was necessary to get rid of certain facts and beliefs held by Babis. He
must reduce the Bab from his position as the Point of Divinity--the Lord
of a new Dispensation, as well as supplant and supersede the Bab's
successor, Subh-i-Azal.[386] Thoroughly to accomplish this object (after
the Babis leaders had been put out of the way), the history was
rewritten. While claiming that the Bab gave testimony to Baha and taking
to themselves the glory of Babi heroism and martyrdoms, the Bahais
relegated the "Bayan" and other "revelations" of the Bab, not yet a
score of years old, to dust-covered oblivion.[387] Subh-i-Azal avers
that they wilfully destroyed them. He writes[388] that thirty or more
bound books of the Bab were given in trust by him to his relatives (Baha
and his family) as trustees. "They carried off the trust," and "making
strenuous efforts, got into their hands such of the books of the Point
as were obtainable, with the idea of destroying them and rendering their
own works attractive." Professor Browne[389] informs us that it was very
difficult to obtain a Babi book from Persian Bahais and next to
impossible to get a glimpse of one at Acca, where the Bahais had them
concealed. The "holy, divine books" were shelved from motives of policy.
A primitive Babi work of first importance was the "History," by Mirza
Jani. This was an original narrative of events, at first hand, prepared
in sincerity by one who shortly suffered martyrdom for the cause (1852).
But its facts did not suit the Bahais. So it was superseded, first by
the "New History"[390] (1880), and secondly by the "Traveller's
Narrative" (1886). Both these histories purport to be written by
European travellers. We might excuse their being anonymous, to avoid
possible persecution, but to make pretense that the authors are
travellers who have come from afar ostensibly to investigate, and into
whose mouths are put praises of the religion, is but part of the
insincerity noticeable in other things.[391] Mirza Jani's "History"
passed out of sight, and it was only because a copy had been deposited
by Count Gobineau in the Bibliotheque Nationale at Paris that it has
reached our hands.[392]
Of the "New History" little need be said, except that it perverted
the history and "carefully omitted every fact, doctrine and
expression,"[393] not in accord with the policy of Baha.
Let us examine somewhat in detail how Abbas Abdul Baha treats facts in
his "Traveller's Narrative." He is undoubtedly the principal author of
this work.[394] The Persian Bahai, who sent Professor Browne the
lithographed (Bombay) copy of it, wrote, "It contains the observations
of His Holiness, the Lord, Mystery of God (May my personality be his
sacrifice)." Professor Browne was also presented with a copy of it at
Acca, which he published in Persian with an English translation. Of it
he says,[395] "It was written to discredit the perfectly legitimate
claims and to disparage the blameless character of his less successful
rival" (Azal). "There is good ground for suspecting a _deliberate
misstatement_[396] of facts and dates." He specifies[397] various points
in which Abbas Effendi perverted the facts. Undoubtedly one of the aims
of Abbas was to eliminate Azal. The latter had been regularly appointed
by the Bab as his successor,[398] but he refused to make way for Baha.
The Bahais tried to get rid of the question by suppressing all mention
of him, even of his name, and "of all documents tending to prove the
position which he undoubtedly held."[399] They would have consigned him
to oblivion.[400] The "New History" makes but one doubtful reference to
Azal.[401] Professor Browne says, "Abbas Effendi,[402] in order to
curtail the duration and extent of Subh-i-Azal's authority and to give
colour to their assertion that it was but temporary and nominal,
_deliberately and purposely antedated_ the Manifestation of Baha." And
he continues to the present to misrepresent the facts. In "Answered
Questions"[403] Baha is presented as the chief influence in Persia
immediately after the Bab. Other Bahai writers repeat this error.[404]
2. Another practice of the founders of Bahaism is _falsifying and
changing the documents and texts of their Sacred Writings_, namely,
those of the Bab and Baha, according to the exigency of circumstances.
Subh-i-Azal made the accusation "that the Bahais had tampered with the
Bab's writings to give colour to their own doctrines and views."[405] I
pass this by, to notice how they have tampered with their own
"Revelations." For example, take Baha's "Epistle to the Shah of Persia."
Its original text was published by Baron Rosen.[406] It is embodied by
Abbas Effendi in the "Traveller's Narrative."[407] The two do not agree.
"Very considerable alterations and suppressions were made in the text by
the author of 'Traveller's Narrative.'"[408] "The text has evidently
been toned down to suit a wider audience and to avoid giving offense to
non-believers."[409]
There is also another "Epistle to the Shah" which is contained in the
"Surat-ul-Maluk." Its tone is strikingly different. The first is a
careful diplomatic document which acknowledges the faults of the Babis,
pleads pardon for the past and for religious toleration. It is
monotheistic, representing Baha as a humble suffering servant, with no
pretense to Divinity. The other "adopts a tone of fierce recrimination
towards the Shah, and upbraids him for the Bab's death, saying, 'Would
you had slain him as men slay one another, but ye slew him in such a way
as the eyes of men have not seen the like thereof and heaven wept over
him, and by God, the eye of existence hath not beheld the like of you;
you slay the son of your prophet and then are of those who are joyful.'"
He excuses the attempt on the life of the Shah, and threatens
vengeance[410] on him. These two Epistles to the Shah have been a
puzzle to the critics. This threatening, fierce letter seems so contrary
to the policy of Baha. An adequate and not improbable explanation[411]
would be that one letter was prepared for the perusal of his Majesty and
the other for the Bahais, to impress them with the boldness of their
prophet.
Another example of this is seen in the suppression[412] of part of the
"Lawh-i-Basharat" ("Glad Tidings"). Its fifteenth section commands
Constitutional Government. When the Tablet was sent to Russia, this
section was suppressed by Bahais. The Tablet was published in its
mutilated form by Baron Rosen. Expediency, which rules Bahai practice,
required that an incomplete "Divine Revelation" should reach Russia.
Playing fast and loose with the "Revelations" prevailed still more at
the time of the bitter quarrel and schism on the death of Baha. Though
Baha's Tablets are regarded as "Holy Books" in the highest sense, yet
the Bahais commit the grave offense of changing them so as to
misrepresent facts. Mirza Mohammed Ali and Badi Ullah, younger sons of
Baha, in refuting the claim of Abbas Effendi to be Baha's successor,
say, "Has Abbas dared to change the texts uttered by Baha Ullah? Most
certainly, Yes. We have in our possession _many_ texts of Baha Ullah
which have been changed[413] by Abbas Effendi." Further, "he and his
party have stolen the first paragraph of a sacred Tablet and have
perverted its meaning, with deception."
Khadim-Ullah,[414] the lifelong amanuensis of Baha, asserts that Abbas
actually rejected a "Sacred Tablet," written in the handwriting of Baha
Ullah. Other Tablets are repudiated. For in "Hidden Words"[415] Baha
Ullah refers to the "Fifth Tablet of Paradise" and the "Ruby Tablet."
Abbas Effendi warns against accepting any such Tablets if they should be
brought to light. What other reason for this can we imagine than fear
that their contents would be against his claim. Enough has been said to
show the truth of the charge that the Bahais deal dishonestly with the
documents of their alleged revelation.
A peculiar instance of forgery occurs in the writings of Baha Ullah. In
his Epistle to the Shah Baha quotes certain verses as from the "Hidden
Book of Fatima." This book, the Shiahs believe, was revealed by Gabriel
to Fatima, the daughter of Mohammed, disappeared with the twelfth Imam,
and will be brought back by the Mahdi at his coming. Professor
Browne[416] wrote to Acca making inquiry about this "Book of Fatima" and
the quotations from it. The authoritative reply which he received was,
"That naught is known of such a book but the name, but Baha Ullah
mentioned it in this manner to make known the appearance of the Kaim"
(Mahdi). In other words, Baha was making a false pretense of quoting
from the "Book of Fatima," as if he, as Mahdi, had brought it with him.
3. Bahais make _false representation of facts in political history_. The
"Traveller's Narrative" perverts the truth for "political
opportunism."[417] Contrary to the contemporary historian, Mirza Jani,
and the European chroniclers, the Shah is represented as ignorant and
innocent of and averse to the repressive measures taken by his
government against the Babis. Let me give specific proofs of this.
At the first trial of the Bab, at Tabriz, according to Mirza Jani,[418]
Nasr-ud-Din, then Crown Prince, whom he dubs "bastard," treated the Bab
disrespectfully by rolling a globe towards him and taunting him with
ignorance of it and by ordering him to be bastinadoed. The "Traveller's
Narrative,"[419] per contra, says, "The heavenly-cradled Crown Prince
pronounced no sentence with regard to the Bab, but the Mullahs ordered a
bastinado." The former history states that the Prime Minister consulted,
about the execution of the Bab, with the Shah,[420] who gave him full
authority to act in the matter," and that he then communicated with
Prince Hamza Mirza, Governor of Azerbaijan, who proceeded to make plans
for it. Abbas' Narrative[421] states that "the Minister, without the
Royal command and without his cognizance and entirely on his own
authority, issued commands to put the Bab to death"; "that Prince Hamza
utterly refused to have part in the trial and execution." Gobineau[422]
confirms the original account, and states that Prince Hamza "took a
leading part in the condemnation of the Bab." It is certain that
contemporary Babis[423] held the Shah responsible for their persecution
and were bitter against him. Mirza Jani records the death of Mohammed
Shah, by saying that "he went to hell"; the "New History" affirms "that
he passed to the mansions of Paradise." Nasr-ud-Din was no puppet king,
he was fully cognizant of the affairs of state. Regarding the
imprisonment of Baha, the "Traveller's Narrative"[424] says, "His
Majesty, moved by his own kindly spirit, ordered investigation and the
release of Baha Ullah." He had just ordered the execution of
twenty-eight Babis, with horrid cruelties, after the attempt on his
life. Regarding the torture and execution of Badi, who bore the Epistle
to the Shah, it says:[425] "It was contrary to the desire of the Shah,
and he manifested regret for it." This and much in that Epistle is
written with the idea of conciliating the Shah and obtaining toleration.
It is a sensible attitude, did they not maintain it with so much
misrepresentation and hypocrisy. The real spirit of Bahais towards
Nasr-ud-Din is seen in Baha's "Surat-ul-Maluk," and is one of "fierce
recrimination." Confirmation of this comes from conversations with
Bahais.
Another misrepresentation of history, which is universal among Bahais,
is in belittling the plot to assassinate Nasr-ud-Din Shah in 1852. Abbas
Effendi says,[426] "It was done by a certain Babi, by sheer madness, one
other person being his accomplice." His sister, Bahiah Khanum,
says,[427] It was "by a young Babi who had lost his reason."
Kheiralla,[428] says, It was "by a weak-minded, insane believer."
Similarly all their writers propagate a tradition that one irresponsible
man made the attempt. It is permitted to doubt the Shiah historian, who
gives a circumstantial account of how twelve Babis, including one high
leader, laid the plot. But Count Gobineau[429] is entitled to credence
when he says that there were a number of Babis in the plot and three
took part in the attempt. A nephew of one of the accomplices told
Professor Browne[430] that there were seven in the plot and three of
them went out to commit the act. Why will not Bahai writers give the
facts straight?
Another misrepresentation fostered by them is that of calling the Babi
martyrs Bahais. Thus Abdul Baha says,[431] "When they brought
Kurrat-ul-Ayn the terrible news of the martyrdom of the Bahais, she did
not waver." Again he says,[432] "Thousands of His (_i. e._, Baha
Ullah's) followers have given their lives, and while under the sword
shedding their blood they have proclaimed, 'Ya Baha-ul-Abha.'" He
said[433] in Doctor Cadman's church, "The King of Persia killed 20,000
Bahais." Again,[434] "In all parts of Persia his enemies rose against
Baha Ullah, imprisoning and killing _his_ converts, razing thousands of
dwellings." These are gross misstatements. In Kurrat-ul-Ayn's time there
were no Bahais, only Babis. No such efforts as those described were ever
made to crush Bahaism. The thousands who gave their lives were Babis.
Perhaps some one remarks, "What's the difference?" Foreign writers may
not know the difference, and an American audience certainly does not.
But Abdul Baha, from whom I have quoted, makes a great difference. It
arouses one's indignation to read Bahai literature, in which they claim
credit for all that is noble in Babi annals, such as the martyrdoms, and
yet they disparage and deny the Babis.
Read Abul Fazl's "Bahai Proofs." He said[435] to Prince Naibus-Sultaneh,
"The unseemly actions of the Babis cannot be denied nor excused, but to
arrest Bahais for them is oppression, for these unfortunates have _no
connection with the Babis_, who took up arms, _nor are they of the same
religion or creed_." In another place he writes[436] repudiating the
wars and disorders of the Babis, and affirming that they were guilty of
many censurable actions, such as taking men's property and pillaging the
dead, and engaging in conflict and bloodshed. If then the Bahais
repudiate them, they must not appropriate their glory, for the old
Babis, with all their faults, were at least heroic. Bahaism has, on the
contrary, the spirit of _tagiya_.
I pass on to consider Abdul Baha's representations regarding Sultan
Abdul Hamid. I present two quotations from Tablets addressed to American
believers. The first says,[437] "Here one witnesses the fairness and
impartiality of H. I. Majesty the Padishah of the Ottomans, who has
dealt with the utmost justice and equity. In reality to-day, in the
Asiatic world, the Padishah of the Ottoman Empire and the Shah of
Persia, Muzaffar-ud-Din, are peerless and have no equals. These two
kings have treated us with mildness--both are just. Therefore, pray ye
and beseech for their confirmation in the threshold of the Almighty,
especially for Abdul Hamid, who has dealt at all times in justice with
these exiled ones." Abdul Hamid--a peerless, just one! Surely this would
have remained among the _hidden things_ had not one "Servant of God"
(Abd-ul-Baha) revealed it to us about that other "Servant of God"
(Abd-ul-Hamid). This "revelation" is dated 1906. After Abdul Hamid was
deposed, Abdul Baha speaks[438] of "his oppression and tyranny," for the
Sultan sent "an oppressive, august commission, that with all kinds of
wiles, simulations, slander and fabrication of false stories, they might
fasten guilt upon Abdul Baha. But soon fetters and manacles were placed
around the _unblessed_ neck of Abdul Hamid." Did the "Infallible Pen"
err in the former character sketch? No, but Abdul Baha's oppression[439]
of his brothers, in retaining their patrimony, resulted in a bitter
quarrel and complaints, followed by an investigating Commission and
Abdul Baha's imprisonment. On this account the whitewash scaled off from
Abdul Hamid.
Another form of misstatement is their habitual way of speaking of the
imprisonment of Baha and Abdul Baha. Abdul Baha says of Baha,[440] "His
blessed days ended in the cruel prison and _dark dungeon_." "He passed
his days in the Most Great Prison."[441] Abdul Baha continually speaks
of himself in such words as the following, "Forty years I was a
prisoner; I was young when I was put in prison, and my hair was white
when the prison doors opened."[442] "After all these long years of
prison life." "My body can endure anything; my body has endured forty
years of imprisonment."[443] Now, what are the facts?
In Phelps' Life, Bahiah Khanum[444] says, "We were imprisoned in the
barracks at Acca two years (1868-70)." Then[445] "we were given a
comfortable house[446] with three rooms and a court." After nine years
of such restriction Baha Ullah moved to a beautiful garden outside the
city and built there a Palace, called Bahja. He had the freedom of the
surrounding country, visited Mount Carmel, and later spent a part of
each year at Haifa.[447] Baha Ullah died in this Palace, not in a
_dungeon_.[448]
As to Abbas Effendi, during the first brief period only he was
restricted to the barracks. He was even temporarily put in chains in the
dungeon[449] when accused of participation in the assassination of the
Azalis. After that, for a period of _thirty years_, "he was permitted to
go about at his pleasure, beyond the walls of Acca."[450] He built a
fine residence[451] at Haifa, which I have seen. He journeyed to
Tiberias and as far as Beirut. Only after his quarrel with his brothers
and on their accusation was he ordered back to Acca, and even then he
had the freedom of the city (1905).[452] Such are the facts about Abbas
Effendi, whom Canon Wilberforce introduced in his church as "for forty
years _a prisoner for_ the cause of _brotherhood and love_." In truth it
was the quarrelling of the brothers, Azal and Baha, that led to the
banishment from Adrianople to Acca, the murder of Azalis by Bahais
increased its severity, the bitter hatred of the younger generation
against each other brought back the restraint.
4. Another immoral practice of Bahais is _tagiya_ or _ketman_, religious
dissimulation. This is taught and practiced by Shiah Moslems,[453] and
it is continued with all its offensiveness against good morals by
Bahais. In it concealment, denial or misrepresentation by word or act is
allowed for self-protection or for the good of the faith. It was
formally permitted by Baha Ullah. In accordance with this practice Abdul
Baha and his followers at Acca keep the Fast of Ramazan[454] in addition
to the Bahai Fast at Noruz. Dr. H. H. Jessup[455] wrote, "He is now
acting what seems to be a double part--a Moslem in the Mosque, and a
Christ in his own house. He prays with the Moslems, 'there is no God but
God,' and expounds the Gospels as the incarnate Son of God." Mirza Abul
Fazl, a Bahai missionary, lately died in Egypt. At his public
funeral[456] the Moslem _taziah_, with reading of the Koran, was held,
though he was a strenuous worker for the abrogation of Islam. Most
Bahais in Persia live in habitual _tagiya_. Fear of persecution is some
palliation for this, but it is a great defect. Very far from the truth
is the statement of Lord Curzon[457] that "No Babi (or Bahai) has ever
recanted under pressure." Mr. Nicolas,[458] the French Consul at Tabriz,
shows from the Bab's own writings that he himself denied his
Manifestation at his examination at Shiraz and signed a recantation. At
the execution[459] of the Bab in Tabriz (1850) two of his intimate
disciples denied the faith. The explanation of the fact is remarkable
and instructive. They were enjoined to do so by the Bab in order that
they might convey certain documents to a safe place. In other words,
they were to lie for the faith, by divine injunction. In another notable
instance,[460] seven Babis stood firm and were executed at Teheran,
while thirty recanted, being told by their leader to judge whether they
were justified by family ties, etc., in renouncing the faith. "They
determined to adopt a course of concealment, _tagiya_." Some years ago a
Bahai was called before the Governor of Tabriz and questioned, "Are you
a Bahai?" "I am a Mussulman." "Will you curse Baha?" "It is written in
the Koran not to curse, I am not a Bahai." By payment of a peshkesk this
answer was made acceptable. And no offense was recognized in conscience,
for Baha had said, "If your heart is right with me, nothing matters."
It were scarcely necessary to note that some Babis and Bahais have
denied their faith, except to correct the mistake of travellers, but the
fact that denial is permitted and approved is important. For _tagiya_ is
a deeply-rooted seed which bears evil fruits in their characters and
conduct.
Even their propaganda is carried on in the same deceitful spirit. The
Bahai conceals from the one he approaches his status and beliefs,
insinuates himself into his confidence, suits the substance of his
message to the preconceptions and prejudices of his hearer and leads him
on, perhaps omitting to mention the real essentials of Bahaism.[461] One
of their methods is to worm themselves into the employ of Christian
Missions and clandestinely carry on their propaganda while they
undermine the work of the Mission. Perhaps the Mission wishes a language
teacher or a mirza. A Bahai presents himself. He talks well. In the
course of conversation the missionary inquires his religious views. He
appears liberal minded. Direct inquiry is made, "Are you a Bahai?" He
replies, "No, _I am not_, but I am tired of Islam; I am a truth-seeker."
The missionary employs him. After a time, maybe, he professes to be a
Christian, and is baptized. Such were a certain Mirza Hasan and a Mirza
Husain, who deceived the Swedish Mission and received salaries as
Christian evangelists, but had been and continued to be Bahais and
propagandists. I have heard that in a certain Station (not American)
Bahais, without revealing their faith, accepted positions as cook,
language-teacher, financial agent, etc., and so surrounded the new
Mission that it was a Bahai more than a Christian establishment. Doctor
Shedd[462] tells of an assistant he had with him in school work--a
Persian, with whom he discussed religious topics freely. For years the
man disavowed belief in Bahaism, but finally threw off the mask and
became an active propagandist. After his dismissal he instigated the
Persian pupils, whom he had previously secretly beguiled, and they
complained to the Persian Government that "they, as good (?)
Mohammedans, were offended by having to study the Christian Scriptures."
Great is _tagiya_!
What else can we expect, since Abdul Baha instructs his disciples in
pretense. A certain Madame Canavarro,[463] staying at Acca, expressed
her desire to assist in spreading Bahaism among the Buddhists, and spoke
of the difficulty of introducing it as a new religion. Abdul Baha
replied, "At first teach it as truths of their own religion, afterwards
tell them of me." She replied that she herself was imbued with the
spirit of Buddhism. He answered, "What you call yourself is of no
consequence." To a certain American lady who was afraid her friends
would be repelled by the idea of a new religion, Abdul Baha advised,
"Remain in the Church and teach Bahaism as the true teaching of Christ."
A striking instance of this religious dissimulation is seen in
Hamadan.[464] There about two-and-a-half per cent. of the Jews have
accepted Baha as the Messiah. But many of these continue in the outward
forms and associations of the Jews.[465] Others professed to be
Christians, and were protected as such by the Shah's government. After a
decade or two it became evident that they were hypocrites, cloaking
their Bahaism under the Christian name.