An historical analysis of critical transformations

CHAPTER IV
BAHA’U’LLAH AND THE SUPERSESSION OF THE

BABI DISPENSATION
The period from the Bab’s martyrdom to the “ascension” (death)

of Baha’u’llah (1850-1892) is marked at various stages by terrible perse-

cution, intrigue, rivalries, suppression and distortion of literature, and

even murder. This troublesome period witnesses the gradual transformation

of the Babi religion into the Baha’i faith. The scene of action shifts

from Persia to Baghdad, Constantinople, Adrianople, and to the penal colony

at ‘Akka, Syria. The period divides distinctly into two sub-periods: (1)

before Baha’u’llah’s declaration of his mission and (2) after Baha’u’llah’s

declaration.
THE PERIOD BEFORE BAHA’U’LLAH’S DECLARATION
What was actually taking place within the period before Baha’u’-

llah’s declaration of his mission is somewhat obscure because of the dis-

torted literature and the different claims and interpretations advanced.

Edward G. Browne calls this time the period of Subh-i-Azal’s supremacy1

and sees it as a period when Baha’u’llah gradually wins over the faithful

to himself by subverting the legitimate authority of Subh-i-Azal. This

interpretation is followed generally by non-Baha’i studies of the faith.
Baha’is generally maintain, however, that Subh-i-Azal held only a

nominal authority and that Baha’u’llah, even in this period before his

declaration, was the true, though veiled, leader of the movement.
The Question of the Babi Successor
The issue revolves largely around the question of whether

or not the Bab appointed Subh-i-Azal as his successor, and if so, for what

purpose, that either Subh-i-Azal might actually serve as the leader of the

movement or serve merely as a blind for Baha’u’llah. Baha’is, on the

one hand, refer to “the pretensions of Subh-i-Azal,” how “in Baghdad he

tried to get the friends to acknowledge him as their leader” but “they

paid scant attention to him, and just laughed at his haughty airs.”2

John Ferraby charges Mirza Yahya with “corrupting the text of the Bab’s

writings to make it appear that the Bab had named him as successor.”3

H. M. Balyuzi, on the other hand, says that “the Baha’is have never

questioned the fact that immediately after the execution of the Bab,

leadership, even it nominal, was accorded to Mirza Yahya,” and quotes

Shoghi Effendi that Mirza Yahya was the “recognized chief of the Babi

community.”4 Shoghi Effendi also refers to Mirza Yahya as “the nominee

of the Bab Himself,”5 presumably, the Bab’s nominee as his successor.6

But elsewhere, Shoghi Effendi speaks of “Mirza Yahya, who claimed to be

the successor of the Bab.”7
Were the claims of Mirza Yahya (Subh-i-Azal) mere pretentious

and was he attempting to wrest the leadership of the movement from Baha’u’-

llah, or was he in fact the Bab’s appointed successor and the recognized

leader of the Babi community until Baha’u’llah declared himself as He

whom God shall manifest”? The answer to this question will throw much

light on the period between the Bab’s martyrdom and Baha’u’llah’s declara-

tion.
Edward G. Browne’s Position
Browne was certain that the Bab had appointed Subh-i-Azal as

his successor:

In my opinion it is proved beyond all doubt that the Bab ere his

death chose him as his successor, … and that during the period

which elapsed from the Bab’s death till the advancement of Baha’u’-

llah’s claim …, he was recognized by all the Babis as their

spiritual chief.8
Brown’s conviction was based on a number of considerations. First, early

European accounts of the Babi movement portray Subh-i-Azal as the Bab’s

successor. Gobineau, for example, says that Mirza Yahya was recog-

nized as divinely designated as the Bab’s successor and that all the Babis

acknowledged his election.9 Second, Baha’is whom Browne met during his

first visit to Persia in 1887-88 admitted to him that the Bab, shortly

before his martyrdom at Tabriz, had designated Mirza Yahya as his succes-

sor and that his supremacy was acknowledged, at least nominally, by the

Babis during the eleven years of the Baghdad period.10 Third., the early

written Nuqtatu’l-Kaf, which Browne discovered in the Paris National

Library in 1892, contains a section on Subh-i-Azal prior to the account

of the Bab’s martyrdom in which the author speaks of the “rising of the

Moon of Ezel” as “the Sun of ‘the Reminder’” (the Bab) began to decline.

The account also indicates that the Bab before his death “wrote a testa-

mentary deposition, explicitly nominating” Subh-i-Azal as his successor,”

admonished him to write the eight unwritten Vahids (Unities) of the

Bayan, and sent to him “his own personal effects, as his pen-cases, paper,

writings, his own blessed raiment, and his holy rings.11 Fourth, Browne

believed that a passage in Baha’u’llah’s Kitab-i-Iqan, written during the

Baghdad period, showed that Baha’u’llah in this period was submissive to

the authority of Subh-i-Azal.12 This point will be discussed later in

this chapter. And fifth, Browne was given a copy of the actual document

in the possession of Subh-i-Azal which Azal claims is the Bab’s nomination

of him as his successor. This document reads as follows:

God is Most Great with the Uttermost Greatness.

This is a letter on the part of God, the Protector, the

Self-Existent, to God, the Protector, the Self-Existent.

Say, “All originate from God.” Say, “All return unto God.”

This is a letter from Ali before Nabil, God’s Reminder unto

the Worlds, unto him whose name is equivalent to the Name of the

One [Wahid = 28 = Yahya, Subh-i-Azal’s name], God’s Reminder unto

the Worlds.

Say, “Verily all originate from the Point of Revelation.”

O Name of the One, keep what hath been revealed in the Bryan,

and what hath been commanded, for verily thou art a Mighty Way of

Truth.13
Balyuzi, in commenting on this tablet, says: “The question is not whether

this Tablet is genuine or not. The point is that nowhere in this document

is there any mention of successorship.”14 Balyuzi raises a pertinent ques-

tion. Does this document prove or support Subh-i-Azal’s claim of being

the Bab’s appointed successor? That Subh-i-Azal was early regarded as

the Bab’s successor is clearly evident from the first European accounts

of the Babi movement; the Nuqtatu’l-Kaf reports that the Bab nominated

Subh-i-Azal as his successor; if the Bab sent a letter of nomination to

Subh-i-Azal, the latter would likely have carefully preserved it.

Had Mirza Yahya manufactured the document, he likely would have

made the appointment—as strategic as it was to his claim—more explicit

in the text. Browne saw no reason to question its authenticity, and he

examined the original document during his second journey to Persia.15

Balyuzi admits that a recently published facsimile of the document is in

a handwriting “closely resembling the handwriting of the Bab.”16

Admittedly, the document seems to contain no explicit reference

to the succession, but why should Subh-i-Azal and Edward G. Browne give

such importance to the document as proving Azal’s claims? Is there some-

thing in the document which escapes notice on the first reading, something

which would not escape the notice of one familiar with the character of

the early Babi movement?

Likely, the answer to this question lies in the cryptic style of

Babi writings and in the concepts of succession as held by the Shaykhi

school and other divisions of Shi‘ah Islam. In such concepts, the holder

of a title, as “Imam” or “Bab,” before his death nominated a successor

who would carry on his ministry. One might naturally expect, therefore,

that the Bab would continue in this tradition of appointing successors,

as was practiced in the later developing Baha’i religion. As to the

cryptic nature of the Babi writings, Browne, in the introductory section

of Appendix IV of his edition of the New History, in which appendix is

found the Bab’s latter of nomination and three other letters, writes:

Almost all Babi writings, save those intended for circulation

beyond the limits of the Babi church, are sore or leas obscure.

This obscurity, especially in the case of their Arabic writings,

arises in part from a certain want of dexterity in the manipulation

of the language, but it is in large measure intentional, and is

designed to prevent the uninitiated reader from penetrating the

true sense of the words he reads. In the case of letters such as

those which I now publish the difficulty is enormously increased

by our total ignorance of the particular circumstances under which

they were written; for whereas a general epistle would presumably

at least be comprehensible to any learned Babi, a private letter

might easily contain expressions and allusions which none could

understand save the person addressed, or such as were intimately

familiar with his condition and circumstances.17

Although the circumstances of the Bab’s letter of nomination are better

known than those concerning the other three letters in this section,

the veiled character is noticeable in the letter to Mirza Yahya, for

the sender identifies himself as “‘Ali before Nabil” and the recipient

of the letter is identified as “the Name of the One.” What is involved

in these identifications is a cabalistic practice, known as gematra,18

which consists of converting letters of words into their numerical equiva-

lents and substituting for them other words of the same value. The words

Nabil and Muhammad each total ninety-two in the abjad system, so that

‘Ali before Nabil means ‘Ali Muhammad, the Bab’s name. Similarly, the

numerical value of Wahid (“One”) is twenty-eight, which is also the value

of Yahya, so “the Name of the One” means Mirza Yahya, or Subh-i-Azal.

Are there other cryptic meanings in this letter to throw light

an the question of the successorship? One may notice throughout the

letter that the Bab equates Mirza Yahya with himself. The first equation

is an equation of identity, “a letter on the part of God … to God.”

The words “all originate from God. … All return unto God,” suggest

a transfer of “all” things from God (‘Ali Muhammad) to God (Mirza Yahya).

The second equation is an equation of position. The sender of the letter

who has been known as “God’s Reminder unto the Worlds” now designates

Mirza Yahya as “God’s Reminder unto the Worlds.” In the following sen-

tence, the Bab avoids calling Subh-i-Azal the “Point” since in Babi

doctrine two “Points” cannot exist at the same time, but the statement

“all originate from the Point of Revelation,” paralleling the earlier

statement that “all originate from God” and “return unto God,” suggests

that upon the Bab’s death Mirza Yahya will become the new “Point.” The

writer of the Nuqtatu’l-Kaf understood that Mirza Yahya had become the

“Point” because he uses the argument that there cannot be two “Points”

at the same time to uphold Mirza Yahya’s claim as against any other

claimants.19 In this cryptic manner, the Bab seems to commission

Subh-i-Azal to become after his “God’s Reminder unto the Worlds” and

“the Point.”

Browne believed also that Mirza Yahya was the “fourth in the

Babi hierarchy,” consisting of the Bab and his eighteen “Letters of the

living.” The Bab held first rank; next came Mulla Muhammad ‘Ali of Bar-

furush (Quddus), the last to be enrolled in the “Letters” but who held

primacy among them; third was Mulla Husayn, the first to believe in the

Bab; and fourth was Mirza Yahya, according to his testimony. Browne

believed that after the deaths of Quddus and Mulla Husayn and the martyr-

dom of the Bab, himself, Mirza Yahya then became automatically “the chief

of the sect.”20 Baha’is, however, deny that Mirza Yahya was one of the

“Letters of the Living.”21 Nabil’s list of the names of the “Letters of

the Living” does not include the name of Mirza Yahya.22 Either the Baha’is

have effaced the name of Mirza Yahya, “the Judas of Baha’i history,”23

from the names of the Bab’s disciples or Mirza Yahya gave false informa-

tion to Edward Browne. The question of whether or not Mirza Yahya was

the fourth in the Babi hierarchy is a minor question, however, for other

evidence is strong apart from this that the Bab in fact did appoint

Subh-i-Azal as his successor, and Baha’i writings give evidence that

he was accorded a high station.

The Baha’i Position
When Edward G. Browne visited Persia in 1887-88, he expected

to find Mirza Yahya, if still alive, in the leadership of the movement,

but he says “the Babis whom I met generally feigned complete ignorance

of the very name and existence of Subh-i-Azal.”24 The Baha’is whom Browne

met at Shiraz, however, indicated to him that at the time Baha’u’llah took

up residence in Baghdad, Mirza Yahya was “recognized as the Bab’s successor,

having been designated as such by the Bab himself, shortly before he suf-

fered martyrdom at Tabriz,” that “his supremacy was recognized, at least

nominally, by all the Babis during the eleven years’ sojourn of their

chiefs at Baghdad,” but that “even then Beha took the most prominent part

in the organization of affairs.”25 Browne, puzzled by the fact that the

Baha’is in Shires regarded Mirza Yahya as then having little importance,

asked for an explanation. Haji Mirza Hasan responded:
Yes, it’s true that he was one of the early believers, and

that at first he was accounted the successor and vicegerent of the

Bab. But he was repeatedly warned not to withhold his allegiance

from “Him whom God shall manifest,” and threatened that if he did

so he would fall from the faith, and become as one rejected. In

spite of these clear warnings of his Master, he refused to acknow-

ledge the new manifestation when it came; wherefore he is now regarded

by us as of no account.26

According to this account, then, the Baha’is admit that Mirza Yahya was

at first regarded as the Bab’s successor but that he lost his position

in the movement when he refused to admit Baha’u’llah’s claim to be

“He whom God shall manifest.”

The above view gives some indication of how the Baha’is

regarded Mirza Yahya prior to the publication of ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s

Traveller’s Narrative, since the Baha’is in Shiraz inform Browne that

another history (the Traveller’s Narrative) is being prepared to replace

the earlier New History.27 The New History ignores Mirza Yahya, except

in one clearly interpolated passage.28

‘Abdu’l-Baha in the Traveller’s Narrative advances a view which

world place Baha’u’llah in the leadership of the movement from the Bab’s

death. The high position accorded to Mirza Yahya is seen as due to

arrangements made in part by Baha’u’llah himself. In this account,

because of agitation among the doctors, the aggressiveness of most of

the people of Persia, and the irresistible power of the Amir-Nizam, by

which the Bab and Baha’u’llah were in danger, it was considered expedient

that “some measure should be adopted to direct the thoughts of men toward

some absent person, by which Baha’u’llah would remain protected from the

interference of all men.”29 The choice fell on Baha’u’llah’s brother

(actually half-brother), Mirza Yahya.
By the assistance and instruction of Baha’u’llah, therefore,

they made him notorious and famous on the tongues of friends and

foes, and wrote letters, ostensibly at his dictation, to the Bab.

And since secret correspondences were in process the Bab highly

approved of this scheme. So Mirza Yahya was concealed and hidden

while mention of him was on the tongues and in the mouths of men.

And this mighty plan was of wondrous efficacy, for Baha’u’llah,

though he was known and seen, remained safe and secure, and this

veil was the cause that no one outside [the sect] fathomed the

matter or fell into the idea of molestation.30

According to this view, then, the high position accorded to Mirza Yahya

was a blind for the protection of Baha’u’llah, so that he might adminis-

ter the affairs of the faith unhindered and unmolested.
This view, however, runs into certain problems. For one thing,

it opens Baha’u’llah to the charge of exposing his own brother to danger

to insure his own safety.31 Bahijyih Khanum, Baha’u’llah’s daughter,

attempts to meet this problem by saying that it was Subh-i-Azal’s “own

arrogance which prompted him to seize the leadership” and “moreover, he

could be relied upon to hide himself very effectively when danger

threatened, till it should be overpast!”32 Subh-i-Azal’s adeptness in

running from danger, however, would still provide no real excuse for

exposing him to such danger. The view is also somewhat out of character

with the Baha’i picture of Baha’u’llah’s always boldly advancing to meet

danger when it threatened and needing no one to shield him from it.

Baha’u’llah, who in his prayers welcomes “however calamitous, the pains

and sorrows” he is made to bear; who delights in his afflictions; who

thanks God that he has offered him up “as a sacrifice” in his path; who

acknowledges that there is “no protection” except God’s protection33

seems inconsistent with a Baha’u’llah who arranges to screen himself from

danger by setting up his brother as a blind for him.
The Baha’i scholar, Mirza Abu’l-Fadl, seemed to have some

difficulty with this view. He writes:

Some believe that the appointment of Mirza Yahya as a successor,

had been decided between the Bab and Beha-Ullah; because, in the

beginning of Nasser’Ud-Din-Shah’s reign, the object of Mirza-Taki-

Khan was to arrest the original source of this movement, and stop

the water at the fountain-head. Therefore, after consulting

together, they made Ezel appear as the Bab’s successor, through

Mirza-Abdul-Karim of Kazwin, who was employed to manage and for-

ward the Epistles of the Bab. In this manner they preserved the

Center of the Cause, Baha-Ullah, from the interference of Mirza

Taki-Khan.34

Then Abu’l-Fadl indicates:
But-according to the author’s belief, it was the appearance

of different claimants from various places which kept Him from

being recognized as the Center of the Community, and protected Him

from the interference of the Prime Minister; and that thus the

source of this movement was concealed.35
The account in the Traveller’s Narrative also seem to place

the Baha’is in the awkward position of berating Mirza Yahya, as they are

fond of doing, for slipping into hiding when danger was near, yet holding

that such concealment was according to the plan and approval of the Bab

and Baha’u’llah to effect Baha’u’llah’s unmolested leadership in the move-

sent. Historically, the view runs into the problem of portraying Baha’u’-

llah before the Bab’s death as arranging for his protected leadership in

the faith before he receives his call, which according even to Baha’i

sources did not occur until Baha’u’llah’s imprisonment in the Siyah-Chal

in 1852.36

One passage in the Traveller’s Narrative inadvertently adds

support to the view that Yahya was the Bab’s successor, ‘Abdu’l-Baha

quotes certain “mischief-makers” as inciting Yahya with these words:

“You are really the chief support and acknowledged successor: act

with authority, in order that grace and blessing may become apparent.”37

‘Abdu’l-Baha, admittedly, is not himself calling Mirza Yahya the Bab’s

successor but is quoting Yahya’s supporters as not urging him to make

a claim but chiding him for not acting with authority in view of his

acknowledged successorship.
Shoghi Effendi, expressing the modern Baha’i viewpoint, acknow-

ledges Mirza Yahya’s being “the nominee of the Bab, and the recognized

chief of the Babi community.”38 This would appear at first to be an

admission that Mirza Yahya was the Bab’s nominated successor, the expres-

sion “nominated successor” or “appointed successor” meaning basically the

same thing, as when Browne says that “the Bab, before his death (9th July

1850), had nominated as his successor a youth nineteen years of age named

Mirza Yahya, and entitled Subh-i-Azal (“the Dawn of Eternity”).”39 The

document Browne published in Appendix IV of the New History on which

Mirza Yahya based his claim to being the Bab’s successor is entitled

by Browne: “Nomination of Subh-i-Azal as the Bab’s Successor.”40 Yet

Shoghi Effendi elsewhere explicitly denies that the Bab nominated a

successor:
A successor or viceregent the Bab never named, an interpreter

of His teachings He refrained from appointing. So transparently

clear were his references to the Promised One, so brief was to be

the duration of His own Dispensation, that neither the one nor the

other was deemed necessary. All he did was, according to the testi-

mony of ‘Abdu’l-Baha in “A Traveller’s Narrative,” to nominate, on

the advice of Baha’u’llah and of another disciple, Mirza Yahya, who

would act solely as a figure-head pending the manifestation of the

Promised One, thus enabling Baha’u’llah to promote, in relative

security, the Cause so dear to his heart.41

Shoghi Effendi apparently is attempting to maneuver through a delicate

matter, wanting to affirm on the one hand that Mirza Yahya became after

the Bab’s death “the recognized chief of the Babi community,” for which

the historical evidence is strong, yet seeking to avoid admitting that

the Bab had appointed his as successor. By calling Mirza Yahya the Bab’s

“nominee,” Shoghi Effendi is admitting that some kind of deputation took

place, whereby, at least to outward appearance, Mirza Yahya became the

new chief of the community.

This leadership of the community fell to Mirza Yahya upon the

Bab’s death. Shoghi Effendi refers at one point to the Bab who had

succumbed “to the volleys of a firing squad leaving behind, as titular

head of a well-nigh disrupted community, a mere figurehead,” meaning, of

course, Mirza Yahya. But although Mirza Yahya became “the recognized

chief of the Babi community,” Baha’is maintain that Baha’u’llah was

“the real Leader.”42 Elsewhere, Shoghi Effendi speaks of Mirza Yahya’s

“mounting jealousy” over “the ever deepening attachment of the exiles