An historical analysis of critical transformations
Yüklə 2,06 Mb.
|
|
and four close disciples.102 Some evidence is available supporting an earlier declaration in the Garden of Ridvan. Richards points out that Baha’u’llah in a tablet to ‘Ali Naqqi wrote: Blessed art than in that thou was privileged to be present in the Garden of Rezvan, on the Festival of Rezvan, when God the Merciful, showed forth His glory to the world.103
of al-Ridwan when we appeared in glory to him who is in (the realm of) the possible with our Most Beautiful Names and our most high attributes.104 The passage appears to be a reference to Baha’u’llah’s declaration of himself an the first day of the twelve days in the Garden of Ridvan and means that all things became clean at that time.105 Later in the
sation, the festival of his declaration when the “Merciful was revealed to those (in the realm) of the Possible by His most beautiful Names and
Him who should tell the people the Good News of this Name by which the dead are raised” (the day of the Bab’s declaration).106
Bab’s declaration, Baha’u’llah’s declaration marks for them the occasion when, as George Townshend expresses it, “Jesus Christ ascended His throne in the power of God the Father.”107 Townshend, thus, remarks: “Surely this Day must be the greatest day in the history of manktnd.”108
of the Babis into two groups, the greater number following Baha’u’llah and eventually becoming known as Baha’is and a smaller number who con- tinued to follow Subh-i-Azal and becoming known as Azalis. One issue between the Baha’is and Azalis concerned the time when the next manifestation was to appear. Azalis insisted that “He whom God shall manifest” would not appear until 1,511 to 2,001 years had passed.109 These figures are derived from the numerical values of the words Ghiyath and Mustaghath. The Bab had suggested that “He whom God shall manifest” might appear “in the number of Ghiyath” or might “tarry until [the number of Mustaghath” (Persian Bayan II, 17), but he hoped that “He will come ere [the number of] Mustaghath (III, 15).110 These figures suggest that a long duration would occur before the coxing of the next manifestation.
to a boy in successive stages of growth. Adam, whose coming the Bab placed at 12,210 years before his ministry, is compared to the embryo; Jesus, Muhammad, and the Bab, himself, are compared to the boy at ages ten, eleven, and twelve, respectively, showing that the Bab thought of
Bab saw “Him whom God shall manifest” as the boy at age fourteen (Bayan III, 12) or age nineteen (III, 15; V, 4), suggesting that the next mani- festation would not appear before 2,000 to 7,000 years had passed.111 Baha’is, however, insist that the Bab pointed to the year “sixty- nine” (A.H. 1269/A.D. 1852-1853) as the year when the next manifestation would reveal himself.112 Baha’u’llah is said to have received his call at this time and began hinting in his writings that he was the expected mani- festation but did not openly disclose himself until ten years later.113
however, is that the Bab had said that no one could falsely claim to be “Him whom God shall manifest” and told Mirza Yahya to abrogate the Bayan if “Him whom God shall manifest” should appear in his lifetime, opening the way for someone then living to advance the claim.
(“Splendour’) in honour of “Him whom God shall manifest” and had indicated in the Bayan that “Baha’u’llah” was the “best of Names” (V, 6). This would appear to be a strong argument in favour of Baha’u’llah were it not for the Azali claim that the title “Baha’u’llah” was originally one of Subh-i-Azal’s titles.114
Baha’is describe the day as one of great weeping and lamentation by those grieving over his departure.115
seventy persons)116 arrived in Constantinople, the capital of the Ottoman Empire, on August 16, 1863, where they resided for four months until further orders came for their removal in the cold winter months to Adrianople in the extremities of the empire, referred to by Ruhiyyih Khanum as “the poli- tical Siberia of the Turkish Empire.”117 The Adrianople period was to witness the first open efforts to transform the Babi religion into a more acceptable and universal faith. The period is significant for at least four reasons.
declared that he was the bearer of a new message. The Tablet, the Suriy-i- Amr, formally announced his claims, being read first to Mirza Yahya and then to the other Babis, calling them to a decision. Second, the Babis in Adrianople, as a result of Baha’u’llah’s declaration, split into two rival parties, those following Baha’u’llah and those following Mirza Yahya. This division resulted in both sides charging the others with tampering with the texts of previous writings to support their own claims and position, in different versions being given to the same incident from this time on, and in actual murders by the two groups. One incident involved an attempt at poisoning. Azalis maintain that Baha’u’llah attempted to poison Mirza Yahya, whereas Baha’is say that Mirza Yahya tried to poison Baha’u’llah.118
world’s religious and political heads, calling them to a recognition of “the King of Kings,” admonishing them to deal justly, and warning them
Nasiri’d-Din Shah of Persia, the Sultan ‘Abdu’l-Aziz of Turkey, Czar Alexander II of Russia, Queen Victoria of England, and Pope Pius IX.119 Baha’is see Baha’u’llah as thus formally declaring his cause to the world, and they attribute the later mysterious fall of the dynasties and the decline of religious institutions as predicted in these communications as the direct outcome of the heedlessness of many of the world’s rulers to Baha’u’llah’s message. A fourth significance of the Adrianople period which has bearing on Baha’u’llah’s religion is that Baha’u’llah during the five years of resi- dence in Adrianople first came in touch with European civilization and Western ideas. Non-Baha’is, therefore, attribute the concepts in Baha’u’- llah’s message having affinities with Western thought to the experience in Adrianople.120 The Baha’i, Horace Holley, makes this observation: The effect of residence at Adrianople was to bring Baha’o’llah into relationship with European civilization, thus uniting his intuitive wisdom with that stock of scientific and sociological experience which so completely differentiates the personal problems of life in West and East. Without this contact and assimilation, Baha’o’llah’s revelation might have remained Oriental in its statement and expres- sion, and, conditioned by the incomplete social experience which that implies, might have reached our Western consciousness only through the medium of an intervening personality—a St, Paul, that is, whose interpretation would have lessened fatally the prophet’s power to unite. Happily for both hemispheres alike, this contact of intuition and social experience did take place, and, as a result, Europe and America enter equally with the Orient into this prophetic station.121 This is a rather remarkable statement, for Holly admits the conditioning effect of-Western civilization and ideas upon Baha’u’llah’s revelation, or at least upon its expression, and sees this as necessary in giving that message its uniting power. Other Baha’is may not be inclined to make Holley’s admission, but his outlook fits perfectly with Baha’i philosophy that the prophets’ messages are conditioned by the times and social state of the people among whom they appear, Baha’u’llah’s experience touched both East and West, and his message, therefore, is directed to both hemispheres, thereby uniting the two within his one revelation. The exact reasons for the removal of the Baha’is and Azalis from Adrianople are difficult to ascertain because of conflicting stories, but the event seems to here resulted from a combination of a number of factors: internal dissension, the circulation of various reports about what the Babis were planning and teaching,122 one report being that they planned on taking over the city of Constantinople and disposing of the Turkish officials who refused to embrace the religion,123 and the possible detection of a fresh attempt at propaganda.124 Mirza Yahya and certain followers were banished to Cyprus, where they arrived on August 20, 1868.125 Baha’u’llah, his family, and companions, numbering about seventy, were exiled to ‘Akka, where they arrived on August 31, 1868. Four Baha’is were sent with the Azalis, and a certain number of Mirza Yahya’s adherents were sent with the Baha’is. These were intended to serve as spies. The ‘Akka Period The Baha’is in ‘Akka were confined for two years in the mili- tary barracks, a fortress built of rocks, and endured much hardship and suffering, but in October, 1870, in the course of the war between
the Baha’is were moved into houses within the city walls. In 1879, Baha’u’llah moved into the Palace of Bahji, where he was residing when Professor Edward Browne of Cambridge University was permitted four interviews with him in April, 1890. Browne tells of that experience in the introduction to the Traveller’s Narrative: The face of him on whom I gazed I can never forget, though I cannot describe it. Those piercing eyes seemed to read one’s very soul; power and authority sat on that ample brow; while the deep lines on the forehead and face implied an age which the jet-black hair and beard flowing down in indistinguishable luxuriance almost to the waist seemed to belie. No need to ask in whose presence I stood, as I bowed myself before one who is the object of a devotion and love which kings might envy and emperors sigh for in vain!126
upon the movement is the murder of the Azalis who had accompanied the Baha’is to ‘Akka. The Azalis had given the Baha’is a good bit of trouble, particularly by reports which they spread after they and the Baha’is moved from the barracks into the city. Certain Baha’is decided to end the mischief. According to Shaykh Ibrahim’s account given to Edward Browne, the number of Azalis who accompanied the Baha’is to ‘Akka were seven, five of whom are named. Twelve Baha’is, acting without instruc- tions from Baha’u’llah, went armed with swords and daggers to the house where the Azalis were living. After they knocked on the door, Aka Jan answered and was killed immediately. The Baha’is then entered the house and slew the other six.127 Bahiyyih Khanum gives a different account, according to which, only three Baha’is and three Azalis were involved. The Baha’is proceeded to the house of the Azalis, calling them outside. The Azalis fiercely attacked the Baha’is with clubs and sticks; a general fight followed in which one Baha’i and two Azalis were killed.128
were murdered by a few Baha’is in ‘Akka,” but maintains, “that shameful deed brought great sorrow to Baha’u’llah.”129 As far as can be deter- mined, the murderers were not acting on Baha’u’llah’s orders.130 Browne believed, however, that a passage in the Kitab-i-Aqdas shows that Baha’u’- llah “regarded this event with some complaisance.”131 “God has taken the one who seduced thee,” Baha’u’llah writes, addressing himself presumably to Mirza Yahya, in reference to Haji Siyyid Muhammad Isfahani, one of the Azalis killed in ‘Akka and a prime supporter of Mirza Yahya.132 Balyuzi considers Browne’s allegation that “those responsible for that odious deed were freed from gaoal by ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s intercession” as a “novelty.”133
Dhi’l-Qa’dih, 1309 A.H. (May 29, 1892), in his seventy-fifth year.134 That Baha’u’llah’s life was not cut short by a Roman cross, a Persian firing squad, or by some other means, is significant for Baha’is, for “Baha’u’llah was not slain nor prevented from giving His full message.”135 “What the Bab suffered for six years only, as Christ had suffered for three years, Baha’u’llah, like Moses and Muhammad, suffered to the very end of a long life.”136 BAHA’U’LLAH’S TRANSFORMATION Shoghi Effendi, as noted earlier, speaks of “those momentous happenings” which “transformed a heterodox … offshoot of the Shaykhi school … into a world religion.”137 The dominating figure behind those momentous happenings and the person primarily responsible for that transformation of the Babi religion into a world faith was Baha’u’- llah, believed to be “descended from the line of kings of the Sassanian dynasty of Persia” and also from “the line of Zoroaster Himself.”138 Being from an early date a wealthy and influential supporter of the Babi movement in Persia and the elder half-brother of the Bab’s own nominee for leadership in the movement after his death, Mirza Yahya, who had left the more practical affairs of this faith to the administration of his half- brother, Baha’u’llah had gradually risen to the forefront of the movement through his writings and able administration during the Baghdad period. When in Adrianople he openly proclaimed himself the promised one, “He whom God shall manifest,” the next manifestation, he won the overwhelming sup- port of the majority of the Babi community. The problem facing Baha’u’llah is compared to that facing the Apostle Paul in Christianity. Edward Browne refers to a comment made to him by Sir Cecil Spring-Rice, a British minister at Tihran, who had recently returned to England, who said: The question here was not a mere question of historical rights or documentary evidence, but the much greater question as to whether Babiism was to become an independent world-religion, or remain a mere sect of Islam. In the struggle between Subh-i-Ezel and Baha’u’llah we see a repetition of the similar conflict which took place in the early Christian Church between Peter and Paul. The former was in closer personal relations with Christ than the latter; but it is owing to the victory of the latter that Chris- tianity is now the religion of the civilized West, instead of being an obscure sect of Judaism.139 Baha’u’llah intended to remove from the Babi religion those elements which he realized would keep it from being more widely accepted and to establish the religion as a spiritual rather than political movement aiming at the betterment of the world. No sooner was Beha firmly established in his authority than he began to make free use of the privilege accorded by the Bab to “Him whom God shall manifest” to abrogate, change, cancel, and develop the earlier doctrines. His chief aim seems to have been to introduce a more settled order, to discourage specula- tion, to direct the attention of his followers to practical reforms pursued in a prudent and unobtrusive fashion, to exalt ethics at the expense of metaphysics, to check mysticism, to conciliate existing authorities, including even the Shah of Persia, the Nero of the Babi faith, to abolish useless, unprac- tical, and irksome regulations and restrictions, and, in general, to adapt the religion at the head of which he now found himself to the ordinary exigencies of life, and to render it more capable of becoming, what he intended to make it, a universal system suitable to all mankind.140
logy, and hermeneutics of the earlier Babi religion.141 The Kitab-i-Iqan, which especially presents the basic Babi teaching, and other writings of Baha’u’llah before his declaration are accepted by Baha’is as part of the revelation for the new age, thus indicating the essential relatedness and compatibility of the Babi and Baha’i outlook. Baha’u’llah, in a sense, was acting as a reformer within the Babi religion, but to esta- blish the kind of reforms he deemed necessary, which involved changing certain Babi laws, required that Baha’u’llah assume the role of the coming manifestation, who alone would have the authority to initiate such basic changes in the religion. Baha’is still date the beginning of their religion with the Bab’s declaration, not with Baha’u’llah’s. These considerations raise the question of whether the Baha’i faith is a distinct faith from the Babi religion or whether Baha’i is an advanced and reformed stage of the Babi movement. If Baha’u’llah is a
Baha’i is only a reformed and later stage of that movement; if Baha’u’llah is the next manifestation, then in Babi-Baha’i thought, he is the founder of a distinct religion. Actually, Baha’u’llah is both. He is a reformer within an already founded religion, as can be seen in the Baha’i dating of the faith from the Bab, not Baha’u’llah, and also in the fact that Baha’u’- llah built upon an already established doctrinal outlook. Baha’u’llah let fall to the wayside certain characteristic yet nonessential elements of the Babi religion which he felt were deterrents to the religion’s wider acceptance, incorporated into and amplified in his teachings certain other elements of Babi doctrines, directly abrogated some laws, and added to the faith his own characteristic teachings, particularly those inspired by his touch with Western civilization. Baha’u’llah is also, in the belief of Baha’is and according to his own claim, an independent manifestation. Only with this authority was he able to make the reforms he desired to make. Theoretically, then, Baha’u’llah’s religion is as distinct from the Babi religion as it is from other previous faiths. This distinction is not sharply made, however, for two reasons. Historically, the proximity of the religions and their evident relatedness keep them from being sharply distinguished. Doctrinally, Baha’is uphold the two religions as being essentially related, in that the former is seen as uniquely preparatory for the latter. This is especially true in the claim that the Bab is a forerunner of Baha’u’llah. Baha’u’llah’s dual role, therefore, as reformer and independent manifestation, while constituting the faith centering in him an independent religion, makes it nevertheless a transformation of the earlier Babi religion. This transformation produces a certain tension within the Baha’i faith in defining and understanding the precise rela- tionship existing between the Babi and Baha’i religions and between the Bab and Baha’u’llah.
Baha’i faith is seen particularly in three areas: (1) Baha’u’llah’s shifting of the religion’s central focus from the Bab to himself; (2) the redirecting of Babi aspirations from military to spiritual conquests; (3) and the general widening of the religion’s outlook to more practical concerns, which involved abrogating certain Babi laws and establishing new laws and teachings which would be more universally appealing.
foretold by the Bab, was claiming a station infinitely superior to the Bab or to any of the prophets who preceded him. The Bab’s Bayan was to be in force only until the appearing of this coming manifestation. Baha’u’llah was faced with two basic questions concerning the Bab and his revelation: (1) why should the Bab’s dispensation be so short, and (2) what would be the purpose in a major manifestation coming to inaugu- rate a dispensation which would be superseded so quickly. Baha’u’llah seems to have relegated the answer to the first question to the realm of God’s mysteries. Shoghi Effendi quotes Baha’u’- llah as saying:
and wondrous Revelation from Mine own previous Manifestation is a mystery such as no mind can fathom. Its duration had been fore- ordained.142 Baha’u’llah may also be referring to this matter when he writes in the Kitab-i-Aqdas: Order (al-nazm) has been disturbed by this Most Great Order, and arrangement has been made different through this innovation, the like of which the eye of invention has not seen.143
the Bab’s purpose. The close proximity of Baha’u’llah’s revelation to that of the Bab and the Bab’s emphasis given to the coming of “Him whom God shall manifest” placed the Bab in the category of a forerunner to Baha’u’llah.
misunderstood this aspect of Baha’i teaching, seemingly believing that Baha’is do not regard the Bab as a major prophet, or manifestation. Browne writes in this respect: It must be added that the theory now advanced by the Baha’is that the Bab considered himself as a mere herald or fore-runner of the Dispensation which Baha’u’llah was shortly to establish, and was to him what John the Baptist was to Jesus Christ, is equally devoid of historic foundation. In his own eyes, as in the eyes of his followers, Mirza ‘Ali Muhammad inaugurated a new Prophetic cycle, and brought a new Revelation, the Bayan, which abrogated the Qur’an as the Qur’an had abrogated the Gospels, and the Gospels the Penta- teuch. … But it is not true that the Bab regarded himself as a fore-runner of “Him whom God shall manifest” in any narrower sense than that in which Moses was the forerunner of Christ, or Christ of Muhammad, or Muhammad of the Bab.144 Baha’u’llah, however, does acknowledge the Bab’s being a major manifes- tation, not only in the Kitab-i-Iqan, which so exalts the Bab’s dispen- sation, but also in Baha’u’llah’s later books and tablets written after his own declaration, in which he sometimes refers to the Bab as his pre- vious manifestation and he regards the Bab’s Bayan as God’s laws to be followed until his abrogation of them. It is precisely the Bab’s being a major manifestation which makes the short Interval between his dispensation and that of Baha’u’llah such an impenetrable mystery. Baha’u’llah does, however, see the Bab’s role as being his “Forerunner”145 or “Precursor.”146 But Baha’u’llah sees the Bab as having a duel role and thus refers to him as “My Previous Manifestation and Harbinger of My Beauty.”147 The close proximity of Baha’u’llah’s dispensation to the Bab’s and the more exalted station of Baha’u’llah over the Bab led Baha’is to begin referring to ‘Ali Muhammad by the first title he assumed (the Bab)--- the title by which he is generally known today--rather than by his later, higher designations and led them to see in that title a new meaning.
a “channel of grace” between the hidden Imam and his community, but the Shi‘ites also believed that the hidden, twelfth Imam would one day appear as the Qa’im, so that one could possibly see in this tern the meaning of “the Gate” to the coming Qa’im. This possible future reference of the term allowed ‘Abdul-Baha to interpret its meaning in the following manner: Now what he intended by the term Bab (Gate) was this, that he was the channel of grace from some great Person still behind the veil of glory, who was the possessor of countless and boundless perfec- tions, by whose will he moved, and to the bond of whose love he clung.149
the Age (upon him be peace); but afterwards it became known and evident that his meaning was the Gate-hood [Babiyyat] of another city and the mediumship of the graces of another person whose qualities and attributes were contained in his books and treatises.150
seemingly becoming the very person of whom he had previously declared to be merely the gate. It is to the Qa’im, or to the hidden Imam in his future revelation, that the term “Bab” had any future reference. The Baha’is, however, by referring to ‘Ali Muhammad by his first title, the Bab, and by emphasizing the title’s future reference and connecting it with the Bab’s prominent doctrine concerning the future manifestation, “He whom God shall manifest,” were able to shift the reference from the coming Qa’im, whom the Bab himself later claim[s] to be, to the coming mani- festation. Thus, for Baha’is the term “Bab” took on the meaning of “gate- way” to Baha’u’llah. Ferraby writes:
the new age, to the Baha’i era, the Gate to the Promise of All Ages, the Gate to the Glory of God, Baha’u’llah.151
a question emerges of whether or not Baha’u’llah claimed to be God. The Hasht Bihisht charges that Baha’u’llah claimed “to be, not only ‘He whom God shall manifest,’ but an Incarnation of the Deity Himself.”152 This is a rather strange charge, for the Bab had already explained that a mani- festation has two stations, identity with and distinction from God. But J. R. Richards holds that Baha’u’llah never claimed to be God:
seem to justify the belief that Baha’u’llah did claim to be God, a careful study serves to show that he did not actually make any such claim. It is a mistake to take the sayings of Baha’u’llah out of their setting, and to interpret them literally. It should also be borne in mind that there is a vast difference between Western thought, with its background of Christian teaching, and Eastern thought, with an Islamic background, and Christian ideas should never be read into words of Baha’u’llah.153
Baha’u’llah as God, but their belief was based on a wrong interpretation of the claims he made.”154
Richards’s interpretation. In responding to the attribution of divinity to himself, Baha’u’llah explains: This station is the station in which one dieth to himself and liveth in God. Divinity, whenever I mention it, indicateth My complete and absolute self-effacement.”155 Again, Baha’u’- llah says: Certain ones among you have said: “He it is Who hath laid claim to be God.” By God! This is a gross calumny. I am but a servant of God Who hath believed in Him and in His signs, and in His Pro- phets and in His angels.156 Certainly, Baha’u’llah does not claim to be an incarnation of God in the Christian sense. Baha’u’llah emphatically declares, “Know thou of a certainty that the Unseen can in no wise incarnate His essence and reveal it unto men.”157 In Babi-Baha’i thought, the manifestations are “mirrors” of God; they are essentially distinct from God, yet God reveals his attri- butes in them. Baha’u’llah says: The beauty of their countenance is but a reflection of His image, and their revelation a sign of His deathless glory. … By the revelation of these Gems of Divine virtue all the names and attri- butes of God, such as knowledge and power, sovereignty and dominion, mercy and wisdom, glory, bounty, and grace, are made manifest.158
known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no great proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person.159 God, Baha’u’llah says, has ordained the knowledge of his manifestations to be identical with knowledge of himself: Whoso recognizeth them hath recognized God. Whoso hearkeneth to their call, hath hearkened to the Voice of God, and whoso testi- fieth to the truth of their Revelation, hath testified to
turned away from God, and whoso disbelieveth in them, hath di- believed in God.160
and in no sense an incarnation of God, say be spoken of as God. “These manifestations of God have each a twofold station.”161 One is the station of unity with God, inasmuch as they reflect God, and one the station of distinction from God.
“I am God,” He, verily, speaketh the truth, and no doubt attacheth thereto. … And were they to say, “We are the Servants of God,” this also is a manifest and indisputable fact.162 By virtue of this station they have claimed for themselves the Voice of Divinity and the like, whilst by virtue of their station of Messengership, they have declared themselves the Messengers of God.163
to be God in the Christian sense of an incarnational Christology; but he is wrong if he disallows any sense in which Baha’u’llah claimed to be God, for Baha’u’llah clearly claimed, in the Babi-Baha’i understanding, to be God.
“the father.” “He Who is the Father is come,” Baha’u’llah declares.164 Baha’is understand the Christian teaching that Christ will come again in “the glory of his Father” (Mark 8:38) as referring to the coming of Baha’u’llah (“the Glory of God”). When Edward G. Browne first heard this teaching from the Baha’is in Shiraz, he was astonished, wondering if the Baha’is meant to equate Baha’u’llah with God Himself.165 This does not appear to be the meaning, however, for the manifestations are not identified with the Essence of God. The term as applied to Baha’u’llah
manifestations, not that he is innately superior, for the manifestations are all the same inasmuch as they reflect the same God, but the intensity or fuller measure of Baha’u’llah’s revelation, coming as it does at the stage of man’s maturity, renders his station superior.
his revelation: It is evident that every age in which a Manifestation of God hath lived is divinely ordained, and may, in a sense, be characterized as God’s appointed Day. This Day, however, is unique, and is to be distinguished from those that have preceded it. The designation “Seal of the Prophets” fully revealeth its high station. The Pro- phetic Cycle hath, verily, ended. The Eternal Truth is now come. He hath lifted up the Ensign of Power, and is now shedding upon the world the unclouded splendor of His Revelation.166 The expression “Seal of the Prophets” is used by Muslims to mean that Muhammad was the last of the prophets. Baha’u’llah here applies this term to his own revelation. Elsewhere, Baha’u’llah writes:
have attained their highest and final consummation. Whoso layeth claim to a Revelation after Him, such a man is assuredly a lying impostor.167 The Bab, however, had indicated that there would be other manifestations to follow “Him whom God shall manifest” (Bayan IX, 9). Baha’u’llah declares, however, that another manifestation will not appear for 1,000 years: “Who layeth claim to a Revelation direct from God, ere the expiration of a full thousand years, such a man is assuredly a lying im- postor.”168 Baha’is believe the manifestations to come after Baha’u’llah will be, however, in the shadow of Baha’u’llah,169 meaning that their revelations will not be as resplendent. The Bab’s basic teaching concerning God and God’s revelation through the successive manifestations is fully incorporated into Baha’u’- llah’s teaching, as well as other Babi concepts. The important difference is that Baha’u’llah, in claiming to be the greater manifestation foretold by the Bab, shifted the Babi loyalty from the Bab as God’s spokesman of the age to himself and substituted for the Bab’s Bayan his own holy book, the Kitab-i-Aqdas.
recting of Babi aspirations from military to spiritual conquests. Since the Babi episodes with the shah’s troops, which had convulsed Persia for several years, resulting in the deaths of thousands of Persians (Babi and non-Babi), and the later open attempt to assassinate the shah by confessed members of the Babi religion, the Babi movement had gained the reputation of being an enemy to the government and aiming at its overthrow, thus sub- jecting the movement to severe persecution and political suspicion. Baha’u’llah determined to counter and reduce both the persecution and the poli- tical suspicion by (1) explaining the reason behind the Babis’ military exploits, (2) by setting forth the spiritual concerns of the Baha’is under his leadership, (3) and by stressing the Baha’i loyalty to government. The Babis’ Military Exploits The primary defense of the Babi uprisings is that the Babis were ignorant of the Bab’s teachings. Baha’u’llah, in his conciliatory letter to the Persian shah, as quoted by ‘Abdu’l-Baha, wrote that
ignorant persons formerly wrought was never approved,” for Baha’u’llah held that it is better to be slain for God’s good pleasure than to slay.170 This position is generally followed by Baha’is. Mirza Abu’l-Fadl explains the Babis’ military exploits in this manner:
merly Babis, and during the time of “Faitrat” (interval between two prophets or the time between the martyrdom of the Bab and the rise of Baha’u’llah) they had frequently departed from the limit of modera- tion, owing to the evil training of different leaders. Thus they had grown to consider many censurable actions as allowable and justi- fiable, such as disposing of men’s property and pillaging the defeated. This latitude and laxity of principle likewise extended to the conflict and bloodshed permitted by their former religion, Islam. The Babis generally were ignorant of the ordinances of the Bab and supposed them to be similar to the doctrines of the Shi‘ites, which they considered the source of the Babi religion. This ignorance was due to the fact that the Babis were strictly prohibited by the Persian rulers from holding intercourse with or visiting the Bab, while the latter was in prison. Thus they had been deprived of the opportunity of seeing Him and receiving instructions in His laws and ordinances. Warfare and pillage were absolutely violations of the fundamental basis of the Religion of Beha-Ullah, which was established for the express purpose of spreading universal brotherhood and humanity.171 Mirza Abu’l-Fadl, in defending the Baha’is in his audience before the governor of Tihran and Mazandaran and the commander-in-chief of the Persian army, maintains that the Baha’is ought not to be punished or persecuted because of the former actions of the Babis, because he holds that the two religions are distinct:
outset of the Cause can by no means be denied, nor can they be excused in any way, yet to arrest the Baha’is for the sins committed by the Babis is, in fact, the greatest error and oppression upon the part of the Government. For punishing an innocent one in lieu of the sinner is far from equity end justice. These unfortunate ones who are now subjected to the wrath and anger of the great Prince, have no connection with the Babis, nor are they of the same religion and creed; nor have they ever seen any of those Babis who fought against the Government. … Had the Bahais approved the conduct of the Babis and behaved accordingly they would not have become subject to their hostility and rancor.172 That the Babis were ignorant of the Bab’s teachings may have some basis of fact, for the Bab in the Bayan had ruled that unbelievers were not to be killed, that anyone slaying another person was not to be considered one of the believers (IV, 5). The intercourse between the Bab and his followers was not as restricted as is sometimes maintained, however,173 but the swiftness of events connected with the Bab’s ministry, his imprisonment for much of the period of his ministry, the dispersion of his believers in various parts of Persia, and the cataclysmic nature of the events of the latter part of his ministry were not calculated to render any wide diffusion or dissemination of his teachings practical.
against the government: “Know thou that We have annulled the rule of the sword, as an aid to Our Cause, and substituted for it the power born of the utterance of men.”174 “The sword of a virtuous character and upright conduct,” Baha’u’llah declares, “is sharper than blades of steel.”175
your tongue from the scabbard of utterance, for therewith, ye can conquer the citadels of men’s hearts. We have abolished the law to wage holy war against each other.176 More pointedly, Baha’u’llah declares: “By the assistance of God, the sharp swords of the Babi community have been returned to the scabbards through good words and pleasing deeds.”177 The reason Baha’is need not take up arms, according to Baha’u’llah, is because their mission is the reconstruction, not the destruction, of the world:
girded themselves to reconstruct the world. Their hosts are the hosts of goodly deeds, and their arms are the arms of upright con- duct, and their commander the fear of God.178 In books and tablets, by deeds, and testimony before public officials, the Baha’is under Baha’u’llah’s leadership attempted to manifest that the real nature of their movement was concerned with spiritual rather than military or political interests. Baha’i Loyalty to the Government Closely connected with Baha’u’llah’s interest in directing his followers to spiritual rather than political concerns was his interest in establishing the character of the religion centering in his person as being entirely loyal to governmental powers. Baha’u’llah’s teachings, similar to those of the Apostle Paul in Christianity, stress the right of those who govern as established by God and the need to render sub- mission to their authority. Baha’u’llah quotes with approval from Paul’s Epistle to the Romans that “every soul” is to “be subject to the higher powers.”179 In the spirit of Paul, Baha’u’llah in his Kitab-i-‘Ahd writes:
majesty and affluence. Pray ye in their behalf. The government of the earth has been vouchsafed unto them. But the hearts of men He decreed unto Himself.180 Elsewhere, Baha’u’llah decrees: “To none is given the right to act in any manner that would run counter to the considered views of them who are in authority.”181
Scripture, but one small volume, the Kitab-i-Aqdas (“Most Holy Book”), is considered as “the brightest emanation of the mind of Baha’u’llah, as the Mother Book of His Dispensation, and the Charter of His New World Order.” This book is Baha’u’llah’s book of laws, corresponding to the Qur’an, the Bayan, and sacred books of previous dispensations. The work was written in ‘Akka. A reference to the visit of “the king of Austria” to “the furthest Mosque” (al-masjid al-aqsa), an expression used in the Qur’an (17:1) to denote Jerusalem, is a reference to the Emperor Francis Joseph’s visit to Jerusalem in 1869. An allusion to Napoleon III of France who had “returned with great loss to the dust” would bring the books date to 1873, when Napoleon III died.183 That the work was composed before the spring of 1888 is known because Edward Browne at that time learned of its existence and later was given a copy of it.184 A printed edition with a Russian translation by Captain Tumanski was published at St. Peters- burg in 1899.185 No English translation of this most important work has yet been published-by Baha’is, although Shoghi Effendi delineates some of its basic features,186 and the Baha’is lately have published a codified summary of its contents. An English translation by non-Baha’is, however, is available, and the following summary of some of its features is based on that trans- lation. Shoghi Effendi has indicated that the laws of the Kitab-i-Aqdas are “absolutely binding” on Baha’is and Baha’i institutions in both the East and the West “whenever practicable and not in direct conflict with the Civil Laws of the land.”187
regulations. The Bab had ordained that house furnishings were to be renewed every nineteen years, but Baha’u’llah says that God will exempt the one unable to do this. The Bab’s prohibition against travelling to foreign lands is rescinded. The study of other languages is permitted. An important abrogation concerns the destruction of books: God has excused you from what was sent down in al-Bayan regarding the destruction of books. And we have permitted you to read of the learning (of the Islamic doctors) what is useful to you, but not that which results in controversy in speech.188 Baha’u’llah reduces the number of daily prayers from five, in Muslim practice, to only three, in the morning, at noon, and in the late after- noon. The qibla (direction to face when praying) is established as wherever the manifestation may be. All things previously considered ceremonially unclean are declared to be clean. Baha’u’llah sanctions the use of gold and silver vessels, which was forbidden by Muslim law.189 The wearing of silk, forbidden in Islam, is permitted.
are the following: Marriage is made obligatory, but Baha’u’llah warns against having more than two wives, and he declares it better to have only one. Baha’u’llah goes beyond the Bab’s law concerning marriage, which required only the consent of the bride and groom, to require also the consent of the parents. Baha’u’llah follows the Islamic marriage custom of requiring that a dowry (mahr) be paid by the husband to the wife, fixing the value between nineteen and ninety-fire mithqals of gold for urbanites and the same amount in silver for villagers.190 The dead are to be buried in coffins of crystal, rare stones, or beauti- ful hard woods, and engraved rings are to be placed on their fingers. The dead body is to be wrapped in five garments of silk or cotton, but for those unable to provide five, one is sufficient. Incumbent on every- one is the writing of a will in which one’s belief in the unity of God and his manifestation is confessed. Fathers are to educate their sons and daughters. Worship and fasting are required of every boy and girl after reaching maturity (age fifteen). Made incumbent upon everyone is the engaging in some occupation. As was true with the Bab, Baha’u’llah’s laws extend even to minute personal matters. Baha’u’llah enjoins his followers concerning the paring of nails and taking a bath every week in water that covers the body and in water not previously used by someone else. The pouring of water over the body rather that getting into water is declared the better practice. Baha’is are to wash their feet every day in summer and once every three days in winter.
dead may not be carried for burial farther than one hour’s distance from the city. The confession of sins before anyone but God is not permitted. Prohibited also are the kissing of hands as an act of homage, the mounting into pulpits, the carrying of arms except in times of necessity, the wor- ship of anyone but God, begging and giving to beggars, the opposing and killing of another person, the buying and selling of maid servants and
use of opium, and engaging in gambling. Divorce is not permitted until after a year, allowing time for a possible marital reconciliation.
penalty for killing someone by mistake is payment of 100 mithqals of gold. Adulterers and adulteresses must pay a fine to the House of Justice of nine
punishment and one who kills another intentionally should be killed, but it is allowable that these only be condemned to perpetual imprisonment. Thieves are to be punished by banishment and prison. A third offense requires a sign placed on the forehead so that thieves may be identified and kept out of “the cities and provinces of God.”191 Baha’u’llah also in the Aqdas sets out various requirements concerning the manner of worship and who may be exempted under certain circumstances. Also a complicated tax of inheritance is set forth.192
of God, the unity of religion, and the unity of mankind. He saw himself as the figure predicted in all the sacred Scriptures of past ages who would usher in mankind’s golden age of peace and unity. He Who is the Unconditioned is come, in the clouds of light, that He may quicken all created things with the breezes of His Name, the Most Merciful, and unify the world, and gather all men around this Table, which hath been sent down from heaven.193 He attempted to annul through his words all the laws and teachings of past ages which served only to divide man,194 he urged his followers to “consort with the followers of all religions in a spirit of friendli- ness and fellowship,”195 and he saw religion as a mighty force in molding men together and in thus bringing about the unity of the world.196 Transforming the Babi religion into a religion centering in his own person, he was thus in a position to make further .modifications, directing his followers from their more militant past to spiritual conquests, abrogating past laws and teachings which he felt were hindrances to his broader con- cerns, and adding his own teachings which were motivated throughout by a passionate desire to bring harmony and unity to the world. Baha’u’llah believed that he had created a religion destined to unite mankind in one universal faith and one world order. But he also saw that religion could be used to defeat the very purposes for which it existed: “The religion of God is to create love and unity; do not make it the cause of enmity and discord.”197 NOTES TO CHAPTER IV 1 Edward G. Browne, “Bab, Babis,” Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. by James Hastings (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1955), II, 301. 2 Lady Blomfield (Sitarih Khanum), The Chosen Highway (Wilmette, Ill.: Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1967), p. 50. 3 John Ferraby, All Things Made New (Wilmette, Ill.: Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1960), p. 215. 4 H. M. Balyuzi, Edward Granville Browne and the Baha’i Faith (London: George Ronald, 1970), p. 39 (hereinafter referred to as Browne). The quoted words are from Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By (Wilmette, Ill.: Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1957), p. 163. 5 Shoghi, God Passes By, p. 112. 6 Cf. Browne’s statement that the Bab “had nominated as his successor” Mirza Yahya (Edward G. Browne, A Year Amongst the Persians [3d ed.; A. and C. Black, 1959], p. 226, n. 2 [hereinafter referred to as Year]). 7 Shoghi, God Passes By, p. 114. 8 Edward G. Browne, ed. and trans., A Traveller’s Narrative
tion and Notes (Cambridge: University Press, 1891), Note W, p. 350 (hereinafter referred to as Traveller’s Narrative). See also Edward G. Browne, ed. and trans., The Tarikh-i-Jadid or New History of Mirza ‘Ali Muhammad the Bab, by Mirza Husayn of Hamadan (Cambridge: University Press, 1893), pp. xviii-xix (hereinafter referred to as New History), and Browne, “Bab, Babis,” p. 307. 9 Joseph Arthur Gobineau, Les Religions et les Philosophies dans l’Asia Centrale (Paris: Didier et Cie, 1866), p. 277; see Samuel Graham Wilson, Bahaism and Its Claims (New York: Fleming A. Revell Co., 1915), p. 184, n. 3. 10 Browne, Year, p. 352; see also pp. 366-67. 11 Browne, New History, Appendix II, p. 381; see also Edward G. Browne, ed., Kitab-i-Kaf, Being the Earliest History of the Babis Compiled by Hajji Mirza Jani of Kashan between the Years A.D. 1850 and 1852, edited from the Unique Paris Ms. Suppl. Persan 1071 (Leiyden, E. J. Brill, 1910. London: Luzac & Co., 1910), pp. xxxi-xxxii (hereinafter referred to as Nuqtatu’l-Kaf). 12 Browne, Nuqtatu’l-Kaf, p. xxxii. 13 Browne published both the text and translation of the document in his article “The Babis of Persia,” The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, XXI (October, 1889), 996-97. The English translation also appears in Appendix IV of the New History, p. 426. 14 Balyuzi, Browne, p. 39. 15 Edward G. Browne, trans., “Personal Reminiscences of the Babi Insurrection at Zanjan in 1850, Written in Persian by Aqa ‘Abdu’l-Abad-i- Zanjani, and Translated into English by Edward G. Browne, M.A., M.R.A.S.,” The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, XXIX (1897), 763 (hereinafter referred to as “Personal Reminiscences”); cited by Balyuzi, Browne, p. 39. 16 Balyuzi, Browne, p. 39, n. 4. 17 Browne, New History, Appendix IV, pp. 422-23. 18 See Richard Cavendish, The Black Arts (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1967), pp. 117-21. 19 Browne, New History, Appendix II, p. 381. 20 Browne, Traveller’s Narrative, p. 95, n. 1; see also p. xxiv and Note W, p. 374. 21 Balyuzi, Browne, p. 51; Blomfield, The Chosen Highway, p. 49. 22 Nabil-i-A‘zam (Muhammad-i-Zarandi), The Dawn-Breakers, Nabil’s Narrative of the Early Days of the Baha’i Revelation, trans. by Shoghi Effendi (London: Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1953), p. 55. 23 The National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is of the British Isles, The Centenary of a World Faith, The History of the Baha’i Faith and Its Development in the British Isles (London: Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1944), p. 10. 24 Browne, Nuqtatu’l-Kaf, p. xxxiv. 25 Browne, Year, p. 352. 26 ibid., pp. 366-67.
28 Browne, New History, Appendix II, pp. 346-47; see also Appendix II, p. 388 and p. 64, n. 1. 29 Browne, Traveller’s Narrative, p. 62. 30 ibid. 31 See Wilson, Baha’ism and Its Claims, p. 42. 32 Blomfield, The Chosen Highway, p. 50. 33 Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, trans. by Shoghi Effendi (Wilmette, Ill.: Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1963), p. 90 (herein- after referred to as Gleanings); Prayers and Meditations by Baha’u’llah, comp. and trans. by Shoghi Effendi (London: Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1957), pp. 107, 117, 140. 34 Mirza Abul Fazl, Hujaj’ul Beahaiyyeh (the Baha’i Proofs), trans. by Ali Kuli Khan (New York: J. W. Pratt Co., 1902), p. 52 (hereinafter referred to as Proofs). 35 ibid., pp. 52-53. 36 Shoghi, God Passes By, pp. 101-102. 37 Browne, Traveller’s Narrative, p. 98. 38 Shoghi, God Passes By, p. 63. 39 Browne, Year, p. 226, n. 2. 40 Browne, New History, Appendix IV, p. 426. 41 Shoghi, God Passes By, pp. 28-29. 42 ibid., p. 90. 43 ibid., p. 164. 44 See above, pp. 175-80. 45 See above, pp. 182-83. 46 Browne, Appendix II, p. 381. 47 Gobineau, Les Religions, II, 72-73, cited by William McElwee Miller, Baha’ism: Its Origin, History, and Teachings (New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1931), p. 72. 48 Browne, New History, p. xx. 49 ibid., p. xxi. 50 Browne, Traveller’s Narrative, p. 63. 51 Browne, New History, p. xxii. 52 ibid., Appendix II, p. 380. 53 Shoghi, God Passes By, p. 103. 54 Shoghi Effendi identifies him as Sadiq-i-Tabrizi (God Passes
55 Browne, Traveller’s Narrative, p. 53, n. 1. 56 ibid., Note T, p. 322. 57 ibid., p. 50. 58 Shoghi, God Passes By, p. 62. 59 Ruhiyyih Rabbani, Prescription for Living (London: George Ronald, 1960), p. 161. 60 Baha’u’llah, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, trans. by Shoghi Effendi (Wilmette, Ill.: Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1962), p. 21; see also Browne, Traveller’s Narrative, pp. 52-53. 61 Browne, Year, p. 111. The “master” whose martyrdom Sadiq was grieving was, according to Abu’l-Fadl, not the Bab but Sadiq’s master, a prominent Babi to whom he was devotedly attached (Abu’l-Fadl, Proofs, p. 46).
62 Peter Avery, Modern Iran (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1965), p. 65. 63 Edward G. Browne, comp., Materials for the Study of the Babi
64 Abul Fazl, Proofs, pp. 50-51; Browne, New History, Note W, p. 376. 65 Ruhiyyih Khanum, Prescription for Living, p. 162. 66 Browne, Traveller’s Narrative, Note W., p. 380. 67 ibid., p. 375. According to Mirza Yahya’s own testimony, he arrived a few days after Baha’u’llah. 68 ibid., p. 355; see also Browne, New History, p. xx. 69 Edward G. Browne, “Babiism,” Religious Systems of the World (London: Swan Soonnenschein and Co., 1905), p. 350. 70 Abul Fazl, Proofs, p. 51. 71 Browne, Traveller’s Narrative, Note W, p. 358. 72 Browne, New History, p. xxi; see above, p. 188. 73 Browne, Materials, p. 218. The followers of Dayyan (Mirza Asadu’llah of Khuy) called themselves Asadiyyun, or Asadis (Materials, p. 219). 74 ibid., p. 227; Balyuzi, Browne, p. 44. 75 Shoghi, God Passes By, p. 120; Browne, Traveller’s Narrative, p. 64.
76 David Hofman, Renewal of Civilization, Talisman Books (London: George Ronald, 1960), p. 21. 77 Baha’u’llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan: The Book of Certitude, trans. by Shoghi Effendi (Wilmette, Ill.: Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1960), p. 251. 78 Browne, Traveller’s Narrative, Note W, pp. 356-57. 79 ibid., p. 357, n. 1. 80 ibid., p. 357. 81 Browne, Nuqtatu’l-Kaf, p. xxxii; Balyuzi, Browne, p. 78. 82 Baha’u’llah, Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 251. 83 Baha’u’llah, The Book of Ighan, trans. by Ali Kuli Khan, assisted by Howard MacNutt (2d ed.; Chicago: Baha’i Publishing Society, 1907), p. 180. 84 Balyuzi, Browne, p. 78. 85 ibid., p. 79. 86 Browne, New History, pp. 315-16.
88 Shoghi, God Passes By, p. 127. 89 Baha’is date the Kitab-i-Iqan as written in 1862. Browne wrote in the Traveller’s Narrative (p. 27, n. 1) that it was written in Baghdad in A.H. 1278 (A.D. 1861-1862) but in a later article assigns the date as about 1855-1859 (Browne, “Bab, Babis,” p. 307). J. R. Richards maintains that the work was written in A.H. 1274 (A.D. 1857-1858) (The
ledge, 1932. New York: Macmillan Co., 1932], p. 56). 90 Baha’u’llah, Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 253. 91 ibid., p. 201. 92 ibid., p. 244. 93 ibid., p. 143. 94 ibid., p. 231. 95 ibid., p. 252. 96 ibid., p. 253. 97 Richards, The Religion of the Baha’is, p. 56; Miller, Baha’ism, p. 78. 98 One such passage is the following: “By God! This Bird of Heaven, now dwelling upon the dust, can, besides these melodies, utter a myriad songs, and is able, apart from these utterances, to unfold innumer- able mysteries. Every single note of its unpronounced utterances is im- measurably exalted above all that hath already been revealed, and immensely glorified beyond that which hath streamed from this Pen. Let the future disclose the hour when the Brides of inner meaning, will, as decreed by the Will of God, hasten forth, unveiled, out of their mystic mansions, and manifest themselves in the ancient realm of being” (Baha’u’llah, Kitab-i- Iqan, pp. 175-76). 99 Browne, Materials, pp. 275-87. 100 Browne, Traveller’s Narrative, p. 55, n. 3; Browne, “Bab, Babis,” p. 302; Browne, Nuqtatu’l-Kaf, p. xxxiii. Baha’u’llah was born in 1817. 101 E. E. Elder and William McE. Miller, trans. and ed., Al-Kitab Al-Aqdas or The Most Holy Book, by Mirza Husayn ‘Ali Baha’u’llah, “Oriental Translation Fund,” New Series Volume XXXVIII (London: Published by the Royal Asiatic Society and sold by its Agents Luzac & Company, Ltd., 1961), p. 34 and n. 4 (hereinafter referred to as Aqdas). 102 Myron H. Phelps, Life and Teachings of Abbas Effendi, New York & London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, the Knickerbocker Press, 1904), p. 30. 103 Richards, The Religion of the Baha’is, p. 59, citing Suratu’l- Haykal (A.H. 1308), p. 172f. 104 Elder and Miller, Aqdas, p. 45. 105 ibid., p. 45, n. 2. 106 ibid., p. 58. 107 George Townshend, Christ and Baha’u’llah (London: George Ronald, 1963), p. 77. 108 ibid., p. 78. 109 Balyuzi, Browne, p. 73. 110 Browne, Traveller’s Narrative, p. xvii; Browne, Nuqtatu’l-Kaf, pp. lxx, xxv-xxvi. 111 Browne, Nuqtatu’l-Kaf, pp. xxvii-xxviii; William McElwee Miller, “The Baha’i Cause Today,” The Moslem World, XXX (Oct., 1940), 381. 112 Browne, Traveller’s Narrative, p. 55 and n. 3; Shoghi, God
113 Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By, p. 103. 114 Browne, Traveller’s Narrative, Note W, p. 353; Browne, New
115 Browne, Materials, p. 117; Shoghi, God Passes By, p. 155. 116 Blomfield, The Chosen Highway, p. 59. 117 Ruhiyyih Rabbani, Prescription for Living, p. 173. 118 For the Azali version, see Browne, Traveller’s Narrative, Note W, pp. 358-59; for a Baha’i version, see Bahiyyih Khanum’s account in Phelps, Life and Teachings of Abbas Effendi, p. 40. See also Phelps’s reasons for believing the Azali version is a “transparent fabrication” (p. 42, n. 1) and Wilson’s objections to Phelps’s reasons (Baha’ism and Its
Firuiz Kazemzadeh, “Baha’u’llah’s Call to the Nations,” World Order, II (Winter, 1967), 10-14; and Shoghi, God Passes By, pp. 171-76. 120 See Wilson, Bahaism and Its Claims, p. 76. 121 Horace Holley, Bahaism: The Modern Social Religion (New York: Mitchell Kennerly, 1913), p. 164. 122 Browne, Traveller’s Narrative, p. 98. 123 ibid., Note W, p. 360; Shoghi, God Passes By, p. 360. 124 ibid., p. 100n. 125 ibid., p. 102n. 126 ibid., pp. xxxix-xl. 127 Browne, Year, pp. 558-61. Browne believes these numbers exceed the actual number of those involved (Traveller’s Narrative, Note W, p. 370).
128 Phelps, Life and Teachings of Abbas Effendi, pp. 73-75. 129 Balyuzi, Browne, p. 34. 130 E. Denison Ross, “Babism,” Great Religions of the World (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1912), p. 209n; Browne, Traveller’s Narrative, Note W, p. 370. 131 Browne, Traveller’s Narrative, Note W, p. 370. 132 Elder and Miller, Aqdas, p. 73; see also Browne, Traveller’s
133 Balyuzi, Browne, p. 82. The information that ‘Abdu’l-Baha interceded for the Baha’is involved in the murders was given to Browne by the Baha’i, Shaykh Ibrahim (Year, p. 561). 134 Shoghi, God Passes By, p. 221. 135 Horace Holley, “A Statement of the Purpose and Principles of the Baha’i Faith,” Baha’i Year Book, Vol. I (New York: Baha’i Pub- lishing Committee, 1916), p. 13. 136 Ruhiyyih, Prescription for Living, p. 178.
138 William Sears, The Wine of Astonishment, Talisman Books (London: George Ronald, 1963), p. 90. The Shah Bahram, the Zoroastrian Messiah, whom Baha’is identify with Baha’u’llah was to be a descendent of Hurmuz, the son of the last Sassanian king, Yazdagird III (d. 651 A.D.), whose rule was brought to a close by the Muslin invasions of Persia (Browne, Year, p. 484). 139 Phelps, Life and Teachings of Abbas Effendi, pp. xxiv-xxv; see also Browne, “Bab, Babis,” p. 303. 140 Browne, New History, pp. xxiv-xxv. 141 Samuel Graham Wilson, Modern Movements among Moslems (New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1916), p. 124. 142 Shoghi, God Passes By, p. 92. 143 Elder and Miller, Aqdas, p. 72 and n. 1. 144 Browne, Nuqtatu’l-Kaf, pp. xxiv-xxv. 145 Baha’u’llah, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, pp. 141, 142, 158. 146 Baha’i World Faith: Selected Writings of Baha’u’llah and ‘Abdu’l-Baha (Wilmette, Ill.: Baha’i Publishing Trust,1956), p. 202, here- inafter referred to as Baha’i World Faith). 147 Gleanings, pp. 244-45. 148 W. M. Miller, however, in his new book favors the view that the Bab did not use the term with the traditional Shi‘íte meaning. 149 Browne, Traveller’s Narrative, p. 3. 150 ibid., p. 3. 151 Ferraby, All Things Made New, p. 202. 152 Browne, Traveller’s Narrative, Note W, p. 359. 153 Richards, The Religion of the Baha’is, p. 81. 154 ibid., p. 82. 155 Baha’u’llah, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 41. 156 Gleanings, p. 228. 157 ibid., p. 49. 158 ibid., pp. 47-48. 159 ibid., p. 49. 160 ibid., p. 50. 161 Baha’i World Faith, p. 21. 162 ibid., p. 24. 163 ibid., p. 25. 164 Baha’u’llah, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 57. 165 Browne, Year, p. 340. 166 Gleanings, p. 60. 167 ibid., p. 224. 168 ibid., p. 346. 169 Ferraby, All Things Made New, p. 304. 170 Browne, Traveller’s Narrative, p. 115. See also ‘Abdu’l- Baha’s comments in the Traveller’s Narrative, pp. 35, 65. 171 Abul Fazl, Proofs, p. 63. 172 ibid., pp. 77-78. Abu’l-Fadl apparently means by the “Babis” in this last sentence the supporters of Subh-i-Azal; cf. Balyuzi, Browne, p. 26. 173 Ruhiyyih Khanum, widow of Shoghi Effendi, indicates that at Mah-kKu the Bab was allowed walks and that pilgrims “from the corners of the land” were “freely permitted to enter his presence.” She further refers to how the Bab in Chihriq was “at first rigorously confined” but how he gradually won over many who oppressed him, and the official in charge “would in spite of emphatic instructions he had received, deny no one access to the Bab, for whom he had conceived a deep attachment; on the contrary, large assemblies of pilgrims, seekers and local inhabitants would be permitted to gather, and to hear, spellbound, and hear His public discourses” (Ruhiyyih, Prescription for Living, pp. 141-44). 174 Gleanings, p. 303. 175 Baha’u’llah, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 29.
177 Baha’i World Faith, p. 173. 178 Baha’u’llah, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 74. 179 ibid., p. 91. 180 Baha’i World Faith, p. 209. 181 Gleanings, p. 241. 182 Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By, p. 213. 183 Elder and Miller, Aqdas, p. 48, n. 2. Shoghi Effendi says that the mark was “revealed soon after Baha’u’llah had been transferred to the house of ‘Udi Khammar” about 1873 (God Passes By, p. 213). 184 Browne, Year, pp. 328, 344. 185 Browne, “Bab, Babis,” p. 307. 185 Shoghi, God Passes By, pp. 213-16. 187 See The Baha’i World: A Biennial International Record, Vol. VI (New York: Baha’i Publishing Committee, 1937), p. 71. 188 Elder and Miller, Aqdas, p. 45. 189 ibid., p. 37 and n. 2. 190 “A mithqal is approximately five grammes or one-seventh of an ounce” (Elder and Miller, Aqdas, p. 38, n. 1). 191 Elder and Miller, Aqdas, p. 37. 192 ibid., pp. 24-31. See also Shoghi Effendi’s summary of the Aqdas (God Passes By, pp. 213-16). 193 Baha’u’llah, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 46. 194 ibid., pp. 33-34; Gleanings, p. 95. 195 Gleanings, p, 95. 196 Baha’i World Faith, pp. 180-98, 201; Baha’u’llah, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 28. 197 Baha’i World Faith, p. 209. Yüklə 2,06 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|