Part 11

[376] _Ibid._, p. 109; Chase, "In Galilee," p. 63; Goodall, "Daily Lessons," p. 19. Abdul Baha did not break through oriental custom nor serve the lady guests before himself. The lady pilgrim writes, "The first day at lunch, after Baha had partaken of the honey, he passed it to us" ("Daily Lessons," p. 16). Like the ordinary Moslem he was well pleased to sit down to eat with the foreign ladies but never arranged that the American Bahai men should sit down to meals with his ladies. Mr. C. M. Remey tells, in "Observations of a Bahai Traveller," of meeting Persian Bahai women but rarely in Persia (pp. 75-76). In Kasvin, in the garden of Kurrat-ul-Ayn, one woman partly raised her veil and gave him a greeting of welcome. In Teheran a lady, unveiled, and her husband entertained the Bahais. The husband and wife received the twenty men in one room and the wife received the dozen women in another room. They were separated by a curtain, through which Sprague and Remey spoke, telling of the liberty of women in the West. The lady of the house used her best persuasion to induce the other women to mix with the men. Finally "the women arose and drawing aside their veils with one accord entered the room. The men made place for the ladies by retreating to the other side of the room, while the newcomers found seats. When the women had arisen to the situation, they were quite equal to it. Then it was the men who were ill at ease. In fact their embarrassment was contagious, for even I began to be uneasy and scarcely dared to take a look at the faces opposite. Sherbets and other refreshments were served and chanting continued. Bit by bit the men gained their ease, but, as their embarrassment passed, the women seemed to lose courage. Little by little the veils were drawn over their faces. Then one moved as if to leave, where upon all arose and like a flock of affrighted birds fluttered from the room." This incident shows how little change has been affected in the social habits of Bahai women in sixty years after Kurrat-ul-Ayn.

[377] B = 2, a = 1, h = 5, a = 1, total 9 in Persian Abjad counting.

[378] "Tablets of Abdul Baha," Vol. I, p. 50.

[379] _Ibid._, p. 27.

VIII

Its Record as to Morals

The Bahais are ignorant of the dogmas of Babism and of its history and its book. The "Traveller's Narrative," a work of Abbas Effendi, is a bad romance, composed solely for the purpose of proving that the Bab is simply a precursor and announcer of Baha Ullah. With extreme bias, he misconceives in every instance the true history, and the author has not even searched, as I have, in the immense works of the Bab for the autobiographical notes which are so plentiful. He is satisfied with the legends which fall in best with the end he is pursuing. It is regrettable that a man like Abbas Effendi should show himself ignorant of the life of the Bab.--_"Beyan Persan," A. L. M. Nicolas, Vol. I, p. xvi._

To represent him (the Bab) as simply the forerunner of Baha is an historic falsehood. It is another to pretend that the religion of the Bab was universalized by Baha Ullah.--_Ibid., Vol. III, p. v._

The Bab did not consider himself as the herald or forerunner of another dispensation, as a John the Baptist to Christ. This is devoid of historic foundation. In his own eyes as in those of his followers, M. Ali Mohammed inaugurated a new prophetic cycle and brought a new revelation which abrogated the Koran. He declared that he is not the last Manifestation. There would be a greater, whom he calls "Him whom God would manifest," but the Bab expected that the next manifestation would be separated from his own by an interval such as had separated previous dispensations. Possibly the "Bayan" indicates 1511 or 2001 years as the interval.--_Professor Browne, "Introduction to Mirza Jani's History."_

The moral conduct of the founders of a religion, especially one that requires trust in the person of its author, is a necessary subject of investigation. The conduct of the immediate followers is not to the same degree a subject of criticism. From one point of view it is no argument against the truth of Bahaism that Bahais fail to live up to its precepts and principles, for this can be said of all religions. But the claims of Bahai writers make it necessary to consider their conduct. They boast of superior exemplary character and make this a proof of Bahaism. Hence it is necessary to show the groundlessness of their assertions. In the following review, which covers several chapters, the conduct of Baha, Abdul Baha and their early followers is treated together. The claim made for the founders is nothing short of blessed perfection. For the disciples, it is one of superlative excellence. Myron Phelps says:[380] "This faith does not expend itself on beautiful and unfruitful theories, but has a vital and effective power to mould life towards the very highest ideals of human character--as exemplified in the life of Abbas and the salient characteristics of his followers." The Bahai historians say:[381] "They are remarkable only for their charity, kindliness, purity, godliness, rectitude, sincerity, integrity, generosity, chastity and strict avoidance of all forbidden things." "In their conduct, action, morality and demeanour was no place for objection.... People have confidence in their trustworthiness, faithfulness and godliness." Abul Fazl[382] speaks of the supernatural character and morals of the followers of Baha, who became universally celebrated for their just characters, good conduct and excellent morals. So Remey:[383] "The effect of this cause upon the lives of the peoples of every race and religion leaves no doubt as to the divine source of its teachings." Mirza Jani, speaking of the proofs the Babis gave to the Moslems, says:[384] "We say, 'We have witnessed miracles on the part of this man.' They retort, 'He is a sorcerer.' We say, 'Come, let us invoke God's curse on whomsoever is in error, leaving to Him the decision.' They reply, 'This is not permitted by our law.' We say, 'Let us kindle a fire and enter into the midst together.' They answer, 'You are mad.' We further say, 'Consider the godliness, piety and self-renunciation of those who believe.' They return us no answer." I propose to return the answer.

1. One characteristic of the Bahai leaders is _dishonesty in dealing with their history_. This sometimes takes the form of the suppression and concealment of documents, sometimes of the omission or perversion of essential facts or their presentation in such a way as to falsify history. In the writing of political history and in scheming for the triumph of a political party, we may expect crookedness in dealing with facts, but in the propagating of a new religion designed to supersede Christianity and Islam, and purporting to be an improvement on them, we do not expect to find dishonesty and misrepresentation. Yet this is exactly what we find, namely, "a readiness to ignore or suppress facts, writings or views (undoubtedly historical), which they regard as useless or hurtful to their aims."[385]

When Mirza Husain Ali (Baha Ullah) started out as a "Manifestation," it 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?