An historical analysis of critical transformations
Yüklə 2,06 Mb.
|
|
here and excisions there, and had docked and re-arranged the matter, he used to make a fair copy. And since Manakji had no great skill or science in the Persian tongue, the style of most of the books and treatises attributed to him is disconnected and broken, good and bad being singled together. In addition to this defect, ignorant scribes and illiterate writers have, in accordance with their own fancies, so altered the Tarikh-i-Jadid that at the present day every copy of it appears like a defaced portrait or a restored temple, to such a degree that one cannot obtain a correct copy of it, unless it were the author’s own transcript; otherwise no copy can be relied upon.46 The bulk of the New History purports to be the narrative of a Babi acquaintance whom the author met in Persia. Browne attributes the introductory and concluding sections of the history, before and after this narrative, to Manakji, the Zoroastrian agent in Tihran.47 The statements about the author’s not being a Persian, nor Muslim, nor Babi, and about the Persian language not being his mother-tongue, state- ments which occur in these sections, certainly would be true of Manakji.48 A reference to “a certain illustrious Seyyid,” described as bring a ‘holy and beneficent [translation of javad or jawad] being”49 may be a reference to Haji Siyyid Javad of Karbila, to whom Abu’l-Fadl suggests that Mirza Husayn take the text of the New History for final review and correction50 and may supply internal evidence of Haji Siyyid Javad’s having some part in the production of the New History.51 Browne originally questioned Siyyid Javad’s having had a share in the produc- tion of the New History because of the ascription to Siyyid Javad of the authorship of the Hasht Bihisht (Eight Paradises), which has strong- ly marked Azali proclivities,52 and because of Mirza Yahya’s assurances to Browne that Siyyid Javad was one of his staunchest followers.53 Browne obtained a copy of the Hasht Bihisht, which he calls “a hitherto unknown Ezeli controversial work,”54 from “a learned Ezeli resident in Constantinople,”.55 to whom Browne refers in his writings as “Sheykh A___,”56 identified as Sheykh (or more preferably, Shaykh) Ahmad of Kirman (called Ruhi),57 who was one of Mirza Yahya’s sons-in-law and who was put to death in Tabriz in 1896.58
represented the teachings and sayings of the illustrious Haji Seyyid Jawad of Kerbela, who was of the “First Letters of the Living,” the earliest believers. … But, inasmuch as during his latter days the strength of that illustrious personage was much impaired and his hands trembled, he was unable to write, where- fore he dictated these words, and one of his disciples wrote them down, but in an illegible hand and on scattered leaves. In these days, having some leisure time in Constantinople, I and this person exerted ourselves to set in order these dis- ordered leaves. In short the original spirit of the contents is his [i.e. Seyyid Jawad’s], though perhaps the form of words may be ours. Should you desire to mention the name of the author of these two books it is Haji Siyyid Javad.59
that he had lately learned that “Aka Seyyid Jawad of Kerbela, a promi- nent member of the clergy at Kirman” was “the author of both volumes of the Hasht Bihisht.”60 Browne notes, however, that Abu’l-Fadl had categorically denied that Siyyid Javad was a follower of Mirza Yahya,61 and if not an adherent of Mirza Yahya, his authorship of the Hasht Bihisht would be highly unlikely. In his article for the Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, Browne identifies the author of the Hasht Bihisht as Shaykh Ahmad.62 Still later, however, Browne says in reference to the Hasht Bihisht: To Shaykh Ahmad-i-Ruhi of Kirman we are indebted, at any rate so far as the final recension is concerned (far as to the original authorship some doubt prevails), for the only attempt with which I am acquainted to elaborate a comprehensive philo- sophy of the Babi doctrine, both theoretical and practical.63
and systematic study than I have yet been able to give it,” but says, “I am disposed to think that the author has imparted into it a system
thought.”64 It is possible, then, and perhaps probable, if Siyyid Javad is not the author of the Hasht Bihisht, that he had some part in the production of the New History, as internal evidence may imply. The evidence would seem to indicate, therefore, that at least four known persons had a share in the production of the New History: Mirza Abu’l-Fadl, who wrote the opening two pages and suggested its method of composition; Mirza Husayn of Hamadan, author of the book in its original form; Siyyid Javad, who may have helped in some revision; and Manakji, largely responsible for the opening and closing sections which enclose the historical narrative and for the overall form. But the New History as it exists today gives evidence of even further revision and interpolation.
he collated for publication had a “multitude of variants and diver- gences.”65 Browne was informed by Sidney Churchill on December 14, 1887, that he had obtained a manuscript of the New History for the British Museum Library and invited Browne to examine it on his return to England. Browne next heard of the existence of this history at Shiraz on March 30, 1888, from some of his Babi acquaintances.66 He was given eventually a copy of the history while in Persia by the Babis (actually Baha’is) in Shiraz. Browne returned to England in the autumn of 1889 and made considerable use of the history in his two articles on the Babis for the Journal of the Royal Asiatic
before examining the British Museum Library copy of the New History. On this second experience in Persia, Browne had been admitted into the presence of Baha’u’llah and had acquired also a copy of ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s Traveller’s Narrative, the publication of which upon his return to England occupied most of his life. He did manage, however, to go to London for three weeks during the Easter vacation of 1891 and examined for the first time the text of the British Museum Library’s copy of the New History. He then detected the many variants between this copy and his own copy and several long episodes not in his manuscript. The work of collating the two manuscripts thus proved more laborious than he had intended. Browne also made a more careful effort to be as accu- rate as possible with the English translation of the New History because, due to costs, he did not plan to publish the Persian text as he had with the earlier published Traveller’s Narrative.68
found only in the British Museum Library copy (which Browne labels L. for London Codex) is enclosed in single square brackets, and material found only in his copy (which he labels C. for Cambridge Codex) is enclosed in double square brackets. Browne speaks of the London Codex as “superior in accuracy, neatness, and calligraphy” to his own copy,69 and since it was transcribed in Rajab A.H. 1298 (June, 1881), it was written during Mirza Husayn’s lifetime and, Browne believes, possibly under his supervision.70
peculiar to itself reveals that at least two additional revisers have interpolated material into the original text. Browne holds that, whereas in the case of classical or ancient texts, which are principally of literary interest, scholars detecting interpolations by ingenious copyists over the ages would excise such additions to produce a more accurate, text, rather in the case of interpolations in the New History, which has an interest more historical than literary, the interpolations may be just as valuable as the original text, for no one but a Babi would copy the book, and such an one might well add from his own knowledge new and important facts of which the authors were not cognizant. Indeed, as a matter of fact, some of the most interesting portions of the Tarikh-i-Jadid are evidently interpolations of this sort, several of them being actually introduced by the words “thus says the reviser of this history,” or “thus says the transcriber.”71 In one passage in C., “the reviser of this history” even identifies himself by name as “Nabil, a native of Alin.”72 Date of the New History As to the date of the New History’s original composition, Browne writes: The allusion to the Ikan73 on p. 26 proves that the New History was written subsequently to that work, which was composed in A.D. 1858; the allusion to Baha’u’llah’s “Manifestation” on p. 64 carries the date down to A.D. 1866;74 while the reference to the Shah’s tour in Europe (presumable the first)75 on p. 181 brings it down to A.D. 1873. This last date would in any case be the earliest admissible, for on p. 174 the Babis are said to have endured nearly thirty years of persecution, while on p. 321 this number is raised to thirty-five by one manuscript.76
had to have been written no later than that date and, according to Browne, no earlier than September 6, 1873, when Nasiru’d-Din Shah returned from Europe, to which the writer refers. According to Abu’l-Fadl, it was written after Mirza Husayn’s release from the imprisonment due to the troubles in A.H. 1291 (A.D. 1874) and after his employment in the office of Manakji, who urged Mirza Husayn to write his history.77 Also according to Abu’l-Fadl, after Mirza Husayn had completed the first volume of the projected two volumes of his history, “fate granted him no further respite, for he died in the city of Resht is the year A.H. 1299 [= A.D. 1881–2).77 Browne assigns 1880 as the date for the writing of the
follower of Baha’u’llah after Baha’u’llah’s declaration of his mission. The history, however, gives no prominence to Baha’u’llah and events connected with his ministry as does the later written Traveller’s Narrative. The focus of the New History is on the Bab and his dispen- sation, covering events from before the Bab’s declaration through the Bab’s martyrdom and the retrieval of his mutilated body by his followers. A few references to Baha’u’llah occur in which he is portrayed in an exalted light, but mention is made that “the mystery of whose real nature was still hidden within the veils of the divine Wisdom.80 The author does indicate his intention of writing a second volume, and Mirza Abu’l-Fadl believed that he intended the first volume to center on events connected with the Bab’s ministry and the second to focus on the circumstances of the Most Holy and Most Splendid Dawn,”81 that is, on Baha’u’llah. According to the author’s account, however, the planned second volume was to present particulars of their [the religion’s] principles and observances, explanations of certain points of transcendental philosophy, and a detailed description of their virtues, their ethics and and rules of conduct, and the sincerity and singleheartedness, which I have myself observed in them.82
continuation of the history but as a volume of Babi-Baha’i principles, philosophy, and ethical requirements to serve evidently as a companion volume to the historical account. The New History was sent to the Baha’i chiefs in ‘Akka but failed to win their full approval, partly because, whether it was due to the principal author’s death or otherwise, the volume cuts short the history at the point of the Bab’s martyrdom and thus does not cover what Baha’is consider the more important events connected with the later manifestation of Baha’u’llah. One of the Baha’is whom Browne met in Persia said of the New History:
portion of his work to abuse of the Muhammadan doctors and reflections on the Persian Government, while, on the other hand, he omits many events of real importance. Besides that, I do not like his pretence of being a French traveller; for we all know, and indeed anyone who reads his book can see, that be was not a European.83
Supreme Horizon [to Baha’u’llah at ‘Akka], but was not altogether approved there, and I believe that another and more accurate history is to be written. However, you will learn a good deal from this one.”84 The history being prepared to replace the New History is, of course, the Traveller’s Narrative. Since the New History did not meet the complete approval of Baha’i leaders in ‘Akka, who proceeded to prepare another volume, the New History should not be regarded as official Baha’i teachings and outlook, and criticism against the Baha’is because of the tenor of the New History is not fully justified. The volume, however, does have value in throwing light an various historical events and in enabling the student of Baha’i history better to trace the developing tradition. The Kitab-i Nuqtatu’l-Kaf Browne knew of the existence of an older Babi history from reading the New History, which contains numerous quotations from the earlier work. After repeated disappointments trying to obtain a copy or to learn if any copies still existed, Browne finally concluded that the work probably was no longer extant.85 While on a short stay in Paris during the Easter vacation of 1892, however, Browne examined five Baha’i manuscripts acquired by the Bibliothèque Nationale which had once been owned by Count Gobineau, whose study of Central Asian religions and philosophies, as noted above,86 had first inspired Browne’s interest in the Babi religion. One of the manuscripts, identified in the National Library as Suppl. Persan 1071, was a history of the Babi religion, and another of the manuscripts, Suppl. Persan 1070, contained the Persian Bayan and the first third of the same history with no break between the end of the Bayan and the beginning if the history.87 Browne sent a description of the five manuscripts to Mirza Yahya (Subh-i-Azal) and
history to which you allude must by certain indications, be by the uplifted88 and martyred Hajji [Mirza Jani],89 for none but he wrote [such] a history.”90 Browne considered the Kitab-i Nuqtatu’l-Kaf (the Book of the Point of K) to be unsurpassingly important to an accurate understanding of the origin and development of the Babi religion. He calls the work “perhaps the most important document which exists for the history of the early Babis,” being “the oldest and most authentic account of the stirring events of the years A.D. 1844-1851 or 1852, presented from the Babi point of view, which we possess.”91 Elsewhere Browne calls it “the most interesting book, perhaps, in the whole range of Babi literature.”92
of the New History was already completed and arrangements made for its publication, but Browne believed the Nuqtatu’l-Kaf to be the much more important book. Browne now came to believe that it was “a most fortu- nate circumstance” that the Syndics of University Press, Cambridge, were reluctant to incur the great expense of publishing the text of the New History when accepting the English translation,93 for Browne was now more eager to publish the Persian text of the Nuqtatu’l-Kaf than that of the New History. Browne published the Nuqtatu’l-Kaf in 1910 as Volume IV of the E. J. W. Gibb Memorial Series, consisting of impor- tant and rare Turkish, Persian, and Arabic works.
believed that he had caught the Baha’is, apparently to his own shock and disappointment, in a grand scheme of “suppression and falsifica- tion of evidence.”94 The New History, he discovered, omitted and altered sections of the Nuqtatu’l-Kaf which were detrimental or unfavorable to the changes being effected under Baha’u’llah’s leader- ship. With all pertinent material of the Nuqtatu’l-Kaf being trans- ferred into the New History by quotation or restatement, Browne believed the Baha’is then conspired to suppress and destroy completely the original history. He writes: This fact is very instructive in connection with the history of other religions, for it is hard for us, accustomed to a world of printed books and carefully-guarded public libraries, to realize that so important a work as this could be successfully suppressed; and equally hard to believe that the adherents of a religion evi- dently animated by the utmost self-devotion and the most fervent enthusiasm, and, in ordinary every-day matters; by obvious honesty of purpose, could connive at such an act of suppression and falsi- fication of evidence. The application of this fact, which, were it not established by the clearest evidence, I should have regarded as incredible, I leave to professional theologians, to whom it may not be devoid of a wider significance. Of this such I am certain, that the more the Baha’i doctrine spreads, especially outside Persia, and most of all in Europe and America, the more the true history and nature of the original Babi movement is obscured and distorted.95 The importance which Browne attached to the Nuqtatu’l-Kaf is fully justified if the document is the history of Mirza Jani, who was mar- tyred in 1852, because it then would give the earliest account of the Babi community which is available and would reveal those features of the faith prior to the rivalry between Baha’u’llah and Subh-i-Azal.
consideration that non-Baha’i studies have followed Browne in regard- ing the Nuqtatu’l-Kaf as the earliest history of the Babi movement and it is used as a basis for attacking the character of the later developing Baha’i movement, which is then seen as being engaged in suppression and falsification of evidence which the Nuqtatu’l-Kaf has brought to light. J. B. Richards, for example, writes:
“Nuqtatu’l-Kaf” in the National Library, Paris, in the spring of 1892 was an event of far-reaching importance to all students of Baha’ism. It is to this discovery that we owe the fact that to-day we are in a position to trace the development of the Babi-Baha’i movement from its very beginning. The writer of the book was Mirza Jani, a native of Kashan in Persia, who was himself martyred in the year 1268 A.H. (A.D. 1852), two years after the death of the Bab. He had been acquainted with all the leading Babis, including Mirza Yahya Subh-i Ezel, Qurratu’l- ‘Ayn, Baha’u’llah and the Bab himself, and was therefore well qualified to write the history of the movement. Writing at a time when Babism was as yet undivided, and suppression of the truth was unnecessary, Mirza Jani is our one authority for the history of the movement up to the death of the Bab, and the events of the two years that immediately followed. Its impor- tance cannot be exaggerated, for … the histories which suc- ceeded it so alter and amend the facts that they cannot be regarded as histories, and must be classed as polemical works.96
rescue the Baha’i reputation by maintaining that the Nuqtatu’l-Kaf “was not what it was supposed to be, and what Browne believed it to be.” Browne’s “outlook was profoundly affected,” he says, once Browne convinced himself of the book’s supreme importance and uniqueness, and “on the basis of that conviction he built a monumental and impressive case.”97 But Balyuzi questions whether the manuscript discovered by Browne was actually the Mirza Jani history and raises some other questions concerning the manuscript and the importance Browne attached to it. Since one’s understanding of the character and early history of the faith will be largely determined by their answers, the questions raised by Balyuzi require some attention. The Question of Authorship: The first question Balyuzi raises is whether the manuscript Browne found in the National Library is “the same chronicle” as that written by Mirza Jani of Kashan, who was martyred in 1852.98 Balyuzi admits that Mirza Jani wrote a history of the faith and repeatedly stresses that no one has questioned, denied, or ever tried to conceal this fact. He notes that the New History refers to Mirza Jani’s book, that Mirza Abu’l-Fadl clearly stated that the New History was based on Mirza Jani’s work, and that Mirza Abu’l- Fadl had even added information concerning where it was written, in Shah ‘Abdu’l-Azim,99 five or six miles south of Tihran. ‘Abdu’l-Baha, in a tablet addressed to the hands of the cause, Balyuzi indicates, states that “the martyr, Haji Mirza Jani, had written a few chapters, brief and incomplete, on the history of the Faith.”100 But Balyuzi says, after Browne published the Nuqtatu’l-Kaf in 1910, Mirza Abu’l- Fadl in a treatise “unhesitantly condemned it as a forgery.”101 Abu’l- Fadl, according to Balyuzi, maintained that the title Nuqtatu’l-Kaf (the Point of K, for Kashan, the home of Mirza Jani) was selected to mislead in identifying the real author.102 Balyuzi maintains that Mirza Abu’l-Fadl’s pronouncement after the publication of the Nuqtatu’l-Kaf that it is a forgery “carries weight” because “Mirza Abu’l-Fadl must have personally seen both the histories” of Mirza Jani and Mirza Husayn, for he admits that the New History is based on Mirza Jani’s history and “had also pointed out that Manakji had shaped Mirza Husayn’s history to his own liking, and copyists had introduced their own embellishments.”103
Balyuzi believes, “is not the authorship of Nuqtatu’l-Kaf, but the value that Edward Browne attached to it.”104 Balyuzi asks whether or not the work merited such high consideration. He points out that Mirza Jani was “a man of the mart, not closed cloisters,”105 or in Mirza Abu’l-Fadl’s words, as translated by Browne, “a man engaged in business and without skill in historiography.”106 Balyuzi writes:
historian, nor a scholar and man of letters, and whose associa- tion with the Founder of the Faith was confined to a matter of days, could not be the sole document to preserve a valid doc- trine and tradition.107
Kashan for two days and nights,108 and he implies that the history fell into oblivion, not because of any overt acts at suppression, as Browne charges, but simply because its quality was not such as to guarantee its preservation.
Balyuzi raises is whether someone may have tampered with the original Mirza Jani history. He points out that Mirza Jani had two brothers, one of whom, Haji Muhammad-Isma‘il known as Dhabih, was a staunch follower of Baha’u’llah, but the other, Haji Mirza Ahmad, was a supporter of Subh-i-Azal and was eventually murdered by an Arab in Baghdad. Balyuzi asks:
supporters of Subh-i-Azal, have a hand in tampering with the text of the fragmentary history written by his martyred brother [Mirza Jani]?109 Balyuzi then acknowledges: “One can pose this question, but to find an answer is well-nigh impossible. No documentary evidence exists,”110 Balyuzi’s Summations: Balyuzi gives a summary statement of his theory to account for some of the problems and questions which he has discussed:
history by a devout and courageous merchant who perished in the savage massacre of 1852, the second a distortion ascribed to the same devoted man whose voice had already been silenced when the Nuqtatu’l-Kaf was given the stamp of his name.111 Since the value one attaches to the Nuqtatu’l-Kaf in giving an accurate description of conditions in the Babi community prior to the Baha’i-Azali division will be determined largely by their answers, the questions Balyuzi raises and his theory require some response before proceeding to the his- torical sections of the present work.
attempt to deal critically with issues presented in the writings of Edward G. Browne, whose conclusions non-Baha’is generally have accepted. Balyuzi’s approach from the Baha’i perspective, therefore, is to be commended, for wrestling with such issues as Balyuzi has done will be necessary to any profitable dialogue between Baha’is and non-Baha’is. Balyuzi has made some corrections in Browne’s information, noted some inconsistencies, and pointed to some of his weaker arguments. A response to all of Balyuzi’s findings is beyond the scope of the present study, but his questions regarding the Nuqtatu’l-Kaf are crucial to the study of the faith’s early history.
written by Mirza Jani is an attempt to reconcile statements that Mirza Jani had in fact, written a history, which ‘Abdu’l-Baha describes, according to Balyuzi, as “a few chapters, brief and incom- plete” with Mirza Abu’l-Fadl’s pronouncement that the 1910 published history is a forgery.112 Balyuzi does not indicate the context in which ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s statement is made, nor does he indicate the date of the statement, whether made before or after Browne’s publication of the Nuqtatu’l-
the hands of the cause, high ranking defenders of the faith, and presumably a tablet not available to the public. Nor does Balyuzi identify the treatise in which Abu’l-Fadl’s pronouncement is made. His theory rests largely on these two statements.
Baha’i perspective in not covering the later events connected with the ministry of Baha’u’llah, but what evidence is there that Mirza Jani’s history was complete from the standpoint of covering Babi history to its date of writing? First, there is the testimony of Abu’l-Fadl, himself, who tells how the New History came into being. When Mirza Husayn came to him saying, “Hitherto no full and correct history has been written treating of this Theophany,” Mirza Abu’l- Fadl calls his attention to the fact that “there is in the hands of the Friends a history by the late Haji Mirza Jani of Kashan” and advises him to use that history as the basis for his own. He does not speak of Mirza Jani’s history as being incomplete but refers only to the fact that Mirza Jani had not dated the events of his history. He indicates, therefore, that Mirza Husayn would need to get the dates for the events from other sources.113
largely responsible for the historical narrative within the New History), who had seen the Mirza Jani history, for he used it as the basis of his own work. These are his words: The late Haji Mirza Jani, one of the most respected of the inhabitants of Kashan, who was remarkable for his self-devotion, virtue, and purity of heart, who had with his own eyes witnessed all the most important events of the Manifestation, and who for his zeal finally suffered martyrdom (whereof he foretold all the circumstances some while before their occurrence to certain of his acquaintance), wrote a book describing the course of events and setting forth arguments in support of the faith. In the work he recorded all that he was able to ascertain [from first to last, by diligent enquiries most carefully conducted,] about each of the chief disciples and believers.114
that he was able to ascertain about each of the chief disciples and believers” sounds as if the history was a rather full account.
of the Nuqtatu’l-Kaf in 1910 that it was a forgery, one wonders with what copy Mirza Abu’l-Fadl was making his comparison with Browne’s edition, for few copies purporting to be Mirza Jani’s history have been produced. Since Mirza Jani did write a history, as is known, the burden of evidence would be upon those who deny that the history which Browne discovered in the Paris National Library is the lost history. The Nuqtatu’l-Kaf is not in the class of those works which sometimes appear pretending to give reality to fictitious or legendary works. Mirza Jani had written a history. Various persons testify to this. The New History is based upon it. The manuscript Browne dis- covered had for many years been out of circulation, first in Count Gobineau’s possession and then in the holdings of the National Library, and thus escaped the oblivion which, for whatever reason, overtook nearly all the other copies.
extremely rare, even Subh-i-Azal’s supporters, as Balyuzi points out, seemingly possessed no copy of the history,115 which Browne maintains supplied them with “a most powerful weapon not of defence only, but of attack” against the Baha’is,116 and Mirza Abu’l-Fadl, himself, although aware of the history’s existence, had no copy to make available to Mirza Husayn, for he tells him to “obtain this book” (sometime prior to 1881 or 1882, when Mirza Husayn died),117 and he also indicates, when writing in October, 1892, in the Alexandrine Tract, that he still had no copy: But of this history I, the writer, cannot now procure a copy; for from Samarkand to Teheran is very far, and fortune frowns on the People of Baha, and is beyond measure jealous of them.118
he, therefore, drawing upon recollections of even earlier years when the Nuqtatu’l-Kaf was more available? Much had happened in the Babi- Baha’i movement between the time when Mirza Jani wrote his history (A.D. 1651) and when Browne published the Nuqtatu’l-Kaf (1910) to cause changes in one’s perspective. Value of the Nuqtatu’l-Kaf: But even if the Nuqtatu’l-Kaf is the Mirza Jani history, Balyuzi questions whether it would merit the high value which Browne places upon it. Balyuzi does not think Mirza Jani was qualified to write a chronicle which might preserve a valid doctrine and tradition, for he was “neither a historian, nor a scholar and man of letters” and his “association with the Founder of the Faith was confined to a matter of days.”119
according to Browne be well qualified to write such a history: He appears to have been personally acquainted not only with the Bab, Subh-i-Ezel, and Baha’u’llah, but with Haji Suleyman Khan, Mulla Muhammad ‘Ali of Zanjan, Seyyid Yahya of Darab, Mulla Sheykh ‘Ali “Jenab-i-‘Azim,” Kurratu’l-‘Ayn, “Hazrat-i-Kuddus,” and almost all the early apostles of the Babi religion. Finally, in company with twenty-seven of his co-religionists, he suffered martyrdom for the faith at Teheran on September 15th, 1852. he was therefore heart and soul a Babi; he had the best possible opportunities for obtaining detailed and accurate information about every event connected with the movement during the first eight years of its existence (A.D. 1844-1852); and he enjoyed a high reputation for truthfulness, intelligence, and integrity.120 The author of the New History, as indicated above, stated that Mirza Jani “had with his own eyes witnessed all the most important events of the Manifestation,”121 and Mirza Abu’l-Fadl said, although indicating that Mirza Jani had no skill in historiography, which meant especially that he had not recorded dates of events, that “he, being a God-fearing man, truthfully set down the record of events as he had seen and heard then.”122
Balyuzi and the others quoted above is due in part to a difference in approach to the history. Balyuzi is stressing that the work would present no valid statement of Babi doctrine and tradition, and one must concede that the history does not now receive, and perhaps has never received, any stamp of official recognition or approval by the Babi or Baha’i communities. But as an historical record of events by a member of the Babi religion who, although being no professional or experienced historian, was, according to published testimony, an eyewitness to most of the events connected with the Babi dispensation, who, as a devout member of the movement, knew personally many of the leading personages in that drama, who held a high reputation for integrity, and who, it is said, truthfully recorded what he had seen and heard, and as a document, if written by Mirza Jani, would neces- sarily date from a very early period in the movement’s history, it would hold a certain fascination for the historian and would likely be highly valued by him.
the Baha’is attempted to destroy completely all trace of the history and that only by a remarkable coincidence of events had it been preserved and by chance discovered in a European library, its believed value would be heightened.
history, as Browne maintains, perhaps cannot be answered. All that can be said with certainty is that (1) Mirza Jani had, according to various testimony, composed a history before his martyrdom in 1852; (2) the New History, according to Mirza Abu’l-Fadl’s testimony, was at his suggestion based upon the Mirza Jani history, to which it refers and often quotes, (3) Edward G. Browne “made many enquiries amongst the Babis in different parts of Persia for Mirza Jani’s his- tory” but “found no trace of its existence,” and the Babis (Baha’is) whom he met even “generally feigned complete ignorance of the very name and existence of Subhh-i-Azal;”123 (4) not even Subh-i-Azal’s followers seem to have had a copy; (5) Browne discovered in the Paris National Library a history bearing the title of Nuqtatu’l-Kaf in the spring of 1892; (6) based on Browne’s description, Subh-i-Azal identi- fied the work as Mirza Jani’s history; (7) the manuscript had once belonged to the Comte de Gobineau, who was stationed in Tihran from 1856 to 1858 and later from 1862 to 1863, and after his death was acquired by the National Library in 1884; (8) by comparing the Nuqta- tu’l-Kaf with the New History, Browne observed that, although much material from the former is transferred into the latter, certain material is omitted or substituted for other material in the New
(9) after the publication of the Nuqtatu’l-Kaf in 1910, Mirza Abu’l- Fadl, a Baha’i scholar, condemned it as a forgery, according to H. M. Balyuzi; (10) Balyuzi believes two works existed, Mirza Jani’s history, brief and incomplete, and the Nuqtatu’l-Kaf, a distortion of the former.
Nuqtatu’l-Kaf and the New History he summarizes under four headings: (1) the former contains “a much less metaphysical and more rationalistic” introduction than that in the latter; (2) the former’s conclusion, which deals with Subh-i-Azal and events immediately following the Bab’s death, does not occur in the latter; (3) all mention of Subh-i- Azal in the former is omitted in the latter; (4) “incidents and expressions not in accordance with later Baha’i sentiment or calcu- lated to create an unfavourable impression on the general reader” are “toned down or suppressed” in the latter.124
advanced the view that the Baha’is set out to suppress Mirza Jani’s history by the production of the New History:
while those on whom had been thrown the glamour of the young Shirazi Seer and of the beautiful Kurratu’l-‘Ayn, the martyred heroine and poetess of Kazvin, constituted the majority of the faithful, was almost impossible; to let it continue to circu- late in its present form would be disastrous. Only one plan offered any chance of success. Often in the literary history of the East has the disappearance and extinction of works both valuable and of general interest been brought about, either accidentally or intentionally, by the compilation from them of a more concise and popular abridgement which has gradually superseded them. As the Biography of the Prophet Muhammad composed by Ibn Is-hak was superseded by the recension of Ibn Hisham, so should Mirza Jani’s old history of the Bab and his Apostles be superseded by a revised, expurgated, and emended “NEW HISTORY” (Tarikh-i-Jadid), which, while carefully omitting every fact, doctrine, and expression calculated to injure the policy of Beha, or to give offence to his followers, should preserve, and even supplement with new material derived from fresh sources, the substance of the earlier chronicle.125
suppression is supposed to have happened: Let us note the date at which this covert suppression by recasting is supposed to have taken place: at least a quarter of a century later, By then there would have been no need at all for such a stratagem. The Babi community almost in its entirety had recognized Baha’u’llah as the Manifestation of God Whose Advent the Bab had foretold.126 Balyuzi notes that “the New History was composed not earlier than 1877 and not later than 1880.”127 In Browne’s view, however, the need for such a suppression would not have arisen until after Baha’u’llah’s public declaration of his mission (1866) and the division of the Babis into Baha’is and Azalis. Admittedly, by the time the New History was written, most of the Babis had become Baha’is. The Baha’i effort to win over the remaining Babis, however, had by no means ceased, as evidenced, for example, by Baha’u’llah’s admonitions in the Kitab-i-Aqdas (written sometime between 1873 and 1888) to the “multitude of al-Bayan” (be- lievers in the Bab’s Bayan, i.e., the Babis) to accept his manifes- tation. A footnote on this passage reads: “One gets the impres- sion that there were many unbelieving Babis.”128 Browne writes in the Traveller’s Narrative, published in 1891, in reference to Subh-i- Azal: “Even now the number of his followers, though small in com- parison to the Beha’is, is considerable.”129 Balyuzi mentions “a number of Babis who had refused to give their allegiance either to Baha’u’llah or Subh-i-Azal” who “called themselves Bayanis, after the Book revealed by the Bab,” saying “to this day there are remnants of these—passive, aloof and disinterested.”130 The date for writing the New History, some eleven to fourteen years after Baha’u’llah’s public declaration, would fit within the period when the Baha’is is were attempting to win over the remaining Babis to the cause of Baha’u’llah, and the destruction of an early history which gave Subh-i-Azal an importance contrary to Baha’u’llah’s claims and the subsequent writing of a history from the Baha’i perspec- tive would not be so strange within this period.
Mirza Abu’l-Fadl, which Browne accepted, about the manner in which the New History came into being. Oddly enough, Browne quotes Abu’l- Fadl’s information in the same introduction in which he outlines his view concerning the Baha’i suppression of Mirza Jani’s history. Browne not only accepts Abu’l-Fadl’s information and uses it in identifying Mirza Husayn as the author of the New History on the title page of his English translation of that work but regrets that Mirza Abu’l- Fadl, who was
had not a larger share in the compilation of the Tarikh-i-Jadid, which would undoubtedly have gained much more from the co-opera- tion of Mirza Abu’l-Fadl than it has from that of Manakji,130 Mirza Abu’l-Fadl’s information may be accepted as essentially correct, for it helps explain some internal problems in the text of the New History, and it was written in October, 1892, before the publication of Browne’s views of the Baha’i recasting of Mirza Jani’s work into the New History, which views appear in the Introduction to the New History (1893). Abu’l-Fadl’s treatise, therefore, would not have been written as a reaction or refutation of Browne’s thesis.
accepted it, then the Baha’i chiefs—Baha’u’llah and those closely connected with him in ‘Akka—had nothing to do with instigating the writing of the New History. Rather, the New History was written at the imploring of the non-Baha’i Zoroastrian agent in Tihran, Manakji, and rather than being composed from the desire to recast the Mirza Jani history, its writing was proposed first and its being based on Mirza Jani’s history was at the subsequent suggestion of Mirza Abu’l- Fadl, to whom Mirza Husayn came for assistance. Not only did the Baha’i chiefs not instigate the writing of the New History, but when, having been sent a copy, they did not fully approve of it and set about to produce a history, in Browne’s words, “more in accordance with the views entertained by those chiefs.”131
value attached to it in providing information about the earliest stages of the Babi-Baha’i movement is justified, but Balyuzi also questions whether the text of that original history may have been tampered with and suggests one possible candidate, the Azali brother of Mirza Jani, Haji Mirza Ahmad. It the supporters of Subh-i-Azal had had the book in their possession to tamper with it for purposes of undermining Baha’u’llah’s authority, though, surely they would have taken care to preserve it. Balyuzi noted, however, that seemingly “even the supporters of Subh-i-Azal did not have a copy of this book,”131 and he says of Shaykh Ahmad-i-Ruhi, one of Subh-i-Azal’s sons-in-law, that if any- body could have had a copy of that book and would have carefully preserved it, it would have been that inveterate antagonist of Baha’u’llah.”132 Moreover, Balyuzi observes that divergences are very noticeable,”133 between the the Hasht Bihisht, of which Shaykh Ahmad is the “full or part author,” and the Nuqtatu’l-Kaf, which in Balyuzi’s view is the distorted account of Mirza Jani’s history. He notes, further, that Mirza Abu’l-Fadl
claim made for Subh-i-Azal, which flatly contradicted the thesis of his supporters, as quoted by Edward Browne in his Introduction. Azalis had always insisted that ‘He Whom God shall make manifest’ would not appear before the expiration of a long period of time which might extend from 1511 to 2001 years, whereas on page 244 of the Nuqtatu’l-Kaf it was emphatically stated, ‘By He Whom God shall make manifest to come after Him [the Bab] His Holiness Azal is intended, and none but him, because two Points there cannot be at the use time’.134 The Nuqtatu’l-Kaf evidently, then, was not produced by the Azalis, who seem not to have possessed a copy, nor the text tampered by them, for the text contradicts their viewpoints. The Nuqtatu’l-Kaf gives evidence of having been written at a time distant from the Baha’i- Azali confrontations.
Jani was not a skilled historian, Browne attached great importance to the Nuqtatu’l-Kaf, believing it written by Mirza Jani.135 The
to the fact that, if written by Mirza Jani, who was martyred in 1852, it would have had to have been composed prior to that date and would, thus, supply the student of Babi-Baha’i history a very early record of events and viewpoints pertaining to the Babi movement by a member of the Babi community. If Mirza Jani did not write it, an early date for its composition would still render it highly valuable as a source of information and insights into the Babi movement at an early stage in its development.
occurs in a passage in the Nuqtatu’l-Kaf which reads “To day, when one thousand two hundred and seventy-seven years have elapsed since the points out “the Babis generally date not from the hijra or Flight of the Prophet, but from his Call (ba‘that), which they place ten years earlier,” so that “this date corresponds to A.H. 1267,”136 or A.D. 1850- 1851. The date of the Bab’s declaration, for example, is generally given in the Bayan as the year 1270 of Muhammad’s manifestation.137 William McElwee Miller, a former Presbyterian missionary in Persia, claims that he “saw a manuscript copy of the Nuqtatu’l-Kaf in the library of Dr. Sa‘id Khan of Teheran” which was “dated A.H. 1268 [A.D. 1852], the very year in which the author died for his faith in Teheran.”138 The passage in the Nuqtatu’l-Kaf to which Abu’l-Fadl points indicates that the history was not the product of the Azalis, with whose position it is inconsistent; nor would the Baha’is have produced the history; it bears traces of having been written at a different time of Baha’i history. H. M. Balyuzi, who maintains that the Nuqtatu’l-
nevertheless, speaks of the work as bearing traces of the period when Mirza Jani is said to have written his history. Balyuzi says:
days of the Babi Faith, and bears the indelible mark of that nihilism which did for a time overtake the community of the Bab.140
‘threatened, especially during the two or three years succeeding the Bab’s martyrdom (1850-1853), to destroy all order and disci- pline in the young church by suffering each member to become a law unto himself, and by producing as many “Manifestations” as there were Babis.’ The Nuqtatu’l-Kaf is the mirror of that menace.141 Balyuzi maintains: The speech attributed to Quddus in the Nuqtatu’l-Kaf is by itself a clear reflection of the confused thoughts of the Babi community in the years immediately following the martyrdom of its Founder.142
Jani, reflects the state of the Babi church in the years immediately after the Bab’s martyrdom, therefore, is acknowledged. Part of the
trace the phases through which the religion has passed. One would also expect that the Babi author of such an early written document would be able to give information and insights which would be lost at later stages in a rapidly developing religion. That the Nuqtatu’l-
Yüklə 2,06 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|