Chapter XII: Bahaism in America 263 (6)

But to find the supreme example of Bahai _tagiya_ we have to go to the fountainhead. Abdul Baha himself, oblivious to its moral obliquity, lays bare the fact in his "Traveller's Narrative."[474] We have seen that Subh-i-Azal, the half-brother of Baha Ullah, was appointed by the Bab as his successor. According to Abdul Baha, this appointment was a dishonest subterfuge on the part of Baha, arranged by him through secret correspondence with the Bab, in order that Baha might be relieved of danger and persecution and be protected from interference. So "out of regard for certain considerations and as a matter of expediency, Azal's name was made notorious on the tongues of friends and foes even to jeopardizing his life, while Baha remained safe and secure, and no one fathomed the matter." Abul Fazl[475] states the position of the "Traveller's Narrative" as follows, "The Bab and Baha Ullah, after consulting together, made Azal _appear_ as the Bab's successor. In this manner they preserved Baha Ullah from interference." This account shows the low ideas of honour and truthfulness in the minds of Baha and Abdul Baha. And although their explanation is not true (but an invention of their _tagiya_--_corrupted_ minds), it shows to what straits[476] they were put to explain away the succession of Azal, the legitimacy of which Azal still, in his ripe old age, maintains. Abdul Baha published to the world Baha's deceitfulness, but only made the matter worse for him.

Of a piece with this was the action of Baha's trusted agent, Maskin Kalam, in Cyprus. This Bahai was sent by the Turkish Government with Azal. "He set up a coffee-house at the port where travellers must arrive, and when he saw a Persian land he would invite him in, give him tea or coffee and a pipe, and gradually worm out of him the business that had brought him there. If his object were to see Subh-i-Azal, off went Maskin Kalam[477] to the authorities, and the pilgrim soon found himself packed out of the Island." This account is given by a faithful Bahai. Afterwards Maskin Kalam retired to Acca and spent his old age as an honoured guest of Baha.

FOOTNOTES:

[380] "Life of Abbas Effendi," p. xxxvii.

[381] "New Hist.," p. 236; "Trav.'s Narr.," p. 82.

[382] "Bahai Proofs," pp. 63, 77.

[383] "The Bahai Religion," p. 111.

[384] Quoted in "New Hist.," p. 373; comp. p. 61.

[385] Professor Browne's Introduction to Phelps, p. xxi.

[386] "New Hist.," p. 426.

[387] _Ibid._, p. xxvii.

[388] "Trav.'s Narr.," pp. 342-343.

[389] Browne's "A Year Among the Persians," p. 530. "If, instead of talking in this violent and unreasonable manner, you would produce the 'Bayan,' of which ever since I came to Persia I have been vainly endeavouring to obtain a copy."

[390] Its authors were Mirza Husain of Hamadan, M. Abul Fazl, and Manakji.

[391] Numerous magazine articles, and even the "Life of Abbas Effendi" have been written by Bahais, as if they were outsiders making observations.

[392] In his Introduction (pp. xxxii.-v.) to Mirza Jani, which he has had printed in Persian, Professor Browne says, "But for Count Gobineau it would have perished utterly. This fact is very instructive, that so important a work could be successfully suppressed," and "that the adherents of a religion could connive at such an act of suppression and falsification of evidence." "This fact is established by the clearest evidence."

[393] "New Hist.," p. xxix.

[394] _Ibid._, pp. xiv., xxxi.

[395] _Ibid._, p. xiv.

[396] "Encyc. Brit.," article, Babism.

[397] "Trav.'s Narr.," p. xlv. It (1) belittles the Bab and glorifies Baha--making the former simply a forerunner; (2) belittles the sufferings and deeds of Babis, passing over remarkable events almost unnoticed and magnifies inferior deeds of Bahais; (3) debases Azal, disregards his position as successor, disparages and scorns him as lacking in courage and wisdom; (4) tries to curry the favour of the Shah of Persia and excuses his persecutions, putting the blame on Mullahs and Viziers, deprecating the resistance and wars of the early Babis.

[398] Count Gobineau (p. 277) says, "There was some little hesitation about the successor of the Bab, but finally he was recognized as divinely designated, a young man of sixteen, named M. Yahya (Azal). The election was recognized by all the Babis."

[399] "Mirza Jani," p. xxxii.

[400] _Ibid._, p. xxxv. Professor Browne says, "When I was in Persia in 1887-1888, the Babis (Bahais) whom I met _feigned_ complete ignorance of the very name and existence of Subh-i-Azal."

[401] Page 64, note.

[402] "Abbas Effendi _suppressed_ all incidents and expressions not in accordance with later Bahai sentiment." "Of this I am certain that the more the Bahai doctrine spreads, especially outside of Persia, the more the true history is obscured and distorted" (Professor Browne in his introduction to "Mirza Jani," p. xxxvi.).

[403] Pages 36-38.

[404] One need not be surprised at this falsifying of claims and historical facts, for it is the testimony of the Bahai historian himself ("New Hist.," p. 5) that "the principal vice of the Persians is falsehood--so universal and customary and so familiar that truthfulness is entirely abandoned and ignored." "In matters relating to religion the Mullahs have shown themselves to be ready liars and shameless forgers." The degree of reliability of this History may be judged from the following sentence, "When the people of Italy had proved the extent of the Pope's hypocrisy, guile and deceit, they so effectually deposed him and his children and his grandchildren that naught remained of him but the appearance" (referring to 1870-1871). I have received a pamphlet by A. J. Stenstrand, of Chicago, called "Third Call to Behaists." He writes (p. 27), "The Babi history as well as their sacred scriptures prove that a terrible corruption, changing and transposing of its meanings, has been going on in the hands of the Behaists." Again (p. 28), "We have plenty of proofs that there has been continual corruption, interpolation, changing, transposing and stealing away the sacred scriptures of the Babi religion in the hands of the Bahais."

[405] Cf. _Jour. Roy. As. Soc._, 1892, p. 447.

[406] "The Alwah-i-Salatin," in Collections Scientifiques, St. Petersburg, 1877.

[407] "Trav.'s Narr.," pp. 108-164.

[408] _Jour. Roy. As. Soc._, 1892, p. 313.

[409] _Ibid._, p. 286.

[410] _S. W._, Sept. 27, 1913, pp. 9, 10, "If thou dost not obey God, the foundations of thy government shall be razed, and thou shalt become evanescent--become as nothing. If no attention is paid to this book, thou shalt become non-existent."

[411] The same explanation will account for the opposite narratives of the trial of Baha before the Turkish Court at Acca. Mr. Laurence Oliphant reports that the Court put the question to Baha, "Will you tell the Court who and what you are?" "I will begin," he replied, "by telling you who I am not. I am not a camel-driver (alluding to Mohammed), nor am I a carpenter."

[412] "New Hist.," p. xxv.

[413] "Facts for Behaists," p. 27. We mention a few of the important ones. (1) The so-called Tablet of Beirut, which confirmed the claim of Abbas, and was said to be transcribed by Khadim Ullah. The latter declared it to be a forgery by Abbas Effendi. (2) Abbas omitted the middle part of the "Tablet of Command" to make it certify his claims. A complete copy in Baha's own handwriting showed the subterfuge. (3) He combined parts of two different Tablets, called it the "Treasure Tablet," and claimed that it certified his succession. The two Tablets were produced and proved the falsity of the claim.

[414] "Facts for Behaists," p. 55. Afterwards Badi Ullah, who had accused the party of Abbas of making additions to the writings, with a purpose changed sides in the quarrel and accused Mohammed Ali of the same things--"interpolating," "erasing," "transposing," "replacing," "clipping and joining fragments," of the Tablets of Baha Ullah, besides issuing "a false writing in his name." Mohammed Ali is also accused of "carrying away by way of the window" two trunks full of the "blessed writings." See "Epistle to the Bahai World," by Mirza Badi Ullah, pp. 3, 5, 12-17.

[415] "Hidden Words," numbers 20, 37, 48.

[416] "Trav.'s Narr.," p. 123.

[417] "New Hist.," p. vii.

[418] _Ibid._, p. 353.

[419] "Trav.'s Narr.," p. 20.

[420] "New Hist.," p. 292.

[421] "Trav.'s Narr.," pp. 40, 41. Abul Fazl also is apologetic for the Shah, and says ("Bahai Proofs," p. 38), "Without seeking permission from the Shah, the Minister issued the order for his death."

[422] "Trav.'s Narr.," p. 259.

[423] In "New Hist.," p. xvii., Professor Browne says, "The Babis made no profession of loyalty, nor did they attempt to exonerate the Shah from the responsibility of the persecutions. To the Shahs, such terms as tyrant, scoundrel, unrightful king, are freely applied. The battle cry, 'Ya Nasr-ud-Din Shah,' is described as 'a foul watchword.'"

[424] "Trav.'s Narr.," p. 52.

[425] _Ibid._, pp. 104-106.

[426] _Ibid._, pp. 49, 50.

[427] Phelps, p. 13.

[428] "Beha Ullah," p. 411.

[429] "Trav.'s Narr.," p. 53.

[430] _Ibid._, p. 323.

[431] _S. W._, Oct. 16, 1913, p. 210.

[432] _Ibid._, July 13, 1913, p. 118.

[433] _Ibid._, Sept. 18, 1912.

[434] "Some Answered Questions," p. 37.

[435] Pages 77, 78.

[436] Page 63.

[437] "Tablets of Abdul Baha," Vol. I, p. 46.

[438] _S. W._, May 17, 1911, p. 6.

[439] Mrs. Templeton (previously Mrs. Laurence Oliphant), in "Facts for Behaists," tells of the unrighteousness of Abbas Effendi (Abdul Baha) in keeping from his brothers and stepmothers the pension money of the Turkish Government and the revenue of Baha's villages, and of his ostentatious charity in giving away part of these funds by distributing coins to a mixed crowd of beggars every Friday.

[440] _S. W._, May 17, 1913, p. 74.

[441] "Tablets of Abdul Baha," Vol. I, p. 44.

[442] _S. W._, _Ibid._, p. 67.

[443] _Ibid._, Sept. 8, 1912, p. 5.

[444] Phelps, p. 66.

[445] _Ibid._, p. 70.

[446] This house was purchased by an American Bahai lady, that it might remain in Bahai hands.

[447] "Bahai Proofs," by Abul Fazl, p. 66. Remey, p. 23.

[448] Mrs. Grundy, p. 73 ff., "Ten Days," etc., speaks of the Palace of Joy as a very large white mansion. Professor Browne was received here (1890). He was conducted through a spacious hall, paved with a mosaic of marble, into a great antechamber, and entered through a lifted curtain into a large Audience Room.

Of the Garden of Baha, Sprague ("A Year in India," etc., p. 1) says, "It is a veritable garden of Eden, with luxuriant foliage and every fruit. Baha Ullah used to sit under the large spreading tree and teach his disciples." Mrs. Grundy says, "The Rizwan is filled with palm trees, oranges, lemons and wonderful flowers. A river, the Nahr Naaman, runs through it, in two streams, on which ducks and other fowls swim. On an island is an arbour under two large mulberry trees. A fountain plays in the midst. Under the arbour is a chair where Baha used to sit. No one sits in it any more. (Mrs. Grundy knelt at the foot of the chair.) The garden has a cottage, where Baha spent his summers." A Palace and a luxurious summer place were Baha's "Most Great Prison" during most of his years at Acca. Compare Laurence Oliphant's "Haifa," etc., p. 103, for a fine description of his "pleasure ground." How unfounded are such statements as Bernard Temple's (_S. W._, p. 39, April 28, 1914). "All this while the founders were behind prison walls."

[449] Phelps, p. 75.

[450] _Ibid._, p. 80.

[451] Dr. H. H. Jessup, who visited him in 1900, writes (New York _Outlook_, June, 1901), "Abbas Effendi has two houses in Haifa, one for his family, in which he entertains the American lady pilgrims, and one down town where his Persian followers meet him."

[452] Abbas Effendi in Acca at this time visited Mr. Remey ("Bahai Movement," p. 108). He received American pilgrims. Mrs. Goodall ("Daily Lessons," p. 6) speaks of "His bountifully spread table," the laughter and good cheer, and (p. 13) remarks, "One would never realize he was visiting a Turkish prison."

[453] Doctor Shedd says, "Concealment of religious faith is a common practice in Persia, and it is approved and recommended by Bahais."

[454] Phelps, p. 101.

[455] New York _Outlook_.

[456] _S. W._, March 2, 1914.

[457] Phelps, p. xxxi.

[458] "Le Beyan Persan" (Paris), Introduction xvi.-xxiv., by A. L. M. Nicolas.

[459] "New Hist.," p. 252.

[460] "Trav.'s Narr.," p. 252.

[461] S. M. Jordan, of Teheran, says ("The Mohammedan World," Cairo, p. 130), "We are honestly open in our methods, while they are the reverse." Doctor Shedd says, "Christian Mission work is openly Christian, that of Persian Bahais is professedly Mohammedan." "Bahaism, as offered to a Jew, a Christian or a Mohammedan, varies greatly."

[462] _Missionary Review_, October, 1911.

[463] Phelps, p. 154.

[464] Miss A. Montgomery, in _Woman's Work_, 1913, p. 270, says of these Bahais, "This sect of Moslems, thirty years ago, were afraid to appear to be what they really were, they exercised the privilege of falsehood their deceitful faith grants them, and called themselves Christians."

[465] A European Jew reports as follows (1914), "The Jewish Bahais in Hamadan are few in number (exactly fifty-nine besides children). They have not yet broken with Judaism. They go to the Synagogue and follow outwardly our religious practices. They deny _in public_ that they are Bahais from fear of the Mussulmans, who detest the new religion. But the continual attacks of the Bahais against the Jews will exasperate our co-religionists, who will cast them out finally. At present the practical result is hatred and disdain, and bitter dissensions between fathers and sons, sisters and brothers, husband and wife."

[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."

Thus we have brother against brother, each accusing the other of attempting fratricide. How shall we settle the question of veracity? Mr. Phelps makes a plea for Baha, but his words lack foundation. He says that Azal's story "is a _transparent_ fabrication because it assumes an impossible ignorance on the part of Baha Ullah that Azal disliked onions, as well as the impossible hypothesis that Baha Ullah would knowingly partake of food in which poison had been placed." But neither of these "impossible" things are a part of the story. The first objection can only be taken, if at all, to Professor Browne's abridged account in the "Traveller's Narrative," and not to the original in "Hasht Behesht," which distinctly states that onions had communicated their flavour to the other side of the platter, contrary to intention; and, secondly, Baha supposed when he ate (according to the "Hasht Behesht" account) that the poison had not communicated itself to his side of the platter of rice. Those familiar with Persian _pillau_, or boiled rice, in which each grain is separate and dry, will see that it would ordinarily be quite possible to put onions and poison on opposite sides of the platter without either reaching the other side. Each man would help himself, according to Persian custom, from the side of the dish next to him. Moreover, it was customary to prepare the food for Azal in the kitchen of Baha.'[508] Up to the time of the incident they had both continued to live in the same house. This is evident from Baha's words in the "Sura-i-Haykal," where he says, "We went out, dwelt in _another house, neither did we see him afterwards_." This agrees with the "Hasht Behesht." In this and several other particulars the narrative of Bahiah Khanum is defective or misleading. Mr. Phelps' plea, on account of the character of the Bahais, begs the question. This charge and subsequent ones to be discussed, involve the integrity of Baha's character and that of his immediate disciples. The history shows no more reason to believe Baha than to believe Azal, but rather less.

2. The next charge of the Azalis is as follows:[509] "Shortly after this, another plot was laid against Subh-i-Azal's life, and it was arranged that _Mohammed Ali, the barber, should cut his (Azal's) throat while_ shaving him in the bath. On the approach of the barber, however, Subh-i-Azal divined his design, refused to allow him to come near, and, on leaving the bath, instantly took another lodging, and separated himself entirely from Mirza Husain Ali and his followers."

On the Bahai side, Bahiah Khanum says,[510] "One day in the bath Azal asked the servant (of Baha) 'whether it would not be easy for an attendant who was not faithful to Baha to make away with him while shaving him.' The servant replied that this was certainly the case. Azal then asked whether, if God should lay upon him the command to do this, he would obey it? The servant understood this to be the suggestion of such a command, and was so terrified by it that he rushed screaming from the room. This occurrence was ignored by my father, and our relations with Azal continued to be cordial."

Here we have two stories in direct contradiction to each other. It may be observed that the attendant or barber, who was that day serving Azal in the bath, as is agreed by both parties, was a partisan of Baha,[511] without doubt the same barber, Mohammed Ali, who subsequently murdered the Azalis,[512] and who was decorated by Baha with the title Dallak-i-Hakikat,[513] "The Barber of the Truth." It was much more natural that Azal should be suspicious of him than try to tempt him to kill Baha.

In either case, what do we see? Behold, these two "Manifestations of God" accusing each other of attempting assassination. They were brothers, both eminent disciples of the Bab, the "Point of Divinity" of the "new Revelation," both "revealers of inspired verses." The heart of each was full of hatred and envy and of desire to overreach the other. Neither is worthy of credence, both being steeped in Persian deception from childhood. Possibly, at that time, each was ready to compass the death of the other. The subsequent history, however, casts back its reflection upon the murder-plots at Adrianople, and in its lurid light the character of the Bahais grows darker. As a consequence, the charges of the Azalis against the Bahais become probable and are easily accepted.

3. The _proved assassination of Azalis by Bahais at Acca_. The quarrels and plots at Adrianople led to complaints of each party against the other before the Osmanli Government. For the sake of peace and safety they were separated. Azal was sent as a prisoner-pensioner to Famagusta, Cyprus. Baha was removed to Acca, Syria. The "Hasht Behesht" says:[514] "With the latter were his family, about eighty of his adherents, and four of Subh-i-Azal's followers, to wit, Haji Sayid Mohammed of Ispahan, Aga Jan Bey, Mirza Riza Kuli of Tafrish, and his brother Aga Mirza Nasrullah."

These Azalis were murdered by the Bahais in Acca. Of this crime there are many who give testimony, (_a_) The "Hasht Behesht" says:[515] "Before the transfer was actually effected, however, Mirza Nasrullah was poisoned by Baha, at Adrianople. The other Azalis were assassinated shortly after their arrival at Acca, in a house which they occupied near the barracks, the assassins being Abdul Karim, Mohammed the barber, Husain the water-carrier, and Mohammed Javad of Kasvin" (all attaches of Baha).

(_b_) Subh-i-Azal independently confirmed this account in conversation with Professor Browne.[516]

(_c_) Bahai testimony also confirms it. Professor Browne heard the story at Kirman from Sheikh Ibrahim, a Bahai, who had suffered imprisonment and torture for the faith, and who had seen some of the perpetrators while on a pilgrimage to Acca. He said,[517] "The Babis were divided into two factions. So high did feeling run that the matter ended in open strife, and two Azalis and one Bahai were killed" at Adrianople. "The Turkish Government sent seven[518] Azalis to Acca with Baha. They--Aga Jan, called Kaj-Kulah, Haji Sayid Mohammed of Ispahan, one of the original companions of the Bab, Mirza Riza, a nephew of the last, Mirza Haydar Ali of Ardistan, Haji Sayid Husain of Kashan, and two others whose names I forget--lived all together in a house situated near the gate of the city. Well, one night about a month after their arrival at Acca, twelve Bahais (nine of whom were still living when I was at Acca) determined to kill them and so prevent them from doing any mischief. So they went at night, armed with swords and daggers, to the house where the Azalis lodged, and knocked at the door. Aga Jan came down to open to them, and was stabbed before he could cry out or offer the least resistance. Then they entered the house and killed the other six." In consequence, "the Turks imprisoned Baha and all his family and followers in the caravanserai, but the twelve assassins came forward and surrendered themselves, saying, 'We killed them without the knowledge of our Master or of any of the brethren. Punish us, not them.' So they were imprisoned for a while; but afterwards, at the intercession of Abbas Effendi (Abdul Baha), were suffered to be at large, on condition of remaining at Acca and wearing still fetters on their ankles for a time."

(_d_) Mr. Laurence Oliphant gives an account of the Bahais at Acca in his "Haifa, or Life in Modern Palestine."[519] He substantiates the account of the assassinations, and narrates how Baha Ullah was called before the Osmanli Court to answer on the charge of complicity in them. He further states that after one session, Baha "purchased an exemption from further attendance at court _with an enormous bribe_."

(_e_) The defense, unable to escape the force of the damaging testimony or to deny the facts against such testimony, can only offer some excuses in extenuation. Bahiah Khanum[520] reduces the number of Bahais who made the attack on the Azalis to three, asserts that their intention was to threaten death and frighten but not to kill them, that but two Azalis were killed and also one of the Bahais, that the provocation was that the Azalis had slandered Baha Ullah, forged letters in his name, which incited the Government against him and were threatening to kill him, and further that Baha was not cognizant of their intention. But Professor Browne shows that Baha regarded the murder with some complacency at least,[521] and refers to it in the "Kitab-ul-Akdas," saying, "God hath taken away him who led you astray," viz.: Haji Sayid Mohammed, one of the murdered men, who was Azal's chief supporter. He also confirms the fact that Abbas Effendi interceded for the murderers and secured their freedom from adequate punishment. Just as Brigham Young[522] condoned and secured immunity from punishment, if he did not justify or instigate the crimes of his sect. Bahiah Khanum herself shows us that the murderers acted for the religion, and not from any private or personal motives; in other words, committed "religious assassination," after the traditional oriental custom.

The same is shown and more facts brought out in the defense made by Mohammed Jawad Gasvini.[523] He writes that the three persons mentioned above published tracts which were calculated to excite the populace against Baha and his adherents. One, Nasir Abbas of Bagdad, came from Beirut to kill them but was enjoined by Baha not to do so. Then "Some believers organized a secret meeting to put an end to these evil doers. The author was among them and was of their opinion." Baha again restrained them, so the author avers. But, he continues, "The following seven persons secretly determined to put out of the way the aforesaid intriguers" (here follow their names and occupations). "These seven began to consort with the intriguers very cordially, pretending that they were in accord with them and with their belief, and continued to do so for some time. But one afternoon they entered their residence, which was situated opposite the residence of the governor of the city of Acca, and there they killed the said Sayid Mohammed, and Aga Jan, and Mirza Riza Kuli. This took place in the year 1288 A. H., _i. e._, 1870 A. D. When the Government heard of the tragedy it arrested the said seven and arrested all the followers of Baha Ullah who were in Acca." All, including Baha Ullah, Abbas Effendi and the other brothers were imprisoned. Baha was released after three days, after being interrogated by the court. Sixteen of the Bahais were confined in prison for six months and the seven for terms of seven to fifteen years, afterwards reduced by one-third. Thus twenty-three out of about forty male believers were found guilty of the assassinations or of complicity in the plot.

4. Various and _sundry other assassinations for the faith_. According to the Azali historian, these murders were followed by many others. Certain disciples separated themselves from Baha. Of these some fled from Acca,[524] "but the Khayyat Bashi (chief tailor) and Haji Ibrahim were assassinated in the caravanserai of the corn-sellers and buried in quicklime under the platform. Another, Haji Jaffar, importunately pressed his claim for a debt of 1,200 pounds which Baha owed him. (I wonder whether it was incurred to meet the 'enormous bribe.') Thereupon Baha's amanuensis, Mirza Aga Jan Kashani, instructed a disciple, Ali of Kasvin, to slay the old man and throw his body out of the window of the upper room which he occupied in the caravanserai." It was then reported "that he had cast himself out and died, yielding up his life to the Beloved." "All the prominent supporters of Subh-i-Azal, who withstood Baha, were marked out for death,[525] and in Bagdad, Mullah Rajab Ali Kahir and his brother Haji Mirza Ahmad, Haji Mirza Mohammed Riza and several others fell one by one by the knife or the bullet of the assassin." The following others are specified with the place and name of the assassin,[526] "Aga Sayid Ali the Arab, one of the original 'Letters of the Living,' was killed in Tabriz by Mirza Mustapha of Nirak; and Aga Ali Mohammed by Abdul Karim; Haji Aga of Tabriz met a like fate, as did Haji Mirza Ahmad, the brother of the historian Haji Mirza Jani.[527] Another, whose faith had grown cold, was Aga Mohammed Ali of Ispahan, who was residing at Constantinople.[528] Mirza Abul Kasim was sent from Acca with instructions to "bleed that block of heedlessness whose blood is in excess." He robbed his victim of L350, with part of which he bought and sent goods to Acca. Another instance was Mirza Asad Ullah "Deyyan," who claimed to be a "Manifestation."[529] "Mirza Husain Ali (Baha), after a protracted discussion with him, instructed his servant, Mirza Mohammed of Mezanderan, to slay him, which was accordingly done." Count Gobineau confirms this account.[530] Concerning these crimes we have also the independent testimony of Subh-i-Azal, who mentioned most of these instances by name and added several others. Azal said to Captain Young, a British officer in Cyprus,[531] "About twenty of my followers were killed by the Bahais." He confirmed it in an autograph letter to Professor Browne, saying, "They (_i. e._, the Bahais) unsheathed the sword of hatred and wrought what they would. They cruelly put to death the remnant of my friends who stood firm." In the "New History"[532] Professor Browne names over the list of those assassinated, and adds, "Of the more prominent Azalis, Sayid Javad, of Kerbela (or Kirman), seems to have been almost the only one who long survived what the Azalis call 'The direful Disorder.'" In Kirman, Professor Browne said to the Bahais,[533] "From a statement of one of your own party, it appears that your friends at Acca, who complain so much of the bigotry, intolerance and ferocious antagonism of the Mohammedans, and who are always talking about 'consorting with men of every faith with spirituality and fragrance,' could find no better argument than the dagger of the assassin wherewith to convince the unfortunate Azalis."

5. The conduct of the primitive Babis and their leaders, and _their attitude towards the taking of life_,[534] has a bearing on the question of the conduct of the Bahais, for up to the time of the residence at Adrianople they were identical. The history of the Babis is a bloody one. The "first bloodshed which took place in Persia (in connection with the Babi movement) was the murder of a Shiah Mujtihid by one or more Babis." It was a "religious assassination." The circumstances were as follows,[535] When the Bab, as captive, passed through Kasvin, _en route_ for Maku, he wrote a letter asking succour from Haji Mohammed Taki, an orthodox Mujtihid, who was the father-in-law of the celebrated Kurrat-ul-Ayn. "The Haji tore the letter into fragments, and made some unseemly remarks." When this was reported to the Bab, he said, "Was there no one to smite him on the mouth?" The Bahai historian (1880) continues, "Wherefore the Lord brought it to pass that he was smitten in the mouth with a spear head that he might no more speak insolently." Shortly afterwards a certain Babi,[536] named Salih, hearing the Mujtihid curse and revile Sheikh Ahmad, the teacher of the Bab, entered the mosque and slew him at the pulpit. The Bahai historian continues, "This was the consequence of the Haji's conduct to the Bab, and agreeable to the tradition of the Imams, 'whosoever curseth us ... is an infidel,' and so he deemed it incumbent on himself to slay him."