Part 13

[466] Phelps, p. 96. The Report of the Bahais to the United States Census Board says, "One may be a Bahai and still retain active membership in another religious body."

[467] Remey's "The Bahai Movement," p. 97.

[468] Bahaism says, "Christians who do not believe in the Koran have not believed Christ."

[469] The name of the Society has been changed to the "Orient Occident Unity," and a commercial department added. Its contributions are acknowledged, and its work reported through the _Star of the West_ as Bahai work. An American, who imported a machine flour-mill to Persia, under its auspices, told the Consul that the object of his coming was not the mill but propagating Bahaism. In the _Jam-i-Jamsied_, Calcutta, March 28, 1914, Dr. E. C. Getsinger boasts to the Parsees, "The American Bahais have established schools in Persia, and have sent American teachers to those schools."

[470] "Words of Paradise," p. 53.

[471] "The Universal Religion," p. 139.

[472] "Observations of a Bahai Traveller," 1908, p. 77.

[473] Sprague's "A Year in India," p. 16.

[474] Pages 62, 63, 95, 96.

[475] "Bahai Proofs," p. 52. See also Browne's "Mirza Jani's History," pp. xxxiii.-vi.

[476] The Bahais are impaled on the other horn of the dilemma also, for, as Professor Browne says ("Mirza Jani," p. xxxiii.), "The difficulty lies in the fact that Subh-i-Azal consistently refused to recognize Baha's claim, so that the Bahai is driven to make the assumption that the Bab, who is acknowledged to be divinely inspired and gifted with divine knowledge and prescience, deliberately chose to succeed him one who was destined to be the 'Point of darkness,' or chief opponent, of 'Him whom God should manifest.'"

[477] "A Year Among the Persians," p. 517.

IX

Its Record as to Morals (_Continued_)

In their teachings they speak constantly of knowing the truth, but never of speaking the truth. In his book Kheiralla never mentions veracity among the virtues nor lying among the vices. Religious duplicity, _tagiya_, is a Persian peculiarity and some Mohammedan sects among which are our "truth-knowing" Bahais have raised _tagiya_ to a pious privilege. Baha, the crafty chief, requires policy in consideration of expediency, often at the expense of good faith. Until the final triumph of the religion he has sanctioned feigned conformity. They have divine authority for duplicity. This is to them a pious means to a pious end. Since Baha's influence has become paramount, they have adopted the plan of secret propaganda which does not hesitate, in case of need, at denying their faith under oath. Among Mohammedans they are primitive Islamites, among Christians they claim to be primitive Christians. If I had not taken their "private lessons," the supposition of such astounding duplicity would have appeared incredible or beyond even the Oriental proverbial duplicity.--_S. K. Vatralsky, "Amer. Jour. of Theology," 1902, pp. 73, 74, 76._

Bahais particularly boast of love as one of their characteristics. They often quote the words of Baha "to consort with all religions with spirituality and fragrance." Phelps claims for them[478] "a peculiar spirit, which marks them off from other men,--whose essence is expressed in one word, Love. These men are Lovers; lovers of God, of their Master and teachers, of all mankind." Dreyfus, with a forgetfulness or ignoring of facts that is astounding, says, "Their conduct is so perfect, their harmony so complete that although they have been there at Acca for forty years, no judge had yet to intervene for them in any dispute." Chase says "Bahaism removes religious rancour."[479] Let facts speak. Let me array them first by showing the relation of the Bahais to the Moslems, and then to the Azalis (see chapter on "Religious Assassination") and finally to each other (see chapter on "The Quarrel over the Succession").

The Babis and Bahais show great hatred and animosity against the Shiahs of Persia, abuse and revile them and heap maledictions and curses upon them. These evil feelings are shown specially against the Mullahs and the rulers. The Babi and Bahai historians indulge so much in diatribes and maledictions that Professor Browne wearies of translating them and omits pages of abuse.[480] More than enough is at hand to show the rancorous spirit of the new religion.

First take a short backward glance at the Babis. Professor Browne says:[481] "The Babis entertained for the Kajar rulers a hatred equal to that for the Mullahs." Mohammed Shah and Nasr-ud-Din Shah are called "bastard" and "scoundrel" and Mohammed Shah is consigned to hell at his death. The Shiahs are called "foul Guebres" and the Mullahs heaped with abuse. "They hated the Mohammedan clergy with an intense and bitter hatred" and anticipated the fulfillment of the prophecy "when the Kaim or Mahdi should behead 70,000 mullahs like dogs." The Bab called Haji Kazim Khan, chief of the Sheikhis, "the Quintessence of Hell Fire and the infernal tree of Zakkum." He even at times emphasized his words with blows.[482] "When a prisoner in the household of Anti-Christ--that accursed one (_i. e._, the Shah), the Mullah of Maku showed him some discourtesy, whereupon the Ocean of Divine Wrath was stirred and He (the Bab) brought down his staff with such vigour on the unclean form of that foul creature that the august staff broke in two. He then ordered Aga Sayid Hasan (his scribe) to drive out that dog from the room, though the accursed fellow was a person of great consideration." "The Bab took leave of his jailer, Ali Khan, with the words, 'Ay maalun' ('Accursed One')."[483] It is unnecessary further to enlarge on the feelings of the Babis towards the Shiahs, for the sanguinary wars and persecutions explain them and they made no secret of their feelings of hatred.

I pass on to the Bahais, whom Abul Fazl claims were reformed and transformed by Baha. Baha himself it is, who in the "Ikan" calls the Shiahs "a foul, erring sect," who said of his Turkish guards, "Shame upon them! God shall consume their livers with fire, and verily he is the fiercest of avengers" (Lawh-i-Rais) and who exultingly celebrated, in a hymn of triumph, the death of Fuad Pasha,[484] the vizier who had exiled him, and consigned him to hell "where the heart boils and the tormenting angel melts him." Baha's winsome words about the mullahs are, in the "Ikan," "1278 years have passed and all these worthless wretches have read the Koran every morning and have not yet attained to a single letter of the purport of it."

The spirit of _love_ (?) is shown by Mirza Abul Fazl, the preacher and apologist for Bahaism, in his discussion (1873) as recorded in the "New History."[485] His abusive language runs on page after page. The mullahs of Persia are called mischief-makers, dolts, a pack of scoundrels, tyrants, fools, plunderers of men's properties and wives, sectarian zealots steeped in prejudice and thinly disguising their greed of worldly lucre under a veil of sanctity, sprung from the rustic population and the scum of the towns, ignorant of the decencies of society and neglectful of good breeding, with wickedness, worldliness, rapacity and selfishness which are incurable and folly that exceeds all bounds and surpasses all conception, with stupidity, overweening arrogance and presumption absolutely unparallelled, hiding the truth in falsehood, circulating false reports, possessing malignant hatred, malice, spite and great injustice, and notoriously eager to shed blood, yet with cowardice like a timid girl.

He avers further that they are lacking in patriotism, nullify sovereign 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."