Chapter XII: Bahaism in America 263 (2)

The latter phase of this claim we may dismiss in a word. It is simply a gloss. It is an imagination of enthusiastic Bahais. Neither Christians, Moslems, nor others will be thus included, except some few before they understand Bahaism. The only inclusion it offers is by accepting the divine character and mission of Baha and Abbas;[76] in other words, by becoming Bahais. When they address the Hindu, saying, "We are one with you," "We teach the original Hinduism of your fathers," it is simply to add: "Baha is the fulfillment of your books, follow him." When they allow the Jewish Bahai of Hamadan still to consort with the Jews as a Jew, and to be baptized and pass as a Christian at the same time, it is an inclusiveness which is unjustifiable and deceitful. It is teaching _tagiya_ or religious dissimulation to other races after the manner of the Persian Shiahs. It is, at most, merely a temporary subterfuge.

Let such double-faced Bahais read Remey's article in the _Star of the West_,[77] entitled "Let the New follow the New," and they will see how untenable is their position. He says: "The Bahai Cause is not merely one of many phases of universal truth (as some say), but is the only living truth to-day; the only source of divine knowledge to mankind. The revelation of Jesus was for His own dispensation--that of 'the Son.' Now it is no longer the point of guidance to the world. We are in total darkness if we are refusing the revelation of the present dispensation. Bahais must be severed from all and everything that is past--things both good and bad--everything. Now all is changed. All the teachings of the past are past. Abdul Baha is now supplying all the world." We read this, with amazement at such pretensions, such groundless assumptions, yet are pleased with the ring of sincerity. We, too, say, "Let a Bahai stand for Bahaism." Even so, let a Christian stand for Christianity, and not stultify his intellect by professing to hold to both religions. But such teachings as Remey's absolutely negative the claim of Bahaism to be able to include the professors of all religions. In conclusion, Bahaism aims at being universal just as every other "ism," even as Mormonism, by persuading the world to forsake its old faiths and adopt its new dogmas. Baha[78] states in a tablet: "Blessed is the brave one, who, with a firm step, walks out of the corridors of intimacy [the old religious restrictions] and takes a place in the ranks."

Is Bahaism fitted to be a universal religion? It has copied much from Christianity and Islam; it would not be strange if it has caught something of the same impetus towards universality. This is specially to be looked for in Bahaism, since it is historically a revision of Babism--revised with an aim to broadening it. Babism was notoriously unfitted to be universal. Dreyfus[79] confesses: "Looking at the Bab's work, we cannot fail to notice in it a certain sectarian particularism which would have confined to Shiah Islam its benefits." Similarly Professor Browne pronounced it[80] "utterly unfitted for the bulk of mankind," and refers to[81] "the useless, impractical, and irksome regulations and restrictions" which Baha abolished in order to make it more capable of becoming what he intended it to be--"a universal system suitable to all mankind." The question arises, Where was the Bab's power of supernatural revelation if he promulgated a system and regulations of such inferiority and destined to be superseded in less than a score of years? Among these regulations[82] were the prohibition of the learning of foreign languages, logic, philosophy, and jurisprudence, discouraging foreign travel, enjoining the expulsion of all unbelievers from the five chief provinces of Persia, together with the confiscation of their property, the destruction of all books more than 202 years old, etc.

Baha, like a tailor trying to change a misfitting garment, ripped up the seams, cut a piece out here and there, added some patches imported from Christian civilization, until he had a coat of many colours, which he advertised as the latest style of religion, fitted to humanity in general. But he should have heeded the precept not to put new cloth on an old garment. No wonder they have never yet published the "Kitab-ul-Akdas" in English. It would tax their ingenuity to adapt all its regulations and laws to the world-life.

Again I return to the question, "Is Bahaism specially adapted to be universal?" By no means. It is unfitted in the most essential particular. It is a religion of laws, not of principles. Mirza Abul Fazl, in "The Brilliant Proof,"[83] emphasizes the fact that Bahaism enjoins, commands, has imperative ordinances, laws, and enactments. But the Gospels enunciate principles. These principles of the New Testament are conscience-educating and life-directing. They are applicable to all conditions the world over, and to every stage of human development. Christianity implants in the heart great ruling motives. Its laws and regulations are few. Hence it does not find itself butting against a wall of unforeseen circumstances. Bahaism, on the contrary, is full of the "beggarly elements." It has regulations, as we have noticed, in regard to personal habits, hygiene, sociology, languages, the calendar, civil government, penology, etc. It is like an omnibus with its top overloaded with all sorts of baggage, which will delay and finally wreck the vehicle. It has made itself a "judge and divider of inheritances."[84] It gives directions as to the barber and the undertaker; how you must bathe and wash your face, and what prayers you shall say during each process. It directs as to the use of knives and forks, of chairs, of perfumes. It graciously permits one to shave his beard, but "the hair must not be allowed to grow below the level of the ear." It tells us that "the nails are to be cut at least once a week," that "every one should wash his feet daily in summer, and at least every three days in winter." And alas! for antique furniture and old Persian rugs! For house furnishings must be changed every nineteen years. In obedience to this command my old teacher in Persia got rid of his rugs, whose sheen was polished and colours were mellowed with age, and refurnished his house with gaudy modern rugs. In prescribing the Moslem fast and namaz (prayer-rite), with some modifications, Bahaism limits the spirit of liberty, which is the essence of universality.

Copying from the Bab, Baha has seen fit to regulate the calendar. Following the Zoroastrian custom, Baha ordains that the year begin at the vernal equinox--March 21--because that is the spring-time, the time of the renewal of vegetable life. Good! But in Australia it is the time of death--of the approach of winter. The reason assigned is not universal, and is not adapted to all climes. As has been said above, the months are ordained to be nineteen of nineteen days each, with four or five intercalary days in March. The week is abolished, that primitive division of time which has such a definite place in nature, in the phases of the moon, and is established in the three great monotheistic religions with their weekly Sabbaths. Instead of the latter is substituted the nineteenth day Unity feast. How do such changes aid universality or unification? Coinage, fines, taxes, and tithes are arranged on the number 19. Remey's book has nineteen chapters, as the "Bayan" has. _The Star of the West_, a magazine of the American Bahais, is published every nineteen days, and bears the Bahai calendar on its editorial page. Instances might be indefinitely extended. But later the number nine, the number of Baha, has come more into use. Abbas has set apart the ninth day of the month as well as the nineteenth for certain religious purposes. The Bahai era is sometimes dated from the declaration of the Bab in 1844, and sometimes from the birth of Baha in 1817. Are these innovations more an aid to universality than adherence to the established calendar and era, or than the decimal system or the metric system which the civilized world has been striving to extend? Professor Browne says: "What could be more impractical than the adoption of the number nineteen as the basis of measures or calculations?" It bears the mark of Oriental fancy rather than of divine revelation.

Another illustration of this point--namely, that Bahaism enjoins and regulates specifically, and does not, like Christianity, inculcate guiding principles, is seen in the law regarding civil government. In "Glad Tidings"[85] Baha teaches, as from God, that "although a republican form of government profits, yet the majesty of kingship is one of the signs of God. We do not wish that the countries of the world should be deprived thereof." "Statesmen should combine the two," and[86] "At present the form of government followed by the British nation seems good, for that nation is illuminated both with the light of kingship and consultation--_i. e._, parliament." "In the principal Laws [of Bahaism] affairs have been placed in the hands of just kings and chiefs, and the House of Justice." As a matter of opinion, I can join with Baha in expressing my admiration for the British Constitution, but prescribing it as a law of revelation is a different matter. A "universal religion" should be adapted to all conditions. It is a fact of history that when the tablet "Glad Tidings" was sent to Russia, section 15 was omitted. The Bahais suppressed this portion from expediency, and it appears thus mutilated in Baron Rosen's translation.[87] Is not this a high-handed way to deal with God's Word, as they profess to regard it? Is it not also conceivable that republics might take offense against Bahaism because it maintains monarchy, even as autocracies because it approves of parliamentary government? Had not a "universal religion" better let politics alone? Christianity could adapt itself even to the government of a Nero.

Another institution of Bahaism, ill-adapted to all races and conditions, and certain to bring the very conflict and strife against which it is supposed to guard, is the House of Justice. This is a religious court, with civil and political functions, to be set up in every town and country. It is to be composed of nine or more Bahai men. "They are divine agents, representatives of God." Much is said of this House of Justice in the Books of Revelation.[88] Dreyfus devotes a chapter to it.[89] It is to have legislative, judicial, and administrative functions. It will regulate estates, taxes, tithes, fines, capital and labour, marriage, divorce, inheritances, minors, servants, charities, reforms, houses of correction, schools, besides all matters of religion and morals. They will rule "absolutely," and be "infallible," "guided by God." It is the old dream of theocratic rule. I must leave it to the imagination of the student of history to picture the dire confusion which would ensue if this politico-religious hierarchy should begin its sway. Those who are familiar with the perpetual conflict between the urfi and the shari, the civil and the religious law in Persia, know how this proposed organization would work confusion worse confounded.

Similar to these invasions of the province of science and Caesar is the attempt to improve philology by "revelation." Following the Bab again, Baha Ullah promulgated a new alphabet. The Babi alphabet, unlike the Arabic and Persian, was written from left to right. "Each letter consists of thick, oblique straight lines, parallel and equidistant from each other, running down to the left, to which thin hooks and curves are appended to make separate letters." It is called the Khatti-Badi. There were nineteen kinds of it; one kind was called the Khatti-Baha. It was intended for the time when Babism would be prevalent. It appears that Bahais have a new alphabet, different from that of the Babis.

In the Akdas and in the sixth Ishrak[90] it is commanded that the "House of Justice" must select one tongue out of the present languages, or a new language, to teach the children in the schools of the world. Let us suppose they decide on Persian or Arabic. The Anglo-Saxon children must all begin to learn Arabic. Suppose they decide on English. Then Germans, French, and Russians will have an additional reason for opposing the religion. Suppose that Abdul Baha decides on Esperanto, as he seems inclined to do, then will it be heresy for some one to invent a language as much superior to Esperanto as it is to Volapuk? Had not a "universal religion" better let linguistics alone? The spirit of Christianity gives a free field to all tongues--this is the essence of liberty, of universality. After this brief review of some of the provisions of the "New Revelation," we can deny the claim that "its statutes meet the necessity of every land," and that they can serve the world well for 1,000 years.

FOOTNOTES:

[18] Phelps' "Life of Abbas Effendi," p. 144.

[19] "Some Answered Questions," by Barney, p. 19.

[20] _Star of the West_, May 17, 1913, p. 68. Abbreviated hereafter as _S. W._

[21] Page 158 f.

[22] "Story of the Bahai Movement," p. 23.

[23] Phelps, _ibid._, p. 256.

[24] Phelps, "Jewels of Wisdom," p. 237.

[25] _Ibid._, p. 145.

[26] _Ibid._, p. 144.

[27] "The Bahai Movement," p. 20.

[28] "Bahai Proofs," p. 78.

[29] Chase, "The Bahai Revelation," p. 178.

[30] _S. W._, March 2, 1913, p. 10.

[31] See _S. W._

[32] Addresses in New York and Chicago, 1900.

[33] _S. W._, p. 10, March 2, 1913.

[34] _S. W._, 1913, p. 267.

[35] Prof. E. G. Browne has translated various books of the Bahais; among them are "The Episode of the Bab," or the "Traveller's Narrative," and the "New History." His investigations and comments have given offense to the Bahais, while his praises of them often wound the Christian reader. I have been kindly permitted by Doctor Kheiralla to examine his English translation of the "Kitab-ul-Akdas" in manuscript.

[36] _S. W._, July, 1912. See Chapter X.

[37] See "Sacred Mysteries," p. 100.

[38] _S. W._, Sept. 8, 1913, pp. 170-174.

[39] See "Facts for Behaists."

[40] Dr. H. H. Jessup in N. Y. _Outlook_, June, 1901.

[41] "A Year in India and Burmah," p. 10. Compare the Trinities of the Nusaireyah, as given in "The Asian Mystery," p. 111. The first is Abel, Adam and Gabriel: after others, comes Simon Peter, Jesus and Rozabah; Ali, Mohammed and Salman the Persian. The first of each group, for example Peter and Ali, is the supreme manifestation, the _maana_, meaning or essence of God; the second of each group, Mohammed and Jesus represent the _ism-azim_, the Greatest Name: while the third, that is, Salman is termed the Bab. Baha is the Greatest Name. The place of Peter remains for Abbas.

[42] "Facts for Behaists."

[43] "Ten Days in the Light of Acca," p. 105.

[44] _S. W._, Nov. 23, 1913, p. 242.

[45] See Chapter IV.

[46] "Tablets of Abdul Baha," Vol. I, p. 10.

[47] "Some Answered Questions," pp. 129-131.

[48] _Ibid._, p. 148.

[49] "Beha' Ullah," by Kheiralla.

[50] "Trav.'s Narr.," pp. xlv, 62-63.

[51] "Trav.'s Narr.," pp. 359, 368-369.

[52] See _Ibid._, Index word "Assassination"; "New Hist.," pp. xxiii.-iv.

[53] _Ibid._, pp. 82, 278; "Trav.'s Narr.," pp. 361, 371.

[54] _Jour. Roy. As. Soc._, 1889, p. 516; 1892, pp. 994-995.

[55] 2 Thess. ii. 4 and 11.

[56] "Bahai Proofs," by Abul Fazl, p. 42.

[57] "New Hist.," p. 112.

[58] _Ibid._, p. 209.

[59] "Trav.'s Narr.," p. 289.

[60] "Bahai Proofs," pp. 67-68, 72.

[61] "Ighan," Chicago Edition, pp. vii-viii.

[62] "Proofs," pp. 258-259.

[63] "New Hist.," p. 381; "Trav.'s Narr.," pp. 353-354.

[64] _S. W._, Nov. 4, 1913, p. 224.

[65] "Life of Abbas," by Phelps, p. xxii.

[66] "Bahai Proofs," p. 93.

[67] Phelps, p. xvii.

[68] "New Hist.," p. xiii.

[69] _Ibid._

[70] Phelps, p. xviii.

[71] "A Year Among the Persians," p. 307.

[72] "Bahai Movement," p. 1.

[73] "Life of Abbas," p. 148.

[74] Remey, _Ibid._, p. 39.

[75] Phelps' "Abbas," p. 254.

[76] _Ibid._, p. xxi.

[77] December 13, 1913.

[78] _S. W._, Jan. 10, 1914, p. 282.

[79] "The Universal Religion," p. 43.

[80] "New Hist.," p. xiii.

[81] _Ibid._, p. xxv.

[82] _Ibid._, p. xxvi.

[83] Pages 31-32.

[84] Luke xii. 14.

[85] Section 15, p. 91, Chicago Edition.

[86] "Tablet of the World," p. 33.

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

[88] See "Glad Tidings," pp. 39, 90; "Words of Paradise," p. 53; "Tablet of the World," p. 33; "Israket," p. 37; and "Kitab-ul-Akdas."

[89] "Universal Religion," pp. 131-144.

[90] "Ishrakat," p. 36.

III

Its Specific Claims

Bahaism is a Persian delusion, whose headman Baha Ullah in Acre
claimed to be an incarnation of God. Abbas Effendi succeeded him and
is running the "incarnation" fraud for all it is worth, and it is
worth a good deal, as pilgrims constantly come from Persia and bring
their offerings in money with great liberality. Such men ... as the
Babites of Persia turn up now and then in the East, "go up like a
rocket and down like a stick."--_H. H. Jessup, "Fifty-three Tears in
Syria," p. 637._

I cannot understand how a Christian can possibly exchange the clear
consistent plan of salvation through Christ for the misty and mystical
platitudes of Bahaism.--_Ibid., p. 687._

Bahaism makes various claims of a practical nature. Some of these will require detailed treatment. Several of them I will group in this chapter. Additional light is thrown on the question of their validity by facts subsequently brought forward, for many facts have a bearing on several subjects.

Among the specific claims put forth by Bahaism is that of being _specially adapted to promote the unification of mankind_, and of accomplishing that end. Bahaism reiterates the Christian ideas that God hath made of one blood all nations and that all shall be united in God's spiritual kingdom. It repeats as a slogan, "the brotherhood of man." C. M. Remey[91] says: "The Bahai cause stands for the unity of all religions, political unity of nations, the social unity of all classes, peoples and races." "Its aim," says Harold Johnson, "is to knit all the faiths and all the peoples into one."[92] "The essential principle of the teachings of Bahaism is the unification of the religious systems of the world," says MacNutt.[93] This is a high ideal, which interpreted in their several ways is the aim of Christianity, Islam, Socialism, etc. And Bahai writers mean what all the other systems have meant, namely, unity by all accepting their beliefs, for Remey[94] says: "Baha Ullah's mission is to unite those now following many systems into one brotherhood and one universal faith.... May God speed the day when all of us may become true _Bahais_."

But the claim of Bahaism is presented in another form. It asserts that it is actually bringing about this unification. "Abdul Baha is harmonizing Christians, Jews, Mohammedans, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Hindus in the one and true faith."[95] Dreyfus says: "It is uniting all men in the great universal religion of the future." At Oakland, Cal.,[96] Abdul Baha said, "The revelation of Baha Ullah is the cause of the oneness of the world of humanity. It is a unity which welds together all the races." In illustration of this alleged result, the pilgrims to Acca express their gratification and amazement that at Acca several races meet together in love and unity. So in Rangoon, says Mr. Sprague,[97] "I attended a Bahai meeting at which six of the great world religions were represented united in the wonderful bond of friendship and unity." In like manner Mr. Harold Johnson says, "What Christianity has failed to accomplish, Bahaism has accomplished in uniting men of different races and religions." If these assertions mean external association, it may be said that Christians have had their Parliaments of Religions and Congresses of all faiths, examples of polite toleration and laboratories of the science of religion. If it means that Christianity refuses to put itself on a level with other religions and consort with them as equals, this is true, for Christianity is an exclusive religion. It has entered the world, as it entered the Roman empire, to displace all others. It refuses to have Christ occupy a niche in the Pantheon. But Bahai writers mean rather that Bahaism is to be the bond of unity by all races and religions accepting Baha. In this sense their claim is based on very meagre premises. A few thousand only, outside of Persia, have embraced Bahaism. Harold Johnson says: "The Non-Mohammedans do not number probably very many thousands." But do we not see myriads gathering into the Christian brotherhood out of every race and religion of Asia, including even thousands from Islam. Thirty thousand Moslems have become Christians in Malayasia in Abdul Baha's lifetime. In Asia how many races and religions, forgetting their former antagonisms, are united in the faith and baptism of the Lord Jesus Christ. As an example of the living power of the Christian faith to unite the races of men, take the Conference of the International Christian Students' Federation, held at Lake Mohonk, N. Y. There Hindus and British, Japanese and Koreans, Russians and Chinese, Greeks and Armenians, French and Germans, Canadians and Brazilians, Americans and Mexicans represented the wide world. Mutual esteem, love and spiritual fellowship united members of the various Protestant Churches with representatives of the Oriental Churches. The unity in Bahai Assemblies is on so small a scale as to be not worthy of mention. How little Abdul Baha knows of or appreciates the reality and power of Christian spiritual fellowship is shown in his remarks at West Englewood, N. Y.[98] "This gathering (of Bahais) has no peer or likeness upon the surface of the earth, for all other gatherings and assemblages are due to some physical basis or material interests. Bahai meetings are mirrors of the kingdom." When Abdul Baha speaks about the results of Bahaism in bringing about unification in Persia, his claims seem utterly extravagant. To one who knows that country from long residence they are explicable only on the supposition that he has been misinformed or deceived by his own followers, for it must be borne in mind that Abdul Baha left Persia when a child of six or eight and has never returned. Hear these words which Abdul Baha addressed to Rev. J. T. Bixley, who was writing on the Sect in the _North American Review_: "The fundamental question is the unification of religious belief. In Persia, during the last fifty years[99] ... the various religionists have united in the utmost love and fellowship. No traces of discord or difference remain: the utmost love, kindness and unity are apparent. They live together like a single family in harmony and accord. Discord and strife have passed away. Love and fellowship now prevail instead. Whether they be Moslems, Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Nestorians, Shiites, Sunnis or others--no discord exists among them." In an address at New York,[100] he said:

"In the Orient different races were at constant warfare until about sixty years ago Baha Ullah appeared and caused love and unity to exist among these various peoples. Their former animosities have passed away entirely. It was a dark world, it became radiant.... You now see the same people who were formerly at enmity and strife in far-off Persia, people of various religions and denominations living in the utmost peace." "His Highness, Baha Ullah, established such unity and peace between the various communities." What does such language mean? At their face value these words are erroneous in a high degree. All know indeed that in Persia bigotry and religious and racial hatred have been modified. In bringing this result about, Bahaism has had a share along with Western civilization and education, the Nationalist movement, medical missions, and even Pan-Islamism, for the latter has tended to bring Shiahs and Sunnis nearer to each other. But it is notorious how great the enmity and hatred is yet; how the Kurds have raided the Shiahs and massacred or plundered the Nestorians and the Armenians: how the Moslems oppress the Armenians in Karadagh: how Sheikhis have suffered from Mutasharis; and Ali Allahis continued the practice of tagiya for fear of them both. If Parsees enjoy more ease, it is through the efforts of their co-religionists in India; if Christians are safer, it is through the favour of the Shahs and the power of Christian governments: in neither case is it due to Bahaism. The union with the Bahais of possibly a dozen Armenians, a few score Zoroastrians and several hundred Jews cannot be the basis for such extravagance of language: neither can the rejection by Baha of the Shiah notion that other religions are "unclean," for Sunnis all along held the "peoples of the Book" to be "clean" and Christians of old learned to "call no man common or unclean."

As to unification, how is it? Babis were divided off from Sheikhis, and Bahais from Babis, and Behais from Bahais and the flames of hate and vindictiveness burn hotter between them than between the older sects and races, while the Shiahs curse and at times persecute Babis and Bahais. Instead of unity the Babi-Bahais have brought a greater division of sects: instead of love renewed fires of animosity and fanatical hate. In view of these conditions, how unreasonable for Abdul Baha to say that "through the power of Baha Ullah, such affection and love is produced among the various religions of Persia that they now associate[101] with each other in the utmost love and concord."

Passing now to another phase of this subject, let us inquire what means are prescribed for religious unification. The chief means seems to be the forbidding of the right of private interpretation or opinion. Abdul Baha writes[102] that he is "the Interpreter of all the works and books of the Blessed Perfection. Were this not the case, every one would give an interpretation according to his own inclination--this would lead to great differences." This point is more plainly stated by M. Abul Fazl:[103] "One of the explicit commands of Baha Ullah is the ordinance abrogating differences which separate men.... If those having two points of view, engage in strife in expressing their views, both will be delivered to the fire.... Bahai law prohibits the interpretation of God's word and exposition of personal opinion ... lest different sects arise." "You must ask him (Abdul Baha) regarding the meaning of the texts of the verses. Whatsoever he says is correct. Without his will, not a word shall any one utter."[104] Baha Ullah "made provision against all kinds of differences, so that no man shall be able to create a new sect ... indicating the Interpreter so that no man should be able to say that he explains a certain teaching in this way and thus create a new sect."[105] After Abdul Baha whenever the House of Justice is organized, it will ward off differences. But though the right of private judgment was denied, yet a new sect arose and bitter disunion occurred over the question of the Infallible Interpreter.

Another Bahai scheme to promote unity is the adoption of one language to be a universal language; another is the amalgamation of all the races by the marriage of blacks and whites, and all indiscriminately; another is the discouragement of patriotism or any special love for one's country or people, teaching an internationalism in the words, "Let not him glory who loves his country, but let him glory who loves his kind." These points need not detain us, nor need we stop to enlarge on the fact that the new calendar, feasts, rites, laws, weights and measures, etc., tend to disunion.

_The claims of Bahaism in regard to its relation to the movement for peace and arbitration_ require consideration. Abdul Baha at Boston[106] said: "Baha Ullah spread the teaching of Universal Peace sixty years ago, when it was _not even thought of_ by the people. He sent tablets to kings advising this." He wrote to Mr. Smiley of Lake Mohonk, "The matter of International Peace was instituted by His Highness, Baha Ullah, sixty years ago in Persia." Dreyfus[107] says: "Long before these ideas, i. e., peace, brotherhood and arbitration, had taken form among us, at a time when the Bab himself had sometimes excused the use of arms for the propagation of religion, Baha Ullah had made these high principles the one basis of his religion." Remey[108] states this claim yet more strongly, saying: "Peace, arbitration, in fact universal civilization _were unthought of_, when over half a century ago these teachers (Baha Ullah and Abdul Baha) announced their message." Again, "Christ states that His dispensation is to be a militant one, which would be followed by another of peace. Baha Ullah has now brought that peace to the world. He is the Prince of Peace who has established the foundations of peace on earth."[109]

Now as to the facts. Bahaism certainly does advocate peace and arbitration, in common with Tolstoism, socialism and many schools of thought. Baha said to Professor Browne at Acca, in 1886: "This fruitless strife, these ruinous wars shall pass away and the Most Great Peace shall come. These strifes and this bloodshed and discord must cease and all men be as one kindred and one family." In accordance with this, Abdul Baha declares[110] universal peace and an international Court of Arbitration to be fundamental principles of Bahaism. The Court will be called the House of Justice and will be composed entirely of Bahais. "Disputes will find a final sentence of absolute justice ... before the Bahai House of Justice. War will be suppressed."[111]

It is good to have such a programme approved by one raised in a Moslem environment. Yet it is evident that the claim to priority and originality regarding it, constitute a grave anachronism and betray ignorance of or perversion of history. Both the ideals and the programme were in existence and in partial operation long before the time of Baha Ullah. In the first place, Bahai teachings on peace are but an echo of Christian hopes and doctrines of "peace on earth: good will to men." Baha has but thrown on the screen again the vision of the seers of Israel who foretold the age when "men shall learn war no more." The hopes of the prophets, the longings of saints, the anthems of the worshipping church found voice through the Christian centuries, with a faith never dimmed, a desire never quenched, anticipating that

"Then shall wars and tumults cease,
Then be banished grief and pain,
Righteousness and joy and peace
Undisturbed shall ever reign."

Baha's teaching, though growing up in Islam, is transplanted from Christian soil. He repudiates the teaching of Mohammed regarding "holy wars." "The first Glad Tidings is the abolition of religious warfare from the Book," _i. e._, the Koran. What Bahais would do in case of provocation, accompanied by reasonable opportunity of success, is not evident. The Babis were fierce warriors (1848-1850) and the Bab expected that wars would continue. In the "Bayan" he makes provision for the distribution of the spoils.[112] Baha, together with Azal, started for and tried to join the army at Tabarsi,[113] and was absent from participation in its sanguinary conflict, solely because his arrest by the Persian authorities at Amul prevented him from reaching the fort. After his release he fell under suspicion because[114] he "not improbably harboured designs of setting up a standard of revolt on his own account." He was, therefore, rearrested and sent to the capital. But during his exile in Turkey, he tried to be reconciled to the Shah of Persia. Following this change of policy, he was able to claim later[115] that "for nigh upon thirty-five years no action opposed to the government or prejudicial to the nation has emanated from this sect." The Bahais did not join in the effort to establish constitutional government in 1908-1911.[116] They have never had an even chance to fight for their own cause and it remains to be seen what they would do in such a case. There is no assurance that they would act like Quakers or Dukhobors, for even Abdul Baha at times identifies himself and his cause with the fighting Babis and appropriates their martial glory. He said to Mr. Anton Hadad:[117] "When in Persia we were very few but owing to animosity we stood before our numerous enemies, fought and defeated them and gained the victory." He wrote a prayer on behalf of the American army for the use of Bahais: "O God! Strengthen its soldiers and its flag."[118] In his teachings, he leaves several pretexts for the prosecution of war. He says:[119] "War is sometimes the foundation of peace. If, for example, a sovereign should wage war against a threatening foe or for the unification of the people, this war may be attuned to peace: this fury is kindness; this war is a source of reconciliation." In his scheme for arbitration, one is reminded of the old saw, "we must have peace even if we have to fight for it." For he says: "If any nation dares to refuse to abide by the decision of the international court, all the other nations must arise and put down this rebellion, ... they must rise up and _destroy it_, ... band together and _exterminate it_."[120]

As to the claim that Baha _originated_ the movement for universal peace and international arbitration, it only deserves consideration because it is apparently put forth in sincerity. It absolutely contradicts history. In fact the movement for "peace on earth" has long been an active one in Christian lands, and arbitration has long been recognized and employed as a method for promoting peace." "Under the influence of religious and feudal ideas," says Professor Moore,[121] "arbitrations were very frequent in the Middle Ages, which offered the remarkable spectacle of conciliation and peace making way." Treaties were made which provided for arbitration. In Italy there were one hundred arbitrations in the thirteenth century. In the following centuries they were frequent in Europe. Sometimes a king acted as arbitrator between kings or between king and people. At other times a city, as for example the Republic of Hamburg, or a great juristconsult or a Professor of a University acted in this capacity. More often "the predominance of the popes constituted them natural judges of international cases." Projects for universal peace were put forward. One of the most celebrated was formed by Sully, the minister of Henry IV. The Abbe de St. Pierre in 1713 published a scheme for the federation of Christian States, with a central council to decide all disputes. Grotius strongly advocated arbitration as a means of avoiding war and the placing of nations under obligations to settle disputes peaceably. Bentham in the eighteenth century proposed a plan for a common tribunal to maintain universal and permanent peace.[122] Fox, Penn and the Quakers, from Christian principles, strenuously opposed war. There were nine principal arbitrations between the United States and Great Britain, France and Spain from 1794 to 1863.

In 1815, before Baha's day, the Massachusetts Peace Society was formed and in the following year the American Peace Society "to promote universal permanent peace through arbitration and disarmament."[123] For this purpose World Congresses were held at London 1843, Brussels 1848, Paris 1849, Frankfort 1850, London 1851, etc., and with great enthusiasm. Men like Elihu Burritt, Victor Hugo, Richard Cobden, John Bright and Charles Sumner led in advocacy of the cause. Tennyson, too, saw the vision of peace,

"In the Parliament of men, the Federation of the World,"

and the Scottish bard declared,

"It's coming yet for a' that
When man to man, the world o'er,
Shall brothers be and a' that."

We can easily conceive how these ideas would penetrate the Near East and how Baha Ullah in Turkey caught an echo of them and was happily influenced to become himself an advocate of peace.

But what becomes of the claims of Abdul Baha and other Bahais, mentioned above, that Baha, in 1863-1867, "_instituted_ the movement for peace and arbitration" that he advised it to kings "when it had not even been thought of," "before the attention of Western thinkers had to any degree been directed towards universal peace." They are like so many claims made by Bahaists, utterly groundless. Such statements, when made by Abdul Baha, we may attribute to ignorance of the history of the Occident, but this does not excuse American advocates of Bahaism for endorsing such errors.

I need not discuss the assertion of Bahais that the Millennium began in 1844[124] or at latest in 1892, nor the announcement that the Most Great Peace will be inaugurated in 1917, which they declare to be the end of the 1335 days of Dan. xii. 12.[125]

_Another claim made for Bahaism is that it is a rational and undogmatic religion._ Remey[126] says: "It does not put forth doctrine or dogma.... It is a religion free from dogma." It is "logical and reasonable." Dreyfus denounces "dogmatic religions," and claims that Bahaism has paved the way for the harmony of religion with free thought."[127] With these accord the words of Abdul Baha to Pastor Monnier in Paris.[128] "Our aim is to free religion from dogmas. Dogmas are the cause of strife. We must give up dogmas." Now it is evident that Bahaism has not a fixed body of doctrines: that it has not a definite and clear system of theology. But it is very dogmatic in the common usages of that word. Webster defines it as (1) positive, authoritative, and (2) as asserting or disposed to assert with authority or with overbearing and arrogance. Is not Bahaism a mass of assertions? For example, Baha declares that "the universe hath neither beginning nor ending." Abdul Baha adds the comment:[129] "_By this simple statement_ he has set aside elaborate theories and exhaustive labours of scientists and philosophers." Similarly he is said to have settled by a single word all discussions about divine sovereignty and free agency. Abdul Baha might be called the Lord of dogmas, for from his dicta none must vary by a hair's breadth. Remey himself dogmatizes as follows: "The religion of Baha is the cause of God, outside of which there is no truth in the world." Much in Bahaism must be taken on faith, without logical proof. Professor Browne[130] puts it mildly when he says: "The system appears to me to contain enough of the mysterious and the transcendental to make its intellectual acceptance at least as difficult as the theology of most Christian churches to the sceptic." Elsewhere he says:[131] "It must be clearly understood that Babism (or Bahaism) is in no sense latitudinarian or eclectic, and stands therefore in the sharpest antagonism to Sufism. However vague Babi doctrine may be on certain points, it is essentially _dogmatic_, and every utterance or command uttered by the Manifestation of the Period, _i. e._, Bab or Baha Ullah or Abbas Effendi must be accepted without reserve."[132] Similarly Dr. G. W. Holmes[133] writes: "Baha's appeal is only to his own word and to his own arbitrary and forced interpretation of the Word of God, which interpretations, as he states, find their sanction solely in his own authority."

There are other claims of Bahaism of a specific nature which might be considered. They would be found equally assertive and equally groundless. Bahaism reminds me of a horse which was offered for sale in Persia. It appeared like a fat and well fed animal. But the would-be purchaser was warned that its skin had been puffed up with air which would soon leak out, and he would have on his hands a lean, lank, bony _yabi_ scrub. Bahaism does not even stop short of claiming that the civilization of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries is due to it. Its braggart attitude may be fittingly symbolized by Rostand's "Chanticler," standing in the barnyard, flapping its wings in vain exultation, imagining that it, by its crowing, has caused the sun to rise.

FOOTNOTES:

[91] "The Bahai Movement," p. 73.

[92] _Contemporary Review_, March, 1912.

[93] In "Unity Through Love."

[94] "The Bahai Movement," p. 39.

[95] _Ibid._, p. 27.

[96] _S. W._, Oct. 1912, p. 190.

[97] "Story of the Bahai Movement," p. 4.

[98] June 29, 1912.

[99] _S. W._, Sept. 27, 1912.

[100] _S. W._, Sept. 8, 1912.

[101] Professor Browne, in the Ency. of Ethics and Religion, article "Bab," writes: "The Bahais are strongly antagonistic alike to the Sufis and the Mohammedans, but for quite different reasons. In the case of the Sufis they object to their latitudinarianism, their Pantheism, their individualism and their doctrine of the inner light. With the Mohammedan they resent the persecutions they have suffered. The Bahais detest the Azalis, the followers of Abbas Effendi dislike and despise the followers of his brother Mehemet Ali."

[102] _S. W._, Aug. 20, 1914.

[103] "Brilliant Proof," pp. 26-28.

[104] _S. W._, Nov. 23, 1913, p. 238.

[105] _S. W._, April 9, 1914.

[106] _S. W._, July 13, 1913, p. 122.

[107] "The Universal Religion."

[108] "Bahai Movement," p. 75.

[109] Page 54. In Dealy's "Dawn of Knowledge," the chapter on Baha Ullah is entitled "Prince of Peace."

[110] _S. W._, Vol. IV, pp. 6, 8 and 254.

[111] "Answered Questions," p. 74; "Tablet of the World," p. 28.

[112] "Trav.'s Narr.," p. 287.

[113] "New Hist.," pp. 378, 379.

[114] _Ibid._, p. 380.

[115] "Trav.'s Narr.," pp. 65-67.

[116] See Chapter VI.

[117] "A Message from Acca," p. 9.

[118] Tablet "9," p. 8, published by the New York Bahai Council.

[119] "Principles of the Bahai Movement," pp. 43, 47, Washington, 1912.

[120] _Ibid._, pp. 43, 45.

[121] "International Arbitrations," pp. 4826-4833.

[122] New International Ency., Art. "Arbitration," p. 713.

[123] _Atlantic Monthly_, Vol. XCIV, p. 358.

[124] _S. W._, March 21, 1914, p. 8.

[125] Dealy's "Dawn of Knowledge," p. 44; Kheiralla's "Beha Ullah," pp. 480, 483.

[126] Tract "Peace," pp. 8 and 14; "Bahai Movement," p. 89.

[127] "The Universal Religion," pp. 21, 44.

[128] _S. W._, April 28, 1913, p. 55.

[129] _S. W._, June 5, 1913, p. 90.

[130] Phelps, p. xviii.

[131] Ency. of Religion and Ethics, Art. "Bab."

[132] See also his "Literary History of Persia," p. 422.

[133] "Missions and Modern History," by Robert E. Speer, p. 171.

IV

Bahaism and Christianity

The whole Bahai movement is in fact, whatever it may have been in the
mind of its originator the Bab, a counterfeit of the Messiahship of
Christ. At least this is the side of it that is turned towards both
Christians and Jews. All that relates to the second coming of Christ
in the Old Testament or the New is bodily appropriated by Baha to
himself and everything in them relating to God is boldly applied to
himself.... It will bring a few of the Persians nearer to Christ. By
far the greater number of its adherents will be brought into more
active antagonism to Christianity than before.--_G. W. Holmes, M. D.,
in Speer's "Missions and Modern History," Vol. I, p. 169._

Can Bahaism make good its claim to be the fulfillment of and
substitute for Christianity? It has no place for Christ except as one
of a series, one, moreover, whose brief day of authority closed when
Mohammed began to preach in Mecca.... If the claim be admitted that
Bahaism is a republication of Christianity, the whole interpretation
of the death of Christ contained in the Epistles must first be
rejected.--_W. A. Shedd, in "Miss. Rev. of World," 1911._

Abdul Baha says: "Some say Abdul Baha is Antichrist. They are not informed of Bahai principles. Baha Ullah[134] established Christ in the East. He has praised Christ, honoured Christ, exalted Him, called Him the Word of God, the Spirit of God, and spread His mention."[135] These words could be written with the name Mohammed substituted for Baha Ullah. But in the case of both of them it is the kiss of betrayal. Judas also made known Jesus. Both Mohammed and Baha write "ex" before His title "King of Kings." To accept Baha and Abdul Baha is to deny and forsake Christ.

I hear some Christian say: "Of course. What you say is self-evident. Bahaism is a new religion whose aim is to supplant Christianity." This is true. Yet _the claim_ is put forth by Bahais, and, more strangely, it is accepted by some Christians, _that the two religions are not antagonistic, and may be held at one time by the same person_. To an esteemed Christian lady I expressed my regret that a certain doctor, forsaking Christ, had gone as a Bahai missionary to Persia. The reply startled me: "Doctor----is very much a Christian." Yet why was I startled? It was simply hearing an idea with which I was familiar in the writings of the Bahais. Sydney Sprague says: "The true Bahai is also the truest Christian."[136] Charles M. Remey says: "To be a real Christian in spirit is to be a Bahai, and to be a real Bahai is to be a Christian," for "Bahai teaching is only the perfection of Christianity."[137] A report of an interview of Rev. R. J. Campbell, of City Temple, London, with Abdul Baha, states the claim of Bahaism as follows: "It does not seek to proselyte. One can be a Bahai without ceasing to be a Christian, a Jew, or a Mohammedan."[138] In accordance with this idea, Thornton Chase and some Bahais in America continued to worship and teach in Christian churches, and to have their dead buried by pastors. Some in London, in connection with the City Temple and St. John's Church (Canon Wilberforce's), profess both Christianity and Bahaism. Of Southern India, Dr. A. L. Wylie said: "It is said that there are thirty-five Bahais in our city [Ratnagiri]. Some of these are Christian converts. They continue to be Christians, saying that they can remain such and are instructed to do so." Such an erroneous idea, when not due to the misrepresentations of the leaders and Oriental _tagiya_ ("dissimulation"), must arise from ignorance of or dislike to true Christianity or ignorance of what Bahaism is.

I. Bahaism assigns Christianity a place as but one among the true religions. Bahaism indorses and accepts in the same category with Judaism and Christianity, as true and divinely revealed religions, Zoroastrianism, Confucianism, Brahmanism, Buddhism, Mohammedanism, Babism, and Bahaism. Abdul Baha says: "The reality of the religions is one, the difference is one of imitation."[139] Remey says: "Bahais consider all religions to be, from a spiritual standpoint, one religion."[140] "Every religion has had its birth in the advent of its divine founder."[141] "The founders of the world religions have been seers as well as channels of truth to the people."[142] It tries to build on all the other religions by professing to be the fulfillment of each one. "The Bahai propaganda in India," says Sprague, "has not the difficulty that besets a Christian missionary, that of pulling down: his duty is only to build on what is already there. He sees the Hindu, Buddhist, and Mohammedan with the same eye, acknowledges their truth and shows that a further revelation has come through Baha Ullah."[143] It says to each one, Baha fulfills your traditions and prophecies.[144]

But this liberality is only apparent. Only original Buddhism, Christianity, etc., was God-given and true. Now all are corrupted. "The key-note of Bahai teaching is identical with the Christian, but in Christianity it was so forgotten that it came almost as a fresh, new illumination from Baha."[145]

Christianity refuses to be classed with the ethnic religions. In its nature it is exclusive. It admits that there is a measure of truth in all religions, but Christ's gospel is the truth "once for all" delivered to men.

II. Bahaism claims to abrogate and supersede Christianity. Bahaism in its origin is a Mohammedan sect. It declares that Islam is from God. Christianity was a divine revelation, but Islam was a better one. In the "Ikan," Baha maintains the validity of Islam, testifies to its truth, defends Mohammed's prophetic mission as the fulfillment of the New Testament prophecies, and the Koran as the Book of God.[146] Abdul Baha exalts Mohammed, and declares that he "gave more spiritual education than any of the others,"[147] _i. e._, than Moses or Jesus. He justifies Mohammed's life and conduct, and defends his laws and doctrines."[148] He declares that "whatever European and American historians have written regarding His Highness Mohammed, the Messenger of God, is mostly falsehood.... The narrators are either ignorant or antagonistic."[149] Christians have therefore been in the wrong for thirteen centuries. They have sinned against God, and were a stiff-necked and perverse people in rejecting Mohammed, as the Jews were in rejecting Jesus the Christ. "If those who have accepted a revelation refuse to believe a subsequent revelation, their faith becomes null and void."

Similarly Babism abrogated Islam. At the Badasht (Shahrud) Conference (1848) the law of the Koran was formally declared to be annulled. Baha abrogated Babism in the Rizwan at Bagdad in 1864. Bahaism is the New Covenant, "which confirms and completes all religious teaching which has gone before."[150]

Christianity is, according to this, a system of the distant past. It was effective in its day, for "the Christian teaching _was_ illumined by the Sun of Truth: the Christian civilization _was_ the best,"[151] concedes Abdul Baha. But now, says Remey, "Bahaism is not one of many phases of Universal Truth, but _the Truth_, the only Living Truth to-day, ... the only source of Divine Knowledge to mankind.... Abdul Baha's word is the Truth.... There are those who will say, 'Have we not Jesus? We want no other.' The Revelation of Jesus is no longer the Point of Guidance to the world. We are in total blindness if we refuse this new Revelation which is the end of the Revelations of the past.... All the teachings of the past are past.... Only that which is revealed by the Supreme Pen, Baha Ullah, and that which issues from the Centre of the Covenant, Abdul Baha, is spiritual food."[152] Bahaism in proclaiming thus the abrogation of Christianity is emphatically antichristian.

III. Bahaism casts Christ from His throne as the unique manifestation of God. Bahaism recognizes two classes of prophets: (1) The independent prophets, who were lawgivers and founders of new cycles. Of this class were Abraham, Moses, Christ, Mohammed, the Bab, and Baha. (2) The others are dependent prophets, who are as "branches." Such were Isaiah and Daniel. All the greater prophets, of the first class, were Manifestations of God.[153] So Bahaism continues to honour Christ as the Incarnate Word, the Spirit of God, God manifest in the flesh. At the same time it exalts Baha to supreme and unique dignity and glory above Christ and all prophets. In order to understand this essential, fundamental doctrine of Bahaism, we must know its doctrine concerning God and His Manifestation.