
suppose they decide on Persian or Arabic. The Anglo-Saxon children must
all begin to learn Arabic. Suppose they decide on English. Then Germans,
French, and Russians will have an additional reason for opposing the
religion. Suppose that Abdul Baha decides on Esperanto, as he seems
inclined to do, then will it be heresy for some one to invent a language
as much superior to Esperanto as it is to Volapuk? Had not a "universal
religion" better let linguistics alone? The spirit of Christianity gives
a free field to all tongues--this is the essence of liberty, of
universality. After this brief review of some of the provisions of the
"New Revelation," we can deny the claim that "its statutes meet the
necessity of every land," and that they can serve the world well for
1,000 years.
FOOTNOTES:
[18] Phelps' "Life of Abbas Effendi," p. 144.
[19] "Some Answered Questions," by Barney, p. 19.
[20] _Star of the West_, May 17, 1913, p. 68. Abbreviated hereafter as
_S. W._
[21] Page 158 f.
[22] "Story of the Bahai Movement," p. 23.
[23] Phelps, _ibid._, p. 256.
[24] Phelps, "Jewels of Wisdom," p. 237.
[25] _Ibid._, p. 145.