authority, encroach upon and usurp the power of kings, dismiss viziers,
invite the people to rebel, cause national decay, set their feet upon
the necks of all mankind, menace the order and well-being of the
government, devour public wealth and substitute treason for service.
"Perish their homes of folly whose learning is all pretense, their
colleges which never yielded a man of sense." This is a condensation of
the Bahai philosopher's amiable (!) description of the chiefs of his
national religion. The author of the "New History" almost surpasses him
in abuse.[486] He compares the mullahs to a "host of foul reptiles who
befoul and pollute the pure water of life so that it waxeth loathsome
and abominable.... They are fraudulent and sophistical hypocrites ...
inwardly reprobate and outwardly devout, clothing themselves in the garb
of spurious asceticism and simulated piety: fabricators of 'authentic'
traditions." Later Haji M. Haidar Ali,[487] writing by command of Abdul
Baha, says of Persia, "The old religious sects ... degenerated into
ferocious wolves and mad dogs, even surpassing the ravenous man-eating
beasts." Apropos of the martyrdom of Aga Sayid Jafar of Abargoo, "Our
Great Lord and Master Abdul Baha revealed the following in a Visiting
Tablet" to be _chanted at the tomb_: "Hell is for such as rejected thee,
fire for such as sentenced thee to death, infernal flame for such as
betrayed thee, and the hellish gulf for such as shed thy blood."[488]
These quotations show the vindictive spirit of the Bahai leaders. Any
one who is acquainted with Bahais in Persia knows that this is the
spirit that animates them, that they revile the Mutasharis and Sheikhis
and especially their mullahs. They are brotherly and helpful to their
own particular sect of Bahais, vindictive to all who have opposed them.
Doctor Frame quotes a Persian as saying this of the attitude of Abdul
Baha, "He is very kind towards his friends and bitter towards his
enemies." In view of all that has been brought forward, how can Mr.
Phelps aver "that they have no trace of bitterness or resentment for
their sufferings." The habit of Bahais in denying that they have
animosity against other religions reminds me of one of their own
stories. A certain mullah said to his friend, "If you notice in me any
objectionable habit please inform me." "I perceive no fault in you,"
answered his friend, "save a habit of using abusive language." "Abusive
language!" cried the mullah. "What rascally knave calls me abusive? What
shameless ruffian have I abused that he should dare accuse me?"
In the statements of Bahais which I quoted above, they laid claim to
superior chastity and sobriety. In the chapter on "Bahaism and Woman" I
have noticed their defects in regard to the treatment of women. In
regard to sexual immorality, they are neither better nor worse than
Persians of the middle class to which they mostly belong. Bahai law
follows the Moslem law in prohibiting the use of alcohol as a beverage,
as did the law of the Bab. The Bab prohibited opium and tobacco. Azal
follows the Bab in these restrictions, while Baha exempts tobacco from
the prohibition. A good many Moslems, especially of the cities and upper
classes, are addicted to alcohol, and have been through the centuries of
Islam. My observation leads me to believe that Bahais are more addicted
to the use of intoxicants than Moslems are. Regarding the relation of
Bahais to wine and opium, we have an impartial witness who writes his
experience without prejudice or motive. Professor Browne, in his "A Year
Among the Persians," tells of his social intercourse with the Babis,
Azalis and Bahais. His prolonged stay in Kirman was largely spent among
the Bahais. He became so intimate with them as to be considered one of
them by many in the city. He joined in their convivialities and he gives
us a simple narrative of everyday events and experiences. Read the
volume from page 475 to 540 and see how many of the Bahais lived in the
habitual use of wine and opium. It is shocking and shows what goes on
behind their doors. No other one has had opportunity to see and reveal
their hidden life. One and another and another of the Bahais is referred
to by name and occupation as addicted to intoxicants.[489] Sheikh
Ibrahim "is a drunkard and a libertine"; Usta Akbar, the pea-parcher,
"returned in a state of boastful intoxication, talking blasphemous
nonsense"; the son of the Bahai postmaster "wants money to get drunk and
play the libertine"; Haji Shirazi is "a drinker and a libertine" and a
reviler; another is a victim of copious libations of beer; another a
drunkard and blasphemous in his cups.
Regarding the use of opium they appear to be worse. It seems to be a
common habit among them. See pages 499, 500, 505, 520, 524, 525, 540. Of
certain dinners Professor Browne says, "All present were Babis (Bahais)
and we sat sipping our tea and whiffing opium." "We sat talking late and
smoking opium." "The wildest ascriptions of Deity to Baha were made when
intoxicated with wine and opium: then they praised the 'Beloved.'" "The
poor lad, the son of the telegrapher whom I had seen smoking opium, was
dead." "A Bahai dervish was engaged in smoking an opium pipe." The
Prince secretary, an Azali Babi, "was a confirmed opium smoker." Browne
even joined the Bahais in the use of opium and almost became a victim of
the habit. On one occasion[490] they secretly filled his pipe with
hashish (Bhang). He recognized the taste and refused it. Why did they do
so? Would they possibly have shown him visions with the hope of
persuading him of the truth of Bahaism? Maybe some such incidents are
the basis of the Moslem accusations against the Bahais of using hashish
on neophytes. The point of the above citations is plain. Bahaism does
not exercise the transforming power that is claimed for it. The Persian
Bahais are yet in the bonds of iniquity. The boasts of Bahais are
ungrounded. What of Abul Fazl's question,[491] "Have you ever heard of a
Bahai accused[492] of drinking wine?[493] None are accused of evil
deeds or bad morals." Again Sprague says, "The conditions of the
Millennium are already visible among these people," and Thornton Chase
declares, "It brings men to a higher conception of duty and life than
has been the heritage of the churches." How blind to facts is such
faith!
FOOTNOTES:
[478] Page 112.
[479] Yet Phelps, p. 158, and Chase themselves inveigh against orthodox
Christianity with bitterness and scorn.
[480] "New Hist.," pp. 320 f, 281, 289.
[481] "_Ibid._, pp. xvii. and 354.
[482] "Mirza Jani," pp. 131-132.
[483] "New Hist.," p. 352.
[484] _Jour. Roy. As. Soc._, 1892, p. 271.
[485] Pages 173-190.
[486] Pages 4-5, written 1880.
[487] "Martyrs of 1903," p. 3.
[488] "Visiting Tablets," p. 12, N. Y. Bahai Board of Counsel.
[489] Pages 436, 517, 524, 540.
[490] Pages 520-521.
[491] "Bahai Proofs," p. 79.
[492] The testimony of Mr. Getsinger that he saw the son of Baha Ullah
under the influence of liquor is given in Chapter XI.
The testimony of Professor Browne as to their habits is borne out, in a
general way, without his personal experience, by others who have had
long residence in Persia. Rev. W. A. Shedd, D. D., of Urumia writes,
"Does the religion bring about a change of life and character? The
reports given by Bahai travellers are glowing, but long residents in
Persia have no such a tale to tell. The Bahais are not noticeably more
honest, more truthful, more sober nor more reliable than others"
(_Missionary Review_, Oct. 1911). J. D. Frame, M. D., of Resht says
(_Moslem World_, July, 1912), "The real test of a religion is its
influence upon life. Repeatedly we have challenged the Bahais, 'Show us
from your personal lives a power to regenerate the lives of men.'" Rev.
S. M. Jordan of Teheran writes ("The Mohammedan World," p. 179), "By
neither Moslems, Jews, nor Christians are they considered morally
superior to the Moslems, while in some respects they rightly are judged
less so." The Rev. J. H. Shedd, D. D., writes, "The Bahai freedom runs
to license, and hence as a reform leaves men worse rather than better.
Mr. Browne found himself in the meshes of the opium habit in Kirman by
yielding too freely to their influence. There is undoubtedly a generous
fellowship in the Bahai community, but there is no moral principle....
There are no high and strong characters developed to lead the world in
true reform, no high motives to virtue are developed. The seeds of its
own destruction are in the system and the best argument against it will
soon be its fruits" (R. E. Speer's "Missions and Modern History," p.
182).
[493] "Bahai Proofs," p. 82.
X
Religious Assassination
The religion now entered upon the phase of intestinal dissensions,
bitter animosities, schisms, and internecine strife. The pages of its
history are henceforth filled with tales of dissension and disruption;
of anathemas and accusations; of heresy and apostacy reiterated and
reciprocated with increasing bitterness; of fratricidal assassinations
and persecutions.--_Professor Browne in "New History," p. x._
Subh-i-Azal is the Khalifa of the Bab and the Bahais are in bad faith
when they deny it.--_Nicolas, p. 20._
When inspiration and revelation failed, Baha did not disdain to
benefit by the pointed argument of the dagger and the subtle
persuasion of poison.--_Vatralsky in "Amer. Jour. of Theology."_
We cannot tolerate iniquity in God nor in one claiming to be God and
we cannot conceive of God incarnate subject to the limitations of
racial moral ideals.--_R. E. Speer, p. 146._
In general Bahais claim that they and their leaders have been exemplars
of love and harmony. Specific declarations of their excellence in this
regard have been quoted. M. Abul Fazl[494] writes: "During the long
years from the arrival of Baha Ullah in Bagdad to the present day they
have not committed that which would disturb a single soul. They have
been killed but they have killed no one." Mr. Horace Holley[495] says:
"For forty years no judge has had to settle a dispute between them." It
behooves us to inquire how the conduct of Baha and his adherents shows
up in this regard during the first period of their exile. It is evident
that in Persia Baha had no sincere love for his brother Azal, for he
planned to secure safety for himself by putting Azal's life in
jeopardy. (See Chapter VIII.) It is further plain that early in the exile
jealousy, envy and hate manifested themselves, even while
Baha was outwardly obedient to Azal. In Bagdad, says Bahiah
Khanum, "disharmony and misunderstanding arose among the
believers--discord--strife--contention."[496] Therefore Baha went off to
Kurdistan. He refers in the "Ikan" to the dissensions,[497] "Such an
odour of jealousy was diffused, banners of discord hoisted, enemies
endeavoured to destroy this servant,--hardships, calamities and
sufferings inflicted by Moslems were as nothing compared with what hath
been inflicted by the believers." His opponents say that he wished to
introduce innovations, relax the law and put forward on his own account
a claim to be a Manifestation and being resisted in this, he "got
angry."[498] After they were removed to Adrianople the quarrel waxed
hotter. Abul Fazl describes it as one of "interior fires of dissension
and jealousy between the rival leaders, far exceeding the jealousy of
outsiders.[499] Mohammed Jawad Kasvini says[500] there were "all manner
of intrigues, falsehoods and untruths." I have received from a Moslem
convert to Christianity an interesting account of conditions then and
there. He was at that time a _peesh-khidmat_ to the Persian Minister at
Constantinople. He was at Samsun when Azal and Baha and their parties
embarked and was introduced to them by Haji Rajab Ali Khan,
brother-in-law of my informant. He saw them day by day and became a
serious inquirer. Afterwards he went to Adrianople bearing presents to
Baha. He found Baha and Azal living in separate rooms of the same house
under guards. The two brothers were in dispute over the supremacy, and
the _murids_ had been won over by Baha. He narrates, "I entered one day.
I heard words of angry disputation and revilings. Yahya said, "Ay!
Husain Ali, you are vile! Do you not remember your sodomies? You are
defiled. Your wife is a bad one!" Husain Ali answered, "Ay, cursed one!
Your son Nur Ullah is not your son but son of Sayid----. You yourself
are a sodomite, an adulterer." Such like revilings they hurled at each
other. I called Maskin Kalam and said to him, "What are these words and
doings? If Baha is true why does he talk so? Why do these brothers
revile each other? What a fool I am to come so many miles to hear such
revilings from a divinity!" We then went to the room of Ishan. My
companion said to Ishan, "Why do they curse so?" I said, "I wish to ask
a question." He said, "What is it?" I said, "You say they do not work
miracles, but must there not be personal power and influence in
words?""[501]
The condition at Adrianople culminated in a series of crimes, which now
come before us for examination.
Charges have been made, in detail, against the companions of Baha Ullah
of assassinating the Azalis, the followers of his rival Subh-i-Azal.
Most of the information regarding the matter is to be found in the
books and translations of Professor Browne, the great authority on
Bahaism in the Anglo-Saxon world. I wish to present and weigh the
evidence in hand regarding these accusations.
1. The first charge is _that Baha Ullah attempted to poison Subh-i-Azal,
his half-brother_ and predecessor. This charge is found in the "Hasht
Behesht," a history of Babism, by Aga Sayid Javad,[502] a prominent
Mullah of Kirman and a leading disciple of the Bab. The occurrence took
place when Azal and Baha were both at Adrianople under surveillance of
the Turkish authorities. Baha, so it narrates,[503] ordered that there
should be placed before him and "Azal a dish of plain food, with one
side of which he had mixed some poison, intending to poison Azal. For
hitherto the apportioned breakfast and supper had been from the house of
Mirza Husain Ali (Baha Ullah). When that poisoned dish was placed before
them, Baha pressed Azal to take of it. By a fortunate chance, the smell
of onions was perceptible in the food, and Azal, being averse to onions,
refused to taste it. Though urgently pressed, he refused, saying: 'It
smells of onions.' Baha, supposing his evil design was suspected, and to
disguise the truth, ate a little from the other (unpoisoned) side in
order that Azal's suspicions might be dispelled and that he might eat of
the poisoned side. Now, inasmuch as the poison had to some extent
diffused itself to the other side, it produced some slight effect on
Baha, causing him sickness and vomiting, so that he summoned his
physician." This account was confirmed by Mirza Abdul Ali, the son of
Subh-i-Azal, to Professor Browne, when he visited him in Cyprus in
1888.[504]
The daughter of Baha, Bahiah Khanum, gives a contradictory account of
the same affair.[505] She says that the feast was at Azal's house and
that rice for both was served on the same plate, having been prepared in
Azal's house. "The portion of rice intended for my father was flavoured
with onions, of which he was very fond. The servant, by direction of
Azal, placed this portion towards my father. He ate some of it, but
fortunately not very much. He preferred the rice prepared for Azal, and
ate of it. Soon after eating he became ill. The physician declared that
he had been poisoned. He was so desperately ill for twenty-two days that
the physician said he could not live." Mirza Abul Fazl, a Bahai writer,
says,[506] "Azal sought to poison Baha Ullah, and attempted to do so
twice, but failed to accomplish his design." "He repeatedly planned to
murder Baha." Baha himself alludes to these events in the
"Sura-i-Haykal."[507] "My brother warred with me. He desired to drink my
blood. He took counsel with one of my attendants tempting him unto
this. We went out from among them and dwelt in another house. Neither
did we see him afterwards."
Thus we have brother against brother, each accusing the other of
attempting fratricide. How shall we settle the question of veracity? Mr.
Phelps makes a plea for Baha, but his words lack foundation. He says
that Azal's story "is a _transparent_ fabrication because it assumes an
impossible ignorance on the part of Baha Ullah that Azal disliked
onions, as well as the impossible hypothesis that Baha Ullah would
knowingly partake of food in which poison had been placed." But neither
of these "impossible" things are a part of the story. The first
objection can only be taken, if at all, to Professor Browne's abridged
account in the "Traveller's Narrative," and not to the original in
"Hasht Behesht," which distinctly states that onions had communicated
their flavour to the other side of the platter, contrary to intention;
and, secondly, Baha supposed when he ate (according to the "Hasht
Behesht" account) that the poison had not communicated itself to his
side of the platter of rice. Those familiar with Persian _pillau_, or
boiled rice, in which each grain is separate and dry, will see that it
would ordinarily be quite possible to put onions and poison on opposite
sides of the platter without either reaching the other side. Each man
would help himself, according to Persian custom, from the side of the
dish next to him. Moreover, it was customary to prepare the food for
Azal in the kitchen of Baha.'[508] Up to the time of the incident they
had both continued to live in the same house. This is evident from
Baha's words in the "Sura-i-Haykal," where he says, "We went out, dwelt
in _another house, neither did we see him afterwards_." This agrees with
the "Hasht Behesht." In this and several other particulars the narrative
of Bahiah Khanum is defective or misleading. Mr. Phelps' plea, on
account of the character of the Bahais, begs the question. This charge
and subsequent ones to be discussed, involve the integrity of Baha's
character and that of his immediate disciples. The history shows no more
reason to believe Baha than to believe Azal, but rather less.
2. The next charge of the Azalis is as follows:[509] "Shortly after
this, another plot was laid against Subh-i-Azal's life, and it was
arranged that _Mohammed Ali, the barber, should cut his (Azal's) throat
while_ shaving him in the bath. On the approach of the barber, however,
Subh-i-Azal divined his design, refused to allow him to come near, and,
on leaving the bath, instantly took another lodging, and separated
himself entirely from Mirza Husain Ali and his followers."
On the Bahai side, Bahiah Khanum says,[510] "One day in the bath Azal
asked the servant (of Baha) 'whether it would not be easy for an
attendant who was not faithful to Baha to make away with him while
shaving him.' The servant replied that this was certainly the case. Azal
then asked whether, if God should lay upon him the command to do this,
he would obey it? The servant understood this to be the suggestion of
such a command, and was so terrified by it that he rushed screaming from
the room. This occurrence was ignored by my father, and our relations
with Azal continued to be cordial."
Here we have two stories in direct contradiction to each other. It may
be observed that the attendant or barber, who was that day serving Azal
in the bath, as is agreed by both parties, was a partisan of Baha,[511]
without doubt the same barber, Mohammed Ali, who subsequently murdered
the Azalis,[512] and who was decorated by Baha with the title
Dallak-i-Hakikat,[513] "The Barber of the Truth." It was much more
natural that Azal should be suspicious of him than try to tempt him to
kill Baha.
In either case, what do we see? Behold, these two "Manifestations of
God" accusing each other of attempting assassination. They were
brothers, both eminent disciples of the Bab, the "Point of Divinity" of
the "new Revelation," both "revealers of inspired verses." The heart of
each was full of hatred and envy and of desire to overreach the other.
Neither is worthy of credence, both being steeped in Persian deception
from childhood. Possibly, at that time, each was ready to compass the
death of the other. The subsequent history, however, casts back its
reflection upon the murder-plots at Adrianople, and in its lurid light
the character of the Bahais grows darker. As a consequence, the charges
of the Azalis against the Bahais become probable and are easily
accepted.
3. The _proved assassination of Azalis by Bahais at Acca_. The quarrels
and plots at Adrianople led to complaints of each party against the
other before the Osmanli Government. For the sake of peace and safety
they were separated. Azal was sent as a prisoner-pensioner to Famagusta,
Cyprus. Baha was removed to Acca, Syria. The "Hasht Behesht" says:[514]
"With the latter were his family, about eighty of his adherents, and
four of Subh-i-Azal's followers, to wit, Haji Sayid Mohammed of Ispahan,
Aga Jan Bey, Mirza Riza Kuli of Tafrish, and his brother Aga Mirza
Nasrullah."
These Azalis were murdered by the Bahais in Acca. Of this crime there
are many who give testimony, (_a_) The "Hasht Behesht" says:[515]
"Before the transfer was actually effected, however, Mirza Nasrullah was
poisoned by Baha, at Adrianople. The other Azalis were assassinated
shortly after their arrival at Acca, in a house which they occupied near
the barracks, the assassins being Abdul Karim, Mohammed the barber,
Husain the water-carrier, and Mohammed Javad of Kasvin" (all attaches of
Baha).
(_b_) Subh-i-Azal independently confirmed this account in conversation
with Professor Browne.[516]
(_c_) Bahai testimony also confirms it. Professor Browne heard the story
at Kirman from Sheikh Ibrahim, a Bahai, who had suffered imprisonment
and torture for the faith, and who had seen some of the perpetrators
while on a pilgrimage to Acca. He said,[517] "The Babis were divided
into two factions. So high did feeling run that the matter ended in open
strife, and two Azalis and one Bahai were killed" at Adrianople. "The
Turkish Government sent seven[518] Azalis to Acca with Baha. They--Aga
Jan, called Kaj-Kulah, Haji Sayid Mohammed of Ispahan, one of the
original companions of the Bab, Mirza Riza, a nephew of the last, Mirza
Haydar Ali of Ardistan, Haji Sayid Husain of Kashan, and two others
whose names I forget--lived all together in a house situated near the
gate of the city. Well, one night about a month after their arrival at
Acca, twelve Bahais (nine of whom were still living when I was at Acca)
determined to kill them and so prevent them from doing any mischief. So
they went at night, armed with swords and daggers, to the house where
the Azalis lodged, and knocked at the door. Aga Jan came down to open to
them, and was stabbed before he could cry out or offer the least
resistance. Then they entered the house and killed the other six." In
consequence, "the Turks imprisoned Baha and all his family and followers
in the caravanserai, but the twelve assassins came forward and
surrendered themselves, saying, 'We killed them without the knowledge of
our Master or of any of the brethren. Punish us, not them.' So they were
imprisoned for a while; but afterwards, at the intercession of Abbas
Effendi (Abdul Baha), were suffered to be at large, on condition of
remaining at Acca and wearing still fetters on their ankles for a time."
(_d_) Mr. Laurence Oliphant gives an account of the Bahais at Acca in
his "Haifa, or Life in Modern Palestine."[519] He substantiates the
account of the assassinations, and narrates how Baha Ullah was called
before the Osmanli Court to answer on the charge of complicity in them.
He further states that after one session, Baha "purchased an exemption
from further attendance at court _with an enormous bribe_."