An historical analysis of critical transformations
Yüklə 2,06 Mb.
|
|
to Baha’u’llah and of their amazing veneration for him” and of how Baha’u’llah’s “popularity had risen in Baghdad.”43 This rise in Baha’u’llah’s popularity during the Baghdad period is important to underscore and helps place in proper perspective the probable flow of events in the transition of leadership in the new reli- gion from Mirza Yahya to Baha’u’llah. Mirza Yahya, although nominated by the Bab as the next Babi chief, largely secluded himself and left the more practical, organizational aspect of the faith to his elder half- brother, Baha’u’llah. The latter moved more openly among the Babis, manifesting those qualities of leadership which were not as evident in Mirza Yahya, and increasingly rose in the esteem of the exiled Babis.
after the Bab’s death is given strong support for the reasons which led Browne to that conclusion44 and is admitted by the Baha’is themselves. Since the writing of the Traveller’s Narrative, however, Baha’is follow
Bab upon Mirza Yahya, by which he became famous both within and without the Babi community, was in name only and that Baha’u’llah was the real leader behind the scenes. This view, however, encounters various problems, as noted earlier,45 finds no confirmation outside of Baha’i writings them- selves, and apparently was introduced into Baha’i thought after the Baha’i- Azali controversy as a way of undermining the position as Babi chief pre- viously held by Subh-i-Azal and making Baha’u’llah’s leadership in the community retroactive from the time of the Bab’s death.
determinative for the Baha’i position, for Baha’u’llah claimed to be “He whom God shall manifest,” the next manifestation, and Baha’u’llah thus assumed an authority which would be immensely greater than any inter- mediary authority between the two manifestations. That the Bab intended Mirza Yahya’s authority to be only provisional until the manifestation of “Him whom God shall manifest” is confirmed in the Nuqtatu’l-Kaf, which indicates that, when the Bab nominated Mirza Yahya as his successor, he added, “Write the eight [unwritten] Vahids of the Beyan,” showing that the Bab considered Mirza Yahya’s ministry as falling within the Bayanic or Babi dispensation, and admonished him to abrogate the Bayan “if ‘He whom God shall manifest’ should appear in His power in thy time,”46 showing that Mirza Yahya’s ministry was to be in force only until the coming of the greater dispensation. This passage of the Nuqtatu’l-Kaf clearly is not an interpolation into the text after Baha’u’llah’s declara- tion by Azal’s supporters, else the stipulation to abrogate the Bayan upon the coming of “Him whom God shall manifest’ would not have been quoted, for this would have only strengthened the Baha’i position. The Bab’s admonition to Mirza Yahya to abrogate the Bayan should “He whom God shall manifest” appear in Mirza Yahya’s lifetime apparently indicates that the Bab, himself, did not identify Mirza Yahya with the coming manifestation. That the author of the Nuqtatu’l-Kaf makes that identification does not suggest that he is advancing a counterclaim to Baha’u’llah’s claim but reveals that he also was caught up in that spirit which overtook the Babi community for a time after the Bab’s death when so many Babis advanced claims of being the promised manifestation. Gobineau’s early history indicates that some Babis thought that Azal was “He whom God shall mani- fest” and others thought he was a “return” of the Bab.47 The Question of Baha’u’llah’s Call Related to the question of the Bab’s successor is the question of when Baha’u’llah began to conceive of himself as the one foretold by the Bab. Two views may be distinguished. One view would see Baha’u’llah as functioning as a loyal Babi, submissive to Mirza Yahya’s authority, and deciding only at a later stage to put forward a claim of his own and thereby take full control of the movement. This appears basically to be Edward G. Browne’s position. Browne holds that at the time of Baha’u’llah’s release from his 1852 imprisonment and for some years later “Beha’u’llah was, as his own writings prove, to all appearance as loyal a follower of Subh-i-Ezel as he had previously been of the Bab.”48 Browne points to the firm guidance which was needed to control the exiled Babi community and maintains: Such firmness Subh-i-Ezel, a peace-loving, contemplative, gentle soul, wholly devoted to the memory of his beloved Master, caring little for authority, and incapable of self-assertion, seems to have altogether lacked. Even while at Baghdad he lived a life of almost complete seclusion, leaving the direction of affairs in the hands of his half-brother Beha’u’llah, a man of much more resolute and ambitious character, who thus gradually became the most prominent figure and the moving spirit of the sect. For a considerable time Beha’u’llah continued to do all that he did in the name, and ostensibly by the instructions of Subh-i-Ezel; but after a while, though at what precise date is still uncertain, the idea seems to have entered his mind that he might as well become actually as he already was virtually, the Pontiff of the Church whose destinies he controlled.49 That Baha’u’llah for a time did, at least to .outward appearance, act in the name of Subh-i-Azal is confirmed in the Traveller’s Narrative, where ‘Abdu’l-Baha says that Baha’u’llah “wrote letters ostensibly at his [Subh-i-Azal’s] dictation, to the Bab.”50 In Browne’s view, this situa- tion continued until Baha’u’llah decided to assume open control of the faith and then seemingly for awhile after that until the Babis had been at Adrianople for two or three years, when Baha’u’llah
God shall manifest,” and called upon Subh-i-Azal and all the Babi Churches throughout Persia, Turkey, Egypt and Syria, to acknowledge his supreme authority, and to accept as God’s Word the revelations which he forthwith began to promulgate, and continued till his death on May 16th of last year (1892) to publish.51 In this view, references to Baha’u’llah’s awareness of his mission or of his open control of the movement during the earlier part of the pre-declaration period would be seen as predating events or reading back into the earlier period the developments of a later time, when Baha’u’llah did become the leader of the faith.
planned eventually to put forward a claim and that during his pre-decla- ration days he was laying the foundation for assuming full control of
were still alive, Baha’u’llah “fell under suspicion, and it was said that he not improbably harboured designs of setting up a standard” of his own.52 According to the Baha’is, Baha’u’llah first came to an awareness of his mission in the Siyah-Chal in Tihran (1852) but for “a period of no less than ten years” only hinted “in veiled and allegorical language, in epistles, commentaries, prayers and treatises” that “the Bab’s promise had already been fulfilled,” and that only “a few of His fellow-disciples … per- ceived the radiance of the as yet unrevealed glory.”53
into exile in Baghdad was an attempt on the life of the Persian shah on August 15, 1852, by persons belonging to the Babi religion. Some see this event as a definite Babi plot to assassinate the king. Browne points out that the Nasikhu’t-Tawarikh, “which gives the most circumstantial account of the occurrence; indicates that Mulla Shaykh ‘Ali (Jenab-i-Azim) first proposed the attempt and that of the twelve who volunteered, only three carried out the plan, namely, Sadiq of Zanjan (or Milan) Mulla Fathu’llah of Qum, and Mirza Muhammad of Niriz.55 According to information given to Professor Browne by “the nephew of one of the three Babis actually engaged in the plot,” seven were involved in the original conspiracy, but four withdrew from the effort at the last moment.56 ‘Abdu’l-Baha describes the event as perpetrated by “a certain Babi,” whom he calls “this madman,” with “one other person being his accomplice.”57 Shoghi Effendi seems to follow ‘Abdu’l-Baha in regarding the act as the deed of only two Babis, a fanati- cal and irresponsible Babi” named “Sadiq-i-Tabrizi, an assistant in a confectioner’s shop in Tihran,” and “his accomplice, an equally obscure youth named Fathu’llah-i-Qumi.”58 Ruhiyyih Khanum refers to the Babis involved in the attempt as ‘three half-crazed, insignificant fools.”59
involved in the attempt, Baha’is maintain that the act was done without the knowledge or sanction of the Babi leadership. Baha’u’llah denies having had anything to do with the attempt.60 Professor Browne agrees that “so far as can be ascertained, it was utterly unauthorized on the part of the Babi leaders” and “was caused by the desperation to which the Babis had been driven by a long series of cruelties, and especially by the execution of their Founder in 1850.”61 At any rate, the attempt to assassinate the king by members of the Babi faith was sufficient to provoke the unleashing of horrible persecution against the movement. Peter Avery regards the shah’s drastic measures toward the Babis after the attempt on his life as indicative of the influence of the movement at that time, The Babi propaganda had spread over Persia and had revealed its power to attract a wide variety of social types. The shah considered that drastic action was necessary.62
von Goumoens, employed in the shah’s service, which was published in a German or Austrian newspaper on October 17, 1852 (a copy of which was sent to Edward G. Browne), gives a graphic account of the cruelties unleashed upon the Babis:
ethics, follow me to the unhappy ones who, with gorged-out eyes, must eat, on the scene of the deed, without any sauce, their own amputated ears; or whose teeth are torn out with inhuman violence by the hand of the executioner; or whose bare skulls are simply crushed by blows from a hammer; or where the bazar is illuminated with unhappy victims, because on right and left the people dig deep boles in their beasts and shoulders and insert burning wicks in the wounds. I saw some dragged in chains through the bazar, preceded by a military band, in whom these wicks had burned so deep that now the fat flickered convulsively in the wound like a newly-extinguished lamp. Not seldom it happens that the unwearying ingenuity of the Orientals leads to fresh tortures. They will akin the soles of the Babis’ feet, soak the wounds in boiling oil, shoe the foot like the hoof of a horse, and compel the victim to run. No cry escaped from the victim’s breast; the torment is endured in dark silence by the numbed sensation of the fanatic; now he must run; the body cannot endure what the soul has endured; he falls. Give him the coup de grace! Put him out of his pain! No! The executioner swings the whip, and—I myself have had to witness it—the unhappy victim of hundred-fold tortures runs! … The more fortunate suffered strangulation, stoning or suffocation; they were bound before the muzzle of a mortar, cut down with swords or killed with dagger thrusts, or blows from hammers and sticks. … At present I never leave my house, in order not to meet with fresh scenes of horror.63
Qurratu’l-‘Ayn, the celebrated Babi poetess and member of the Bab’s “Letters of the Living.” Baha’u’llah was cast into prison, in the Siyah-Chal, where he remained for four months but was finally released due in part to the intercession on his behalf, or at least to testimony as to Baha’u’llah’s character, by the Russian Ambassador in Persia,64 and to his family’s wealth and position.65 Baha’u’llah’s father had been, according to state papers preserved by the Cyprus government, chief sec- retary of state to the Persian shah.66
way to Bagdad, arriving there, according to some accounts, before Mirza Yahya,67 and according to others, after Mirza Yahya.68
enrolled themselves as Turkish subjects and thus obtained a certain degree of freedom and protection. For about eleven years the Babis were relatively unmolested, and the period proved most fruitful in terms of the new religion’s literary production.69 Three important works by Baha’u’llah were written in Baghdad—the Kitab-i-Iqan, the Seven Valleys, and the Hidden Words. Although relatively safe from outside persecution, the Babi community, however, was beset by inner dissension. A number of Babis put forward claims of being the promised manifestation, each winning a certain following and, according to Mirza Abu’l-Fadl, thus “subdividing the community into different sects.”70 The author of the Hasht Bihisht says that “the matter came to such a pass that everyone on awakening from his first sleep in the morning adorned his body with this preten- sion.”71
The picture of the peace-loving, gentle Mirza Yahya which Browne presents in his introduction to the New History72 is not entirely accurate, for Browne was later to point out that Mirza Yahya in one of his writings not only reviles Dayyan “in the coarsest language, but expresses his surprise that his adherents ‘sit silent in their places and do not trans- fix him with their spears,’ or ‘rend his bowels with their hands.’”73 Dayyan was later drowned by the Babis. A tract entitled Risaliy-i-Armih, “the Aunt’s Epistle” or “the Aunt’s Treatise,” written to support Subh-i- Azal’s claims, admits and even condones Subh-i-Azal’s responsibility for Dayyan’s murder.74 After Baha’u’llah had been in Baghdad for one year, he suddenly departed from Baghdad on April 10, 1854, destined to wander in the wastes of Kurdistan for a period of two years.75 Baha’is regard the period as a time of preparation for Baha’u’llah’s future ministry: “There for two years, as Christ in the wilderness, as Buddha in the Indian forest, as Muhammad in the fiery hills of Arabia, he became prepared for his task.”76 In the Kitab-i-Iqan, written after Baha’u’llah’s return to Baghdad, he mentions that the object of his retirement was to avoid becoming a subject of discord among the faithful.”77 According to the
the Bayan and had gathered about him some Babis who were sympathetic with his innovations. Certain other Babis, however, presented a rigorous pro- test, whereupon Baha’u’llah suddenly left Baghdad.78 Subh-i-Azal charges that Baha’u’llah simply “got angry.”79 Baha’u’llah’s statement that he left Baghdad to avoid being “a subject of discord” would indicate that some kind of dispute was in progress centering around himself.
When Subh-i-Azal learned where he was, he wrote a letter requesting that he return.80 Browne believed that a passage in the Iqan proved that Baha’u’llah was submissive to the authority of Mirza Yahya.81 The pas- sage in question is Baha’u’llah’s acknowledgment that he contemplated no return to Baghdad until the hour when, from the Mystic Source, there came the summons bidding Us return whence We came. Surrendering Our Will to Him, We submitted to His injunction.82
or ‘the Source of Command,” as it is rendered in the earlier translation of the Iqan by Ali Kuli Yhan,83 and is referring to Subh-i-Azal’s letter as the “summons” to return, then the passage reveals that Baha’u’llah acted in submission to Subh-i-Azal’s will and was thus acknowledging, at least to outward appearance, Subh-i-Azal’s authority in the community. Baha’is, however, finds Brown’s interpretation of “the Mystic Source” to be “grotesque.”84 Balyuzi says that the Babi who sought out Baha’u’llah, on behalf of the Babis in Baghdad who knew that the success of the move- ment depended on Baha’u’llah, was Shaykh Sultan. True, Mirza Yahya had also written to ask Baha’u’llah to return, but it was a request, not a ‘summons’. The ‘Mystic Source’ which Baha’u’llah mentions in The Book of Certitude, from whence the summons came, is obviously the Godhead.85 That the “Mystic Source” or “Source of Command” could refer to one who bore the “Divine influences” is seen in the references in the New History to Baha’u’llah as “the Source of Command.”86 In Babi thought, God’s emissaries represented God, and the author of the Nuqtatu’l-Kaf understands that the Bab, who calls Subh-i-Azal God, meant for the “Divine influences” to pass upon Subh-i-Azal after the Bab’s death.87 When Baha’u’llah declared himself “Him whom God shall manifest,’ he became for the Babis who accepted him “the Source of Command.” But until then, “the center provisionally appointed pending the manifestation of the Promised One”88 was Mirza Yahya. Baha’u’llah, in yielding to the will of Mirza Yahya, perhaps wanted to achieve two purposes: (1) show himself a loyal Babi by being obedient to the center appointed by the Bab to dispel the suspicions creating the disturbance leading to his departure from Baghdad, (2) and regain his
its present difficulties. Some insight into Baha’u’llah’s outlook during the Baghdad period is provided by the Kitab-i-Iqan, revealed within this period.89 The Iqan reveals that its author is a devout and loyal Babi, well versed in the Babi doctrines and an able defender and exponent of the Babi position. He argues that, when the Bab made his appearance, the people should have accepted him because of the fulfilment of the predictions concerning him. Even the year of his manifestation was given in the traditions as the year “sixty” (A.H. 1260),90 yet people shunned the truth by ignoring these explicit indications of the Bab’s station. He calls the Babi movement “this wondrous and most exalted Cause” and refers to the Bab as “God’s wondrous Manifestation.”91 Of the Bab, Baha’u’llah says: “His rank excelleth that of all the Prophets, and His Revelation transcendeth the comprehension and understanding of all their chosen ones.”92 “No day is greater than this Day, and no revelation more glorious than this Revelation,” Baha’u’llah declares.93 The Bab’s book, the Qayyumu’l-Asma, he calls “the first, the greatest and mightiest of all books.”94 So utterly devoted to the Bab and his cause, Baha’u’llah even longs for the opportunity to die as a martyr in the Bab’s services “Perchance, through God’s loving kindness and His grace, this revealed and manifest Letter may lay down His life as a sacrifice in the path of the Primal Point.”95
one utterly convinced of the unsurpassed greatness of the Babi revela- tion, of one absorbingly engaged in expounding, defending, and exalting
of one whose greatest desire is to give his life in love for “that Quin- tessence of Light, the Bab.
some interpreters to believe that Baha’u’llah is contemplating advancing a claim at this time.97 His references, however, to the coming of “Him whom God shall manifest” would not necessarily mean or imply that Baha’u’- llah thought of himself as that resplendent figure. The teaching of the coming of “Him whom God shall manifest” and the need to recognize him when he came is basic Babi doctrine. Baha’u’llah need be doing no more than merely reiterating the basic Babi teaching on this point, which figured so prominently in the Bab’s doctrine. Certainly no true exposition of Babi teaching would overlook that most prominent subject. Yet, those passages, when coupled with other curious statements in the Iqan, leave an impression that Baha’u’llah may indeed be considering advancing a claim to be “He whom God shall manifest.”98
Persia and the growing strength of the movement prompted the Persian government to request that the Babi community be removed from Baghdad further into the interior of the Ottoman Empire. For twelve days before the departure from Baghdad, Baha’u’llah resided in a tent in the garden of Ridvan outside the city. Here Baha’is say Baha’u’llah openly announced to a few of his friends that he was the promised manifestation. The twelve-day “Feast of Ridvan” (April 21-May 2) is held annually by Baha’is in commemoration of Baha’u’llah’s declaration on this occasion. Some little confusion occurs in connection with Baha’u’llah’s declaration. Nabil’s chronological poem places Baha’u’llah’s declaration in the year A.H. 1283 (A.D. 1866-1867), when Baha’u’llah was fifty years old.100 This was, however, Baha’u’llah’s public declaration made later in Adrianople, referred to in the Kitab-i-Aqdas as “the land of the Secret” because the secret of Baha’u’llah’s being a new manifestation was divulged in Adrianople.101 Baha’is insist, however, that an earlier declaration to only a few was made before the departure from Baghdad. Bahiyyih Khanum, daughter of Baha’u’llah, maintains that the claim was made only to ‘Abdu’l-Baha Yüklə 2,06 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|