the _Literary Digest_ (_Outlook, Ibid._, and "Fifty-three Years in
Syria," p. 687). He said to Abbas Effendi, "An American woman has stated
that she came to Haifa and when she entered your room she felt that she
was in the presence of the very Son of God, the Christ, and that she
held out her arms, crying, 'My Lord, my Lord,' and rushed to you,
kneeling at your blessed feet sobbing like a child. Can this be right to
accept worship?" "I left Abbas Effendi with the painful feeling that he
was accepting divine honour from simple-minded women from America and
receiving their gifts of gold without protest or rebuke."
[256] New York _Outlook_, June, 1901, pp. 45, 46.
[257] Mrs. Grundy, _Ibid._, p. 73.
[258] Page 212.
[259] See "Ten Days in the Light at Acca," pp. 71-73; "My Visit to
Acca," p. 21; "In Galilee," p. 69; "Heavenly Vista," p. 22; "Daily
Lessons," p. 80; "Flowers from Acca," p. 36; "Table Talks," p. 14.
[260] Baha, in the "Akdas," forbids women from going on pilgrimage, the
adoration of pictures and the kissing of hands. Why does Abdul Baha
encourage them? Ignorant devotion has so soon degenerated into
superstition and iconolatry. Others are trading on the superstitious.
Abdul Baha writes: "I have received news that some one in Persia has
imitated the picture of the Manifestation and sold it for $200 to a
believer. The real picture is not in the possession of any one but me."
[261] "Flowers from Acca," p. 34.
[262] "A Heavenly Vista," p. 22; and above references.
[263] _Star_, March 2,1914, p. 321.
[264] Doctor Jessup, _Outlook, Ibid._, says, "An old Persian Sheikh, in
1897, came to the American Press in Beirut, with a large sheet of paste
board on which was written the motto 'Ya Baha ul Abha' and wished to
have a map mounted on the face of it. In reply to inquiry why he thus
would use it, he said: 'I have had it hanging on my wall for twelve
years and prayed to it, and found it to be vanity and worthless. I now
prefer to read the Bible.'"
VI
Bahaism and the State
Bahaism certainly does contemplate an earthly dominion which shall
eventually subvert all existing governments.--_Doctor Holmes in
Speer's "Missions and Modern History," Vol. I, p. 129._
The supreme manifestation of social morality is always government and
in formulating a politic, Baha Ullah most clearly earned our reverence
as the prophet of modern society.... Democracy alone tends to
vulgarize personal values, as the United States proves. By uniting the
aristocratic spirit with the democratic form of Government, he insured
a politic at once equable and effective.--_H. Holley, "The Modern
Social Religion" p. 203._
In calling Babi-Bahaism a worse cult than Mormonism, I do so
deliberately.--_S. K. Vatralsky in "Amer. Jour. of Theology," 1902, p.
73._
There can be little doubt from the intolerance they show to those who
recant, that should they gain power enough they would be as ready to
persecute Christians as was Mohammed to put to death the Jews of
Medina.--_Dr. G. W. Holmes in Speer's ibid., p. 130._
Bahaism, as a new religion bidding for popular favour, should be
considered in its relation to the State, for this is an important factor
in forming our judgment of it. As it historically sprang from Babism, it
is well to review, first of all, the political relations of Babism.
I. Babism in Persia was a form of Mahdiism. Mirza Ali Mohammed, the Bab,
claimed to be the Mahdi, the Kaim, the twelfth Imam returned. According
to Shiah doctrine, the rulership of the State by divine law belongs to
the Imam. The Kajar Shahs had the right to kingship only in the absence
of the Imam. Their authority would cease with his appearance. This is so
universally recognized that the constitution of Persia drawn up by the
Parliament in 1906-1907 contains in the preamble the provision that it
shall continue only till the manifestation of the Imam.
In accordance with this principle the Babis looked upon Mohammed Shah
and Nasr-ud-Din Shah as no longer the rightful rulers. They were, _ipso
facto_, supplanted by the Bab, the Sahib-i-Zaman or Lord of the Age. The
Kajars were called by them "unlawful kings." Hazrat-Kuddus says,[265]
"We are the rightful rulers; know that Nasr-ud-Din is no true king and
that such as support him shall be tormented in hell-fire." Disloyalty
was an essential corollary of Babism and not a consequence of the
repression and persecution which it met. The measures of the Persian
Government were caused by this knowledge. The rebellions of the Babis
were justified in their eyes by self-preservation as well as by the
desire to remove, if possible, the Shah and make way for the reign of
the Bab. Professor Browne's opinion on these points is conclusive. He
says:[266]--
"The Babis looked for their immediate triumph over all existing powers,
culminating in the universal establishment of the true faith and the
reign of God's saints on earth.... They intended to inherit the earth;
they held those who rejected the Bab as unclean and worthy of death, and
they held the Kajar Shahs in a detestation which they were at no pains
to hide.... They did not make any profession of loyalty to or love for
the reigning dynasty.... Unbelievers were flouted with scorn because
they supposed that the Promised Deliverer would confirm the authority of
the Shahs."
The "Bayan," the chief book of the Bab, anticipates the time when the
Shah's government shall be superseded by a Babi state, which shall
prevail in Persia. It gives the laws for this Babi state as well as
regulations for the distribution of the spoils of war and for the
Jahad,[267] showing that the Bab anticipated religious wars. The kings
of the Bayanic dispensation are directed what they should do. In the
five chief provinces of Persia, no unbelievers are to be allowed to
live, except some foreign Christian merchants. They are not to be
killed, but to be driven out and their property confiscated.[268]
Directions are given as to the use of their property. The strongly
intolerant doctrine is set forth[269] that "unbelievers have no right to
anything, not even to a believing wife. All that thou seest in the hands
of unbelievers is not theirs by right. If the manifestation has power,
he would even forbid their breathing."
Babism, therefore, was a political as well as a religious movement. As
such it fought and with some prospect of success, for, as Browne says,
"it seemed at one time to menace the supremacy alike of the Kajar
dynasty and of the Mohammedan faith in Persia."[270]
The Bab was executed in 1850. The Babi insurrections were suppressed.
Terrible reprisals followed the attempt on the life of Nasr-ud-Din Shah.
The leaders fled into exile to Turkey. Babism, repressed and forced into
concealment, entered upon a new phase. It emerged somewhat changed as
Bahaism (1867).
II. Bahaism should be considered in its political aspects in relation to
the Government of Persia.
(a) In Persia, the issue of the sword had declared against the Babis.
Baha Ullah adopted a policy aptly called "political opportunism."[271]
He proclaimed the loyalty of himself and his followers to the Shah,
denounced the attempted assassinations, wrote prayers to be said for the
Shah,[272] and pleaded for the toleration of the sect as one without
political aspirations. Bahai apologists condemned the Bab and the
conduct of the Babis, declaring it contrary to the principles of the
Bab.[273] Mirza Abul Fazl, on trial before the Persian Government,
repudiated the Babis, denounced their actions as unseemly and bad,[274]
and declared with emphasis that Bahaism was an entirely different
religion. He pronounced the Shah free from blame regarding the death of
the Bab[275] and the persecutions of the Babis, casting the
responsibility and reproach on the mullahs and the Ministers of
State.[276] He even made a show of blaming the attendants for the death
of Badi, the messenger who bore Baha's epistle to the Shah, and made as
though the Shah regretted it. The "New History" and the "Traveller's
Narrative" are both tendency writings, following out the same purpose,
glossing over the facts as given in the contemporary narrative of Mirza
Jani, putting the odium on the mullahs and asserting "that no particular
blame attaches to His Most Sacred Majesty the Shah";[277] though other
writings of Baha show a spirit of hostility to the Shah.[278] Following
the policy of conciliation the Bahais made petition to the Shah stating
that[279] "this sect has no worldly object nor any concern with
political matters, it has nothing to do with affairs of Government
neither has it any concern with the powers of the throne." They stated
that[280] "they have made no disturbance, or rebellions, or any sign of
sedition." So Baha[281] enjoined that "in every country they must behave
towards the Government with faithfulness, trustfulness, and
truthfulness." The Persian Government responded to this policy and
ceased to persecute as before. During the past fifty years the Bahais
have not been much molested. Their persecutions have been few and
generally due to local causes. The number of Bahais who have lost their
lives in the course of their history (after they cease to be Babis) is
probably not more than 300, more than half of whom were killed in riots
at Ispahan and Yezd in 1903. The Bahai historian[282] states that "on
rare occasions certain Ulema, for their own personal and private
advantage, molest one or two individuals of the sect." But the Shah's
Government has tolerated them.[283] Not counting the present Holy War
against the Christians, more have been killed in Persia in the half
century than Bahais.[284] The Government has shown liberality towards
Bahais by allowing them to occupy positions in the civil service, as
clerks in the post, telegraph, customs, courts, and consulates, and has
not discriminated against them.
(_b_) Coming to the period of the agitation for a constitution and the
revolution, it is plain that the Bahais had little to do with the
struggle. Neither they nor their teachings were the cause of it. The
causes were the same, in general, as those which influenced Turkey and
China towards constitutional reform. The occasions in local
circumstances and politics had nothing to do with Bahaism. The leaders
were enlightened Moslems, and even mullahs of the Shiahs. They were not
Bahais. These held aloof from the propaganda and the struggle for
popular liberties, took little part in the elections or in parliament,
and joined neither the army of the constitutionalists nor that of the
reactionaries. They displayed no love of country by striving for the
cause of the people, nor any real love or loyalty to the autocratic
Shah. Yet the influence of Abdul-Baha Abbas was thrown in favour of
Mohammed Ali Shah, and after he had scattered parliament at the cannon's
mouth and annulled the constitution, Bahais were granted appointments in
the civil service and rejoiced in the reactionary regime. A tablet of
Abdul Baha was circulated prophesying a long and prosperous reign for
Mohammed Ali Shah, who before many months was driven from his throne
into exile.
My personal knowledge of these circumstances is supported by abundant
printed evidence. First of all there is Abdul Baha's own statement. He
said in America,[285] "In Persia the Bahais have no part in the
movements which have terminated in corruption. They must have nothing to
do with seditious movements." Excerpts from his letters[286] show that
they were constantly enjoined "from the very beginning of the revolution
to stand aside from the struggle and war." To the same effect are the
words of the Bahai Remey,[287] "The Bahais had remained neutral in the
struggle for constitutional liberty and the renewal of Persia." So
Dreyfus, another Bahai,[288] "He (Abdul Baha) dissuaded them from mixing
themselves up in the political struggle. This explains the apparently
passive role played by the Bahais in contemporary events in Persia."
Because of this attitude, Professor Browne accuses them of lack of
patriotism and laments their inaction. But this attitude of neutrality
was only maintained by them as far as taking up arms and public action
were concerned. Their secret influence was on the side of the
reactionary party. It is plain that the constitutionalists regarded the
Bahais as their opponents, and Mohammed Ali Shah counted them as his
supporters. Abdul Baha said in New York,[289] "The Bahais have taken no
part whatever in political questions and disturbances. Their clamorous
persecutors were the revolutionists. These discontents wanted
constitutional rights and privileges. They were politicians, not
religionists." Certainly the hostile animus of these words is
unmistakable. There is indubitable proof, too, that Abdul Baha carried
on correspondence with Mohammed Ali Shah. M. H. Ford, a Bahai
writer,[290] states the fact in detail. Its purport was such that, when
the Constitutionalists knew it, Abdul Baha feared violence. This was
commonly reported in Persia. In Chicago the first Bahai missionary to
America confirmed this fact which he had heard from Acca. He said, "The
authorities intercepted Abbas's letter intriguing with Mohammed Ali
Shah, and therefore the revolutionists threatened him." Remey shows the
affiliation of the Bahais with the Shah, and his satisfaction with them.
He arrived at Teheran just when the Shah had scattered the parliament
and hanged the editors. He says, "We found the Bahais in the utmost
peace and happiness. They were in good esteem and respect of the
[reactionary] Government, and were now enjoying _unusual_ privileges....
Several of the Bahais had been appointed to high governmental
positions." In accord with all these facts is the statement of J. D.
Frame, M. D., of Resht:
"The political influence of the Bahais has been grossly exaggerated.
They were forbidden to accept seats in the first parliament and
professed to maintain strict neutrality, but in the spring of 1908 a
'tablet' was circulated among them, promising that Mohammed Ali Shah
would rule for the remainder of his life; and the writer possesses a
copy of another 'tablet' promising him speedy peace and prosperity. The
subsequent forced abdication of the king cost the Bahais considerable
prestige and some followers."[291]
We thus see a double failure on the part of this movement. As Babism it
failed in 1848-1852 in its rebellion and wars against the Kajars; as
Bahaism it failed to enter into and assist the modern movement, which,
aiming at reform and progress, inaugurated a constitution. The cause of
the latter is not far to seek; Bahaism has a political scheme of its
own. We will now consider it.
III. Bahaism has set forth a system of civil government. Claiming to be
a revelation from God, it has enunciated the laws and regulations of the
future State. It approves of constitutional monarchy as the best form of
government, and permits republics.[292] But this monarchy will be
limited not so much by its constitution as by the law of Bahaism and its
hierarchy. Baha, in the "Kitab-ul-Akdas," the Book of Laws, directs that
Bet-Adl, houses of justice, be established in every place, with nine or
more members, all Bahai men, who shall be Trustees of the Merciful,
Administrators for God. In the thirteenth of the "Glad Tidings"[293] he
says:
"The affairs of the people are placed in charge of the men of the House
of Justice. They are daysprings of command (divine agents,
representatives of God). They may execute what they deem advisable. It
is incumbent upon all to obey them. Their souls will be inspired with
divine aspiration. God will inspire them with what He willeth."
With them will lie the interpretation of points of doctrine. They must
decree and judge according to Bahai revelation. "They must gaze day and
night towards that which hath been revealed from the horizon of the
Supreme Pen." They shall rule by divine right. Their authority shall be
absolute. Abdul Baha restates the words of Baha:[294] "The House of
Justice must be obeyed in all things." "It is the centre of true
government." "The Law of God will be invested in them, and they will
render decisions." "All judgment will be from the standpoint of God's
laws." "Its decisions and commands will be guarded from mistake. It will
have conferred upon it infallibility." The House of Justice will have
local councils, national ones, and an international one.[295] Of the
latter, Abdul Baha said in an address in New York:
"A universal or world House of Justice shall be organized. That which it
orders shall be the Truth in explaining the commands of Baha Ullah and
shall be obeyed by all. _All men shall be under its supervision._"[296]
Its functions are not confined to matters of faith, for Abdul Baha
continues: "The House of Justice is endowed with a political as well as
a religious aspect. It embodies both aspects, and is protected by the
preserving power of Baha Ullah himself." _In the political aspect it
will be supreme._ "The separation of the Religion and the State can only
be temporary," says Dreyfus,[297] "a momentary stage. For the present
the two spheres are separate. When Bahaism triumphs they will be
united." "The House of Justice[298] will have under its control almost
the whole administration, and naturally will take the place of our
municipal councils. Such has been Baha Ullah's intention. Further he
clearly aims not only at a municipal House of Justice, but also at a
legislative one, sitting as a national parliament and as an
international tribunal." Remember that all the members are to be Bahais.
So Remey says, "There will be a union of Religion and the State--the
governments of the nations. The material laws of men will be founded and
enforced according to Bahaism."[299] In this politico-religious regime,
the political will be subject to the religious. "The kings and rulers of
the world," says Abdul Baha,[300] "will find their true authority under
the rulings of the House of Justice. It will decide between kings and
kings." Baha addressed letters[301] to kings with arrogant assumption of
authority to control the civil powers.
The Houses of Justice will have _large financial powers_. They shall
inherit all property of those dying without heirs, and one-third of
that of those dying childless.[302] One-third of all fines for crimes
shall go to them. For example, in case of murder, two-thirds of the
blood money shall go to the family of the murdered and one-third to the
House of Justice. A tithe of nineteen-hundredths shall be given into
their hands. They shall act as trustees for minors and incapables, and
as a Poor Board.
They shall have _civil_ jurisdiction, "to settle material difficulties
between believers,"[303] for the protection of men, for the preservation
of human honour.[304] "If any man refuses to educate his children, the
House of Justice shall do it at his expense," and "shall order all the
negligent to pay" and use police powers to enforce it.
They must also interpret and administer _criminal_ law, for Baha has
"revealed" a code of laws and regulations concerning material as well as
spiritual things.[305] Abdul Baha says, "The revelations of Baha Ullah
contain all the great laws of social government." "The laws cover all
points and questions of national administration."[306] For example, in
the "Kitab-ul-Akdas," the punishment for theft is prescribed: for the
first offense, exile; for the second, imprisonment; for the third,
branding "thief" on the forehead, "lest other countries accept him." For
adultery a fine is to be paid to the House of Justice, and for the
second offense, double of the fine. Arson is made punishable by burning,
etc. This fiat legislation of Baha Ullah is to be imposed upon the
parliaments of all nations. "All legislative and administrative
functions," says Dreyfus,[307] "shall assume a sacred character" under
the control of the Bahai House of Justice.
In brief, Bahaism would set up in each town, in every country, ruling
councils, and a central one universal in its sway, composed entirely of
Bahais, clothed with supreme authority, because God-given, over kings,
parliaments, and peoples; councils infallible and absolute, superior to
appeal or protest; deciding and exacting obedience in every department
of the life of humanity--religious, domestic, social, educational,
financial, judicial, and political. It would be not an _imperium in
imperio_, but an Empire over all. It would be a priestcraft[308] such as
the world has not yet seen--a religious-political regime in which kings
and presidents will go not to Canossa but to Acca, and alike hold the
stirrups of Bahai justices, and laws of parliaments will be subject to
revision and veto by the Bahai House. In it is the certainty of priestly
oppression when fallible men set up their judgment as God's. The Bahais
claim to have no priests and no _hierarchy_. It is a question of names.
Their system and laws contain the real thing, full-fledged, men
mediating God's will. We may call it a _bahaiarchy_, if they prefer.
Abdul Baha, recognizing the objections that will be made to the
political functions of the Bahai justices, and foreseeing difficulty
with Governments, has, for the time being, directed that in America and
Europe the name "House of Spirituality" or "House of Consultation" be
used.[309] But change of name does not alter the reality or change the
"revelation" of Baha. The House of Justice (central) is to be set up
when Abdul Baha dies, and it will assume its functions gradually as
opportunity and expediency demand. Already orders have gone forth
prohibiting the interpretation of the words of Baha or personal
expositions of them.[310] Already the fiat has interdicted the
publication, by a Bahai, of a tract, book, or translation on the Bahai
religion without submitting it to the censor at Acca.[311]
The effect of the working of the Bahai system may be realized by
imagining it as set up in Persia. Suppose, for example, that the small
minority of Bahais now in Persia should become a majority, with a Bahai
Shah, Bahaism would become the established religion. "Houses of Justice"
would come into operation. What of those who remain Moslems and
Christians? Fortunately Baha has abolished the law of the Bab that
required their expulsion from the chief provinces of Persia and the
confiscation of their property. But either the other religions must be
judged by Bahai courts, or separate courts must be set up for them. This
would perpetuate the double system of courts, the _urfi_ or civil and
the _shari_ or religio-civil courts. The latter would be entirely Bahai
and either lording it over or in conflict with the civil administration.
This would be a continuation of the present confusion of Persian
conditions, only with the Bahais in control. What might the minority
expect? The oppressions and anathemas received by the old Bahais from
the followers of Abdul Baha Abbas give the answer.[312] Fortunately for
the world, the universal reign of Bahaism is not to be realized, neither
is the prophecy of Abdul Baha to be fulfilled which says[313] "that the
flag of Baha Ullah will overcome every other flag and all rulers will do
homage to it."
FOOTNOTES:
[265] "New Hist.," p. 362.
[266] _Ibid._, p. xvi.
[267] "Trav.'s Narr.," p. 287.
[268] "Bayan," VI, 4.
[269] "Beyan Persan," Vol. IV, p. 118.
[270] Browne, "New Hist.," p. vii.
[271] Browne, "New Hist.," p. vii.
[272] _Ibid._, p. 316.
[273] "Trav.'s Narr.," p. 65.
[274] "Bahai Proofs," pp. 51, 63, 77.
[275] _Ibid._, p. 38.
[276] "New Hist.," pp. 172, 180.
[277] "Trav.'s Narr.," p. 189.
[278] See "Surat-ul-Muluk," and _S. W._, Sept. 27, 1913, pp. 9, 10. See
Chap. VIII, p. 186, 191.
[279] "Trav.'s Narr.," p. 156.
[280] _Ibid._, p. 160.
[281] "Words of Paradise."
[282] "Trav.'s Narr.," p. 166.
[283] Browne, "A Year Among the Persians," p. 101. M. A. Ford in "The
Oriental Rose," p. 74, says, "For many years before the death of Baha
Ullah, there was no persecution of the friends."
[284] See "Missions and Modern History," R. E. Speer, p. 130, Note 2.
[285] _S. W._, July 13, 1913.