An historical analysis of critical transformations
CHAPTER V ‘ABDU’L-BAHA AND THE PREROGATIVES OF
Yüklə 2,06 Mb.
|
| CHAPTER V
‘ABDU’L-BAHA AND THE PREROGATIVES OF “THE SERVANT” Baha’u’llah before his “ascension” provided that his eldest son would become his successor in the leadership of the Baha’i religion. He had written in his Kitab-i-Aqdas that after his passing the believers were to turn to “the one who is a Branch from this ancient Root,”1 indica- ting by the word “Branch” that one of his sons was to succeed him, though he is here unnamed. In Baha’u’llah’s will, the Kitab-i-‘Ahd, however, that son is identified as “the most great Branch,” a title of ‘Abdu’l-Baha:
and the kinsfolk, one and all, to gaze unto the most great Branch. Con- sider what we have revealed in my Book of Aqdas, to wit:
hath reached its end, turn you unto him (‘Abdu’l-Baha) who is desired by God—he who is issued from this ancient Root.”
have we declared the matter as a favor on our part, and we are the gra- cious, the beneficent!
to that of the most great Branch.2 In the translation of the Kitab-i-‘Ahd as here given, “the most great Branch” refers to ‘Abdu’l-Baha and “the great Branch” to ‘Ali Muhammad, the eldest son of another of Baha’u’llah’s wives, yet younger than ‘Abdu’l-Baha.
of praise and makes for the furthermost hidden goal, then refer what you did not understand in the Book to the Bough which branches from the Self-Subsistent Stock.3 Richards renders this passage “refer what you do not know from the Book to the Branch that springeth forth from this upright Stock” and says that the
Baha has the right of interpreting the book, it can also be read to mean that all matters not dealt with in the book are to be referred to him.4
had the right to interpret the ‘Aqdas.’”5
Baha as his successor to whom the believers were to turn for guidance after his passing, and ‘Abdu’l-Baha, therefore, was in a position to make whatever decisions or modifications in the religion he considered necessary or expe- dient. But were there limits to the modifications which ‘Abdu’l-Baha might legitimately make? Could ‘Abdu’l-Baha overstep the prerogatives which were his as Baha’u’llah’s appointed successor? The question of ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s prerogatives became the burning issue in the stage of the Baha’i religion’s development centering in the figure of ‘Abdu’l-Baha.
of ‘Abdu’l-Baha, “the Servant of Baha”) as May 23, 1841, the very evening when the Bab declared his mission.6 Bahiyyih Khanum, ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s sister, indicates that he was born in Tihran “in the spring of 1844, at midnight following the day upon which, in the evening, the Bab made his declaration,” so that he was eight and she was five in August, 1852, when the attempt was made on the Shah’s life.7 Thorton Chase, a Baha’i, later wrote that ‘Abdu’l-Baha was born “at the very hour while the Bab was uttering in Shiraz his declaration of the fullness of the times and the coming of the Great Revealer.”8 Still later, J. E. Esslemont, in his popular introduction to the Baha’i faith, wrote that “the exact hour” of ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s birth “has not been ascertained,”9 but elsewhere in the volume he gives his birth as “shortly before midnight on the 23rd May, 1844, in the very same hour in which the Bab declared His mission.”10 If ‘Abdu’l-Baha was born near mid- night, then he would not have been born in the very hour when the Bab de- clared his mission, which is given as two hours and eleven minutes after sunset. Baha’is seem to have abandoned the view that ‘Abdu’l-Baha was born in the hour of the Bab’s declaration. The British Centenary volume, cele- bating the Bab’s declaration, gives ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s birth as May 23, 1844, and points out that “only a few hours earlier, the Bab had revealed His mis- sion.”11 And the third revised edition (1970) of Esslemont’s Baha’u’llah and
llah’s father, which was sent to Edward Browne by an Azali scribe of Isfahan, living in Tihran, ‘Abdu’l-Baha was born in A.H. 1259/A.D. 1841. The original of this list is in the handwriting of a certain Mirza Ibrahim Khan, the son of the niece of Mirza Buzurg’s daughter, Shah Sultan Khanum, Baha’u’llah’s half-sister.” According to this account, ‘Abdu’l-Baha would have been eleven years old in 1852 when his father was imprisoned. From this time until the “Young Turk” revolution in 1908, ‘Abdu’l-Baha was subjected to exile and sometimes imprisonment as was his father until his death in 1892. As a result of this revolution, all religious and political prisoners held under
of ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s travels in Egypt, Europe, and America which began in 1910 as marking
century. For the first time since the inception of the Faith, sixty-six years previously, its Head and supreme Representative burst asunder the shackles which had throughout the ministries of both the Bab and Baha’u’llah so grievously fettered its freedom.14
for about a month, and set out for Europe but was prevented from going further due to ill health. But on September 4, 1911, ‘Abdu’l-Baha arrived in London, England, and on September 10 he delivered his first public address before a Western audience in the City Temple in Holborn. This was the begin- ning of numerous speaking engagements in Christian churches and before Jewish, Muslim, and other religious groups.15
nine weeks, delivering various addresses as well as short talks each morning in the salon of his apartment at 4 Avenue de Camoëns.16 He returned to Egypt in December, 1911, and spent the winter in Ramleh. According to H. M. Balyuzi, it was suggested to ‘Abdu’l-Baha that he might travel to the United States in the Titanic, which was about to make her maiden voyage, but ‘Abdu’l-Baha preferred a long sea journey on a slower boat and so sailed on the S. S. Cedric from Alexandria on March 25, 1912, arriving in New York on April 11.17 Just before midnight on April 14, 1912, the Titanic on its maiden voyage from Southampton to New York crashed into an iceberg and sank.
April 11 to December 5, 1912. He travelled from the East to the West coast, visiting such cities as Buffalo. Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, Chicago, Omaha, Denver, Sacramento, and Los Angeles. He delivered more than one hundred eighty addresses in Christian churches of various denominations, in Jewish temples and synagogues. on university campuses, in homes, and before various interest groups.17 One significant event connected with ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s visit to the United States was the dedication of the temple grounds of the Mashriqu’l-Adhkar, “Dawning-place of the Praises of God,” the Baha’i house of worship in Wilmette, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago, on May 1, 1912. ‘Abdu’l-Baha, himself, laid the foundation stone,18 giving to the Wilmette temple the distinction of being not only the first Baha’i temple in the West (hence its designation, “Mother Temple of the West”) but of being the only Baha’i temple whose foundation stone was laid by ‘Abdu’l- Baha.
proved a great boon for the Baha’i movement, for many were attracted to the religion through these notices. The glamour of a religious prisoner being set free and touring the world in the name of world peace was seized upon by the press. James T. Bixby referred to ‘Abdu’l-Baha in these terms:
ledged primates of a considerable Church to exhibit public and con- spicuous activity in opposing war, the presence of this head of the Bahai faith to co-operate to the establishment of “the Most Great Peace,” and the bringing together of all the nations in harmony, under treaty agreements, to submit their differences to the judicial decision of Arbitration Boards is both a notable and a helpful event.19
a veritable prophet, or to fall at his feet in adoration, in order to recog- nize in him one of the great religious thinkers and teachers of the time.”20
where ‘Abdu’l-Baha was almost unknown, he delivered an address in the City Temple, “being introduced by its rector as the leader of one of the most remarkable religious movements of this or any other age,” and how after his arrival in the United States similar invitations to speak in churches were extended to him by various ministers.21 Some Christians were appalled by the welcome reception given to ‘Abdu’l-Baha during his travel in the United States. Robert M. Labaree wrote: The effect of this reception was most unfortunate. It gave to Abbas Effendi a larger hearing than he ever could have won for himself, and it created an unwarranted presumption in his favor.22
other books on the Baha’i movement, was first attracted to Baha’i by a photo- graph of ‘Abdu’l-Baha appearing in a newspaper. She speaks of the “remarkable photograph in the paper which a newsboy thrust toward me. It was a photograph of Abdul Baha, gazing at me with benign serenity and the wisdom of the ages written on his face.”23 Most of the photographs of ‘Abdu’l-Baha which may be seen today are from the period of his world travels.
from whence he proceeded to Paris, Stuttgart, Budapest, Vienna, back to Stuttgart, then to Paris again, back to Egypt, and then returned to Haifa, Israel, thus concluding his travels on December 5, 1913.24 ‘Abdu’l-Baha arrived back in Haifa shortly before the outbreak of World War I. The war years were a time of literary production for ‘Abdu’l- Baha. The important Tablets of the Divine Plan were revealed from March 26, 1916, to March 8. 1917.25 During these trying years ‘Abdu’l-Baha also had certain Baha’i properties cultivated, and the food was used in the relief of famine. For this latter work, ‘Abdu’l-Baha was knighted by the British Empire.26
according to Shoghi Effendi, was attended by no less than ten thousand people from every class, religion, and race in that country. Among those sending messages of condolence were Winston Churchill, British sSecretary of sState for the colonies, Viscount Allenby, the hHigh cCommissioner for Egypt, and General Sir Arthur Money, former cChief aAdministrator of Palestine. Behind the coffin walked members of his family, Sir Herbert Samuel, the British hHigh cCommissioner, Sir Ronald Storrs, the gGovernor of Jerusalem, Sir Stewart Symes, the gGovernor of Phoenicia, and various other government officials and notables representing various religious groups.27 OPPOSITION TO ‘ABDU’L-BAHA’S LEADERSHIP Baha’u’llah definitely appointed ‘Abdu’l-Baha as his successor, but Baha’u’llah also had indicated that no new manifestation would appear for 1,000 years. What, then, were ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s legitimate rights? To what extent could he exercise his rights as Baha’u’llah’s appointed succes- sor without appropriating to himself the prerogatives of an independent manifestation? This issue divided Baha’u’llah’s family into two opposing factions, with ‘Abdu’l-Baha at the head of one, and his half-brother, Muham- mad ‘Ali, at the head of the other. Almost all of Baha’u’llah’s family ranged themselves against ‘Abdu’l-Baha.28 The issues over which they divided throw some light on the transformation in the religion effected by ‘Abdu’l- Baha.
followed immediately upon Baha’u’llah’s death. Nine days after Baha’u’- llah’s passing, ‘Abdu’l-Baha chose nine persons to hear the reading of Baha’u’llah’s will, one of whom was Mirza Jawad, who reports that ‘Abdu’l- Baha had concealed a portion of the will with a blue leaf (of paper). Aqa Riza of Shiraz, at a sign from ‘Abdu’l-Baha, read the will to the place covered by the blue leaf. ‘Abdu’l-Baha explained: “Verily a portion of this book is concealed for a good reason, because the time doth not admit of its full disclosure.” That afternoon, Majdu’d-Din Effendi read it again to the same place and read no further.29 Mirza Jawad, in cementing on this action, probably expresses the general feeling of those who began to question ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s rights: Let it not be hidden from persons of discernment that the injunctions set forth in the above-mentioned book all refer to this community generally; how then could it be right for Abbas Efendi to disclose what he wished and conceal a portion thereof? For there is no doubt that if what was so concealed had not been suitable [for general publication] His holiness Baha’u’llah would not have written it in His august writings.30
ted the position of originality,”31 meaning that he claimed to be the “bearer of a new Revelation.”32 This charge seems to have been based not on any explicit claim by ‘Abdul-Baha but on an interpretation of certain of his sayings, such as: “The Dispensation in its entirety hath reverted to this visible place [to ‘Abdul-Baha] and it is not [permissible] for anyone to stir save after his permission.”33
the living interpreter of Baha’u’llah’s words, held the exclusive right of giving a final judgment of their meaning. The matter of interpretation, therefore, was not left to private judgment by Baha’u’llah’s followers. The “unitarians” (as the followers of Muhammad ‘Ali called themselves) represented a kind of Protestant “back to the Bible” movement, however, for they placed ultimate authority in Baha’u’llah’s written words. In support of their position, they pointed to the verse in the Aqdas: “If you differ on a matter, bring it back to God while the sun shines from the horizon of this heaven. Whenever it sets [when Baha’u’llah dies], go back to that which was sent down from Him [his writings].”34 The unitarians, therefore, attempted to arrange a meeting between themselves and ‘Abdu’l-Baha to work out their differences by referring their questions to Baha’u’llah’s writings, but ‘Abdu’l-Baha refused to respond to this arrangement. The problem was this: if ‘Abdu’l-Baha, or any future head of the religion, could be called into question over whether or not his actions or teachings were in accord with Baha’u’llah’s writings, then his authority would always be subject to the decision reached by representatives from the differing factions and he could never guarantee the unity of the faith by his own final decision; if, however, ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s actions, decisions, and teachings were subject to no restrictions, then he was free to make whatever modifications or additions to the religion he might desire to make. Baha’is generally have given unquestioned loyalty to each appointed succes- sor, seemingly never allowing the possibility that one might exceed his proper authority as an appointed head.
was further aggravated by the overzealous desire of some Baha’is to identify ‘Abdu’l-Baha with the returned Christ and to place him in the same category with the Bab and Baha’u’llah. Ruhiyyih Khanum refers to “the unfounded but over-enthusiastic claims of some of the Baha’is that He too partook of the Prophetic powers shared by the Bab and Baha’u’llah.”35 This identification was largely due to the teaching of Ibrahim George Khayru’llah, a Christian Arab who had been converted to the Baha’i religion during the lifetime of Baha’u’llah (in 1890). He arrived in New York in December, 1892, leaving there in July, 1893, for Michigan, and moved to Chicago in February, 1894, which became the center of his activities in teaching the new faith.36 Within a two-year period, Khayru’llah won some 2,000 Americans to Baha’i, 700 in Chicago alone.37 Many of the outstanding early Baha’is in the United States were won through the efforts of Khayru’- llah. Khayru’llah, however, did not teach pure Baha’i but added teachings of his own. He taught that God did not manifest himself through the personality of Baha’u’llah, as with Jesus, but that Baha’u’llah was actually God him- self. Abbas Effendi (‘Abdu’l-Baha), Khayru’llah maintained, was the rein- carnation of Jesus Christ.38 This teaching was possibly construed from the Baha’i teaching that Baha’u’llah is “the Father,” and ‘Abdu’l-Baha, being the son of Baha’u’llah, would be thus the son of God, or a return of the station of Jesus Christ. Helping to complicate matters was the title given to ‘Abdu’l-Baha by Baha’u’llah of aqa, generally treated into English as “Master,” a word used by Christians in reference to Christ. Aqa, however, is the Persian equivalent of “‘mister” or “sir.”39
may be seen in these statements: Florian King said to ‘Abdu’l-Baha: “To me Thou art Baha’u’llah, Thou art Muhammad, Thou art Jesus, Thou art Moses, Thou art Buddha.” When she asked if she light kiss his hand (an act for- bidden by Baha’u’llah), ‘Abdu’l-Baha replied: “No, my daughter, it is not permitted; the personality is not to be worshipped; the Light it is which is of importance, not the lamp through which it shines.”40
records how one night Baha’u’llah said to Varqa: “At stated periods souls are sent to earth by the Mighty God with what we call ‘the Power of the Great Ether.’ And they who possess this power can do anything; they have all Power.” Then says Mirza Valiyyu’llah Khan Varqa:
crucified; but He possessed the Power of the Great Ether, therefore He could not remain underground. This ethereal Power arose and quickened the world. And now look to the Master, for this Power is His.41 A. P. Dodge understood the biblical prophecies concerning “the Son of Man” to refer to ‘Abdu’l-Baha.42 Isabella D. Brittingham, on pilgrimage to ‘Akka, spoke of ‘Abdu’l-Baha:
not look for another. This is the return of the Lion of the tribe of Judah, of the Lamb that once was slain;-- … the Glory of God and the Glory of the Lamb.”43 Horace Holley, in his volume Baha’i: The Spirit of the Age, advanced the idea of a “Cosmic Trinity” of love, will, and knowledge being manifested, respectively in the Bab, Baha’u’llah, and ‘Abdu’l-Baha. He sees these “three Manifestations of God”44 existing on a cosmic or spiritual plane above the merely human, and by coming into the human plane they are able to lift man to higher levels.45 ‘Abdul-Baha, however, repeatedly denied that he was Christ. To Julia Grundy, an pilgrimage in ‘Akka, ‘Abdu’l-Baha said: I am nothing but the Servant of God. Some in America are looking for a ‘third Christ’ or personage [in addition to the Bab and Baha’u’- llah]. This is only imagination. Some call me Christ. This also is imagination. … Do they realize that I make no claim for myself.46 Grundy again reports ‘Abdu’l-Baha as saying: “I am only His [God’s] Servant; nothing more.”47 Constance E. Maud reports: Some people came to him asking if he were a re-incarnation of the Christ. He laughed at the question in his kindly wise way. “No, no, no,” he answered emphatically, “I am not the Christ—I am not even a prophet—Baha Ullah was a prophet, but I his son am simply this—the ‘servant of God.’ You also,” he added, “must be servants of God.”48
still believe, that at least he lived the life of Christ. George Townshend says that is the story of ‘Abdu’l-Baha the Christian may find
exactly and in their entirety, that they can be lived out as fully under modern conditions as under any other, and that the highest spirituality is quite compatible with sound common sense and prac- tical wisdom.49
caring for himself but always for them.”50 Thornton Chase maintained: He, ‘Abdu’l-Baha, has never claimed or acknowledged that He is the Christ, and has not permitted others to claim it for Him, but He lives the life of Christ, He fills the Office of Christ, He teaches the doctrines of Christ. … [He] is saying to us many things of which Jesus said: ‘I have many things to say unto you, but ye can not bear these now. But, when He, the Spirit of Truth, shall come, He will guide you unto all Truth, will reveal all things unto you.’51
Baha claimed to be Christ, but that some of his followers in the so-called “Christian West” did hail him as the return of Christ and that Western Baha’is still see him as having lived the life of Christ are indubitable facts. In pure Baha’i teaching, Baha’u’llah, not ‘Abdu’l-Baha, is the return of Christ. Yet, the veneration thus given to ‘Abdu’l-Baha by Western converts to Baha’i helped lay the foundation for the transforma- tion which may be associated with his ministry. One event in the ‘Abdu’l-Baha-Muhammad ‘Ali controversy which produced a certain crisis in the early American Baha’i community and which throws some light on the issue of that controversy was the conversion of I. G. Khayru’llah to the Muhammad ‘Ali faction. Khayru’llah was desirous of having the writings of Baha’u’llah that he might examine Baha’i teaching at first hand and might thereby compare and correct his own teachings. Khay- ru’llah had requested that ‘Abdu’l-Baha send him such writings but had re- ceived none. One of the purposes of his journey to ‘Akka in 1898 was to secure a volume of Baha’u’llah’s writings.51
Baha’s Peter, O second Columbus, Conqueror of America!” He highly praised Khayru’llah before the believers for his endeavors in teaching the faith in America. He bestowed upon him the honor of participating with himself in laying the foundation stone of the mausoleum of the Bab.
‘Abdu’l-Baha. Khayru’llah, when he met with ‘Abdu’l-Baha, would explain the teachings he presented to the Americans, even translating lengthy sections of his material and asking ‘Abdu’l-Baha to correct his errors. ‘Abdu’l-Baha, according to Mirza Jawad’s account, declared Khayru’llah’s teachings to be correct, and when differences occurred between Khayru’llah’s and ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s teachings, ‘Abdu’l-Baha affirmed that the matter had two
however, to the point where an open disagreement between the two became apparent on the question of whether God’s essence is limited by his essence. Khayru’llah argued that it was, and ‘Abdu’l-Baha declared him to be in error. Khayru’llah further tried unsuccessfully to obtain from ‘Abdu’l-Baha the books printed in India by command of Baha’u’llah. Khayru’ llah, however, obtained the books in Egypt on his return to the United States. Further, ‘Abdu’l-Baha had tried to keep Khayru’llah from meeting with Muhammad ‘Ali and the members of the family who opposed ‘Abdu’l-Baha, when Khayru’llah returned to the States, he compared Baha’u’llah’s teachings with those of ‘Abdu’l-Baha and renounced ‘Abdu’l-Baha in favor of Muhammad ‘Ali. This conversion resulted in a split within the American Baha’i community, with some three hundred believers in Chicago and Kenosha following him in renouncing ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s leadership as well as a small number in the various cities where Baha’is were located. The majority, however, remained faithful to ‘Abdu’l-Baha.33 Copies of two letters from Muhammad ‘Ali and Badi‘u’llah, dated March 31, 1901, in the holdings of Union Theological Seminary, New York, give evidence of a correspondence between Muhammad ‘Ali and and his sup- porters who apparently had recently organized themselves. The copies do not indicate the location of the recipients. One letter is addressed to “the president of The House of Justice” who had “embraced the faith five years ago through the mercy of Almighty God and the efforts of your efficient director, Dr. Kheiralla,” thanking him for his “esteemed letter which expressed unto us your sincere love and earnest desire to spread the lights
States, and it shall have priority over all other Societies which may be formed hereafter, for all preeminence belongs to the pioneers, even though others should excel them in organization. Mention is made of certain “texts” which had already been sent and of others which would be sent which would explain “the Day of the Lord” and would “keep steadfast His Children in elevating His Sacred Word.” One paragraph mentions the existing dissension among the Baha’is: As regards the dissensions existing in these days we can only say that it results from lack of obedience to the Commands of God, and from going out from the shadow of His Sacred Word and from not under- standing its true meaning. If all were to return to the true utterances of God as they are commanded to do, the dissension will no doubt cease, harmony will prevail and the lights of the Word will shine brightly far and wide.
differences are to be settled by recourse to Baha’u’llah’s writings. Mention is then made of the eagerness expressed to pursue these writings:
Sublime Pen as is disclosed in your letter, and we shall whenever op- portunity permits send you many of them, but we are waiting until you are enabled to have an efficient translator (as you say) who would be able to translate both from the Persian and the Arabic into your native tongues.
from “the Society of Behaists” and is addressed to “ye members of the Com- mittee formed in the Name of the Everlasting Father, and who are straining your efforts in spreading the light of His Word and are enlightened by the light of His Truth and Wisdom.” “We are glad to know,” the writers men- tion, “that you have formed a council in the name of Beha according to the commandments of our Lord, and that you bane legally organized it.” The writers evidently regard the members of the committee as “the House of Justice,” for they quote the words: “Oh men of Justice, be ye good shepherds to the sheep of God in His Kingdom, guard them from the wolves which disguise themselves as much as ye would guard your own children: thus are ye advised by the faithful adviser.” One paragraph refers to Khayru’llah’s efforts to obtain Baha’u’llah’s writings from ‘Abdu’l-Baha:
Pen and that your instructor, Dr. Kheiralla, wrote to Abbas Effendi several times, asking for these, but was not answered and was only told to follow the commands of the Greatest branch and to do this without investigation. No doubt the sacred texts were descended to direct the people in the straight path and to refine their manners and if their promulgation should be stopped the intended results for which the texts descended will not take place. Therefore all must spread the odours of the texts so that the world should be directed and enlightened. These words also confirm Mirza Jawad’s account that Khayru’llah was unsuccess- ful in obtaining from ‘Abdu’l-Baha the writings of Baha’u’llah. The next paragraph reveals Muhammad ‘Ali’s and Baha’u’llah’s belief that one could not exercise “independent investigation of the truth” without having recourse to Baha’u’llah’s writings:
was created to acquire knowledge and is given the eyes of understanding to see everything by them. If we cannot see the rose and witness its coloring how can we judge that it is a fine flower which diffuses a sweet odor. Thus we cannot come to a knowledge of the Father without consideration and without looking into the traces of the might and the wondrous wisdom. Such great truths should not be adopted by tradition. The function of the instructor is to guide and show the traces and dis- solve the mysteries so that the understanding of the neophyte should be enlightened and he be able to understand the utterances of God. All the confusions existing at present have resulted from following others without confirmation or investigation. Verily he who meditates on the traces of the Lord and weighs everything by the scale of understanding cannot follow vain superstitions, but will rather rid himself of them and thus keep firm in serving the most merciful Father. Badi‘u’llah, the younger full brother of Muhammad ‘Ali, in the spring of 1903 renounced his allegiance to Muhammad ‘Ali and gave his support to ‘Abdu’l-Baha, publishing a tract in Persian to this effect.55
Baha effected a transformation within the Baha’i religion. J. R. Richards holds that “the official teachings of the sect” underwent “a complete transformation” under ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s leadership.56 Richards refuses to identify Western Baha’i, shaped largely by the personality and teachings of ‘Abdu’l-Baha and bearing a distinct Christian influence, as pure Baha’i. ‘Abdu’l-Baha did not transform the faith into a new religion with a new name, as Baha’u’llah had done with the Babi religion, but the faith under ‘Abdu’l-Baha took on a distinctly new appearance. The religion as trans- formed by ‘Abdu’l-Baha may be regarded as Baha’i, but it represents a new stage in the evolving faith. The transformation effected by ‘Abdu’l-Baha will be discussed under three headings. The Station of ‘Abdu’l-Baha ‘Abdu’l-Baha gave to the religion another focal point to be added to that of Baha’u’llah. Today, in Baha’i homes, temples, and literature, one will encounter various photographs of ‘Abdu’l-Baha, so such so that one might gather that ‘Abdu’l-Baha, not Baha’u’llah, is the prophet of the reli- gion. The reasons for the extensive use of ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s photographs are because only a few photographs of Baha’u’llah were ever taken, the few which were taken are held especially sacred, and photographs of ‘Abdu’l-Baha abound, due especially to the publicity accorded to ‘Abdu’l-Baha during his Western travels.
a deeper, spiritual focus. Western Baha’is had not seen nor known Baha’u’- llah personally, but ‘Abdu’l-Baha was a living prophet walking in their midst. “In him you see an Old Testament patriarch personified,” wrote E. S. Stevens.57 His simple life and manners and certain of his teachings reminded many of the pilgrims who made their way to ‘Akka of the life and teachings of Christ. The high devotion given to ‘Abdu’l-Baha is reflected in Ruhiyyih Khanum’s words: “To those who never met the Prophet [Baha’u’- llah] in the flesh, but who knew His son, it seemed impossible that Baha’u’- llah could have been any greater than ‘Abdu’l-Baha.”58 Out of the tension between the high veneration given to ‘Abdu’l- Baha by overzealous Baha’is, who saw him as the returned Christ and in a category with the manifestations, and the explicit Baha’i teaching that no new manifestation would appear for at least 1,000 years developed a syn- thesis in which ‘Abdu’l-Baha, while not being officially regarded as a manifestation, is nonetheless one of “the three central figures of the faith” along with the Bab and Baha’u’llah. He occupies a station above the merely human but below the category of a manifestation. Although not now regarded by Baha’is as the returned Christ, Baha’is nonetheless revere him as having lived the Christ-life, which is in effect to declare his life sinless. He is the perfect and ideal Baha’i.
formulated until Shoghi Effendi’s ministry, yet the veneration accorded to ‘Abdu’l-Baha and the position he assumed in the faith which led to that formulation were properly aspects of the transformation affected within his ministry.
officially not a manifestation but practically holding that office, his words also hold a unique authority for Baha’is. They are not the words of a manifestation, yet they have for Baha’is the character of a revela- tion, and today Baha’is accept his authenticated writings, along with those of Baha’u’llah, as being Scripture. David Hofman writes: “His word has the same validity as Baha’u’llah’s own.”59 Horace Holley main- tains: “The interpretation is one with the message, as the sunlight is one with the sun.”60 George Townshend writes concerning ‘Abdu’l-Baha:
quality different from that which belongs to any human being. There is a cadence, a power in them which definitely comes from a higher world than that in which we live. It is natural, therefore, that His writings should be spoken of as a Revelation. Yet he was human, not a Manifestation, and His scripture, though valid, has not the rank of the Revelation of a full Prophet.61
meaning of his father’s words.”62 Baha’is would not allow for such a dichotomy of meaning in the teachings, but ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s words are as important, or more important, than Baha’u’llah’s in establishing teachings of the faith, for although Baha’u’llah’s words theoretically have a higher status—being the words of a manifestation—Baha’is are obliged to follow ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s interpretation. Thus, when the meaning of Baha’u’llah’s and ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s teachings seem to differ, the believer must subscribe to ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s interpretation rather than follow his own personal judgment in understanding Baha’u’llah’s meaning. The authority of ‘Abdu’l- Baha’s interpretation is intended to prevent schism which might result from conflicting personal interpretations by Baha’is, but the result is that ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s words for all practical purposes carry more force than do Baha’u’llah’s own, since the believer may not advance a personal interpre- tation of Baha’u’llah’s words which might differ from ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s inter- pretation. ‘Abdu’l-Baha, therefore, is in a position to make certain modi- fications and additions to Baha’u’llah’s teachings in authoritatively defin- ing Baha’i doctrine. For example, although Baha’u’llah had forbidden the practice of congregational prayer except at funerals, ‘Abdu’l-Baha allowed the chanting of prayers among the assembled believers until all had gathered for the Sunday meetings.63 Baha’u’llah identified the manifestations as Noah, Hud,64 Salih,65 Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, and the Bab.66 ‘Abdu’l- Baha dropped from his lists Hud and Salih and added Zoroaster and Buddha67 and at times seems also to have added Confucius.68 Some confusion exists among Baha’is today concerning which religions were founded by mani- festations of God. According to one list, the nine revealed religions are the Sabaean religion, Hinduism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Christiani- ty, Islam, the Babi religion, and Baha’i.69 Hugh E. Chance, however, lists the nine recognized religions as Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Confu- cianism, Taoism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and the Baha’i Faith.70
West. Many of the pilgrims making their way to ‘Akka were from the West and had a Christian background, Their questions often involved Christian or biblical subjects. The audiences to which ‘Abdu’l-Baha spoke in Europe and America were composed of persons oriented by a Western scientific and Christian outlook. ‘Abdu’l-Baha, accordingly, adapted his message to his Western hearers.
Baha as the interpreter of his teachings, but ‘Abdu’l-Baha, by his contact with the West was also expected to be an authority on numerous subjects not covered in Baha’u’llah’s teachings. Notable among such subjects were those involving Christian or biblical topics. Baha’is accept ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s pronouncements on these subjects as being as authoritative as his interpreta- tions of Baha’u’llah’s teachings.
Adam signifies Adam’s spirit and Eve his soul. The tree of good and evil represents the human world and the serpent signifies attachment to the human world. On the question of original sin, ‘Abdu’l-Baha in one place speaks of the sin “which has been transmitted from Adam to his posterity”71 but elsewhere he rejects this view: The mass of the Christians believe that as Adam ate of the forbidden tree, he sinned in that he disobeyed, and that the disastrous conse- quences of this disobedience have been transmitted as a heritage, and have remained among his descendants. Hence Adam became the cause of the death of humanity. This explanation is unreasonable and evidently
of God, without committing any sin or fault, but simply because they are the posterity of Adam, have become without reason guilty sinners, and until the day of the sacrifice of Christ were held captive in hell in painful torment.72
fact that he did not have a human father, but to his perfections, bounties, and divine glory.”73 He argues that if Christ is great because he was father- less, then Adam is greater than Christ, for he had neither father nor mo- ther.”74
which signifies his teachings, his bounties, his perfections, and his spiri- tual power” become “manifest,” his disciples became assured and steadfast, and so “his religion found life.”75 The Holy Spirit is “the Bounty of God and the luminous rays which emanate from the Manifestations.” In some pas- sages the Holy Spirit signifies a certain person.76 The Trinity does not mean that there are divisions within the Godhead but that “the Sun of Reality, the Essence of Divinity” reflects itself in the mirrors of Christ and the Holy Spirit.77 On the question of Satan or evil, ‘Abdu’l-Baha explains that “the evil spirit, satan or whatever is interpreted as evil, refers to the lower nature in man,” for “God has never created an evil spirit; all such ideas and nomenclature are symbols expressing the mere human or earthly nature of man.”78
inevitable, since he addressed himself to so many questions on different occa- sions. He seems to contradict himself on the question of Christ’s attitude toward war. In explaining Christ’s saying to “put up the sword into the sheath,” ‘Abdu’l-Baha says: “The meaning is that warfare is forbidden and
attack you, burn your homes, plunder your goods, assault your wives, children and relatives, and violate your honour, you should be submis- sive and allow then to perform all their cruelties and oppressions. No, the words of Christ refer to the conduct of two individuals towards each other; if one person assaults another, the injured one should forgive him. But the communities must protect the rights of man.80
Baha, seemingly without noting any contradiction.81 ‘Abdu’l-Baha also attempted to give a Christian meaning to certain Baha’i concepts and practices, as, for example, in the case of the Baha’i feasts: “The feast (supper) [every nineteen days] is very acceptable and will finally produce good results. The beloved and the maid-servants of the Merciful must inaugurate the feast in such wise as to resurrect the feast of the ancients—namely, the ‘lord’s supper.’”82 Although the Baha’i religion already contained a certain approach to Christianity, ‘Abdu’l-Baha, by his life and teachings, attempted further to lessen the distinction between the two religions. ‘Abdu’l-Baha seems to have accepted the virgin birth of Christ as a “fact,”83 although he stresses that his greatness is not due to it. Christ had all power and was able to perform miracles, although ‘Abdu’l-Baha often gives a demythologized inter- pretation to the miracles:
is that the dead were blessed by eternal life; where it is said that the blind received sight, the signification is that he obtained the true perception; where it is said that a deaf man received hearing, the meaning is that he acquired spiritual and heavenly hearing. This is ascertained from the text of the Gospel where Christ said: “These are like those of whom Isaiah said, They have eyes and see not, they have ears and hear not; and I healed them.’84 ‘Abdu’l-Baha accepts Christ as divine, as the Son of God, and as the Word of God.84 Christ’s sacrificial death is accepted: “He perished in body, so as to quicken others by the spirit.”85 The resurrection of Christ is affirmed, although ‘Abdu’l-Baha gives an interpretation to it much in the manner of liberal Christian theology.86 The second coming of Christ is also affirmed, but for ‘Abdu’l-Baha and other Baha’is Christ returned in the later manifestations, especially in Baha’u’llah.
womb; is the same way also, at his second coming, he will come from heaven, though apparently from the womb.87
principles, attempting to set forth for his Western hearers the basic fea- tures of Baha’u’llah’s teachings. Since ‘Abdu’l-Baha was speaking often to general audiences, he emphasized the social and humanitarian tenets of the faith. Because of the wide publicity given to ‘Abdu’l-Baha during his European and American travels, the image of the religion presented in the press was of a social and humanitarian movement. It is largely because of ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s teachings that the religion is often seen as a social move- ment.
drawing upon the teachings of Baha’u’llah for these principles or was reading Western ideas back into Baha’u’llah’s teachings. Baha’is insist that Baha’u’llah taught these concepts at a time when they were not even accepted in the West, and they attribute their acceptance by enlightened persons in the modern world to energies radiating from Baha’u’llah’s revelation. Wilson, however, holds that “not one of these is new; not one owes its position in the world of thought or activity to the Bahai propaganda.”88 What ‘Abdu’l-Baha may be attempting to do is to adapt certain of Baha’u’llah’s teachings to a Western audience or, in other words, to translate concepts which find a basis in Baha’u’llah’s teachings into the terminology and thought forms of Western civilization. However one may choose to judge the matter, the Baha’i principles as enunciated, elaborated, and emphasized by ‘Abdu’l-Baha gave to the religion a distinct social color- ing. Since these principles are set forth today as the basic teaching of the religion, some comment on certain of the principles is required. Independent Investigation of the Truth This principle means basically that each person should exercise his own power of reason in distinguishing truth from falsehood and not accept beliefs simply because they were handed down by one’s ancestors. Nor should one blindly rely upon the opinions of others without making his own inquiry. “God has not intended man to blindly imitate his fathers and ancestors. … He must not be an imitator or blind follower of any soul. He must not rely implicitly upon the opinion of any man without investiga- tion.”89 The principle means especially for Baha’is that one should investi- gate the Baha’i religion without being prejudiced by other religious beliefs.
never was a principle of Baha’u’llah’s teaching”: Baha’u’llah claimed to be the infallible interpreter of all Scriptures, and the infallible teacher of mankind. None has the right to question his statements, but if he declares water to be wine, the believer must unhesitatingly accept his statement. In the same way, ‘Abdu’l-Baha allows no room for independent investigation; whatever he says is true,
does not allow independent investigation, but demands servile submis- sion and unquestioning acceptance of the doctrine of Baha’u’llah and ‘Abdu’l-Baha.90 Miller, however, points out that “independent investigation of truth was not a new idea, for the Shi‘ite theologians had long ago maintained that in matters which concern the fundamentals of religion, personal investigation (tahqiq) is obligatory.”91 Historically, then, it was possible and likely that the principle would find its way into Baha’u’llah’s teachings.
man to detach himself from all earthly affections and considerations: Man can never hope to attain unto the knowledge of the All-Glorious, can never quaff from the stream of divine knowledge and wisdom, can never enter the abode of immortality, nor partake of the cup of divine nearness and favour, unless and until he ceases to regard the words and deeds of mortal men as a standard for the true understanding and recog- nition of God and His Prophets.92 Baha’u’llah proceeds to show how man continuously has opposed God’s prophets when they have appeared, and his point is that man, if he blindly follows these opponents of the prophets, who were often the religious leaders of the day, in their derision and persecution of God’s messengers, then will never attain the true knowledge of God nor have fellowship with him. Baha’u’- llah also in his Hidden Words writes: The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice; turn not away therefrom if thou desirest Me, and neglect it not that I may confide in thee. By its aid thou shalt see with thine own eyes and not through the eyes of others, and shalt know of thine own knowledge and not through the knowledge of thy neighbor.93
the prominence which it now holds in the faith. But the question may be asked as to how the principle can be reconciled with the Baha’i requirement that complete submission must be given to the authority of Baha’u’llah and his appointed successors. Apparently, the principle as it relates to religious matters is more a principle for non-Baha’is than for Baha’is. One is to exercise indepen- dent investigation until he finds the truth in Baha’i, and then having found the truth, he is to give unreserved obedience to the Baha’i laws and Baha’i administrative authority. Should those in authority decree that Baha’is are not to road certain literature or associate with certain persons, they must without question follow such restrictions. The Oneness of Mankind The oneness of mankind was definitely one of Baha’u’llah’s teachings. Arthur Dahl calls this principle the “keynote of Baha’u’llah’s teachings. Among Baha’u’llah’s often quoted statements on this point are these: “Ye are the fruits of one tree, and the leaves of one branch.”94 “The earth is but one country, and mankind its citisens.”95 The ideal of the oneness of mankind, however, does not exist in practice. Baha’u’llah saw the purpose of his mission as transforming the ideal into reality: “We, verily, have come to unite and weld together all that dwell on earth.”96 The unity of mankind is, of course, not a new principle. Both the Old and New Testament uphold the ideal of man’s basic unity as the creation of one God. The Apostle Paul declares that God has “made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26). The Qur’an maintains that “mankind were one community” but “then they differed” (10:20), and so God sent prophets with the scripture among the people to “judge between mankind concerning that wherein they differed” (2:213), evidently for the purpose of settling those differences. ‘Abdu’l-Baha, in elaborating on the principle, explains that mankind is divided into various “limited unities,” which have the effect of dividing man. Man has united himself along the lines of race, language, nationality, political parties, and other such groups. unity exists within these groups, but all of these are limited unities and can, therefore, only produce limited results. Only unlimited unity can produce unlimited result. Man must, therefore, break loose of these limited unities and learn to live as one family under one God.97 ‘Abdu’l-Baha approved and encouraged interracial marriages, and Baha’is today take pride in the fact that their membership is composed of many men and women of many races and they believe their religion is the first to have broken down, not only in theory but in practice, the wall of separa- tion between racial groups.
first made that in the Baha’i religion Science and Religion are reconciled.” He holds that this view was introduced in France by Hippolyte Dreyfus, a Jewish convert to Baha’i, to extol Baha’i before the rationalistic French, who held that science and religion were contrary to one another. Thereafter, the claim became “one of the main planks in the Baha’i platform.”98 ‘Abdu’l-Baha, in stating this principle, however, may be drawing upon the Babi-Baha’i philosophy that all of mankind’s arts and sciences are derived from the manifestation’s influence upon his age.99 To the Bab, this meant that the study of other volumes besides those containing the words of the manifestation were unnecessary. To Baha’u’llah, the principle seems to have meant that the arts and sciences were therefore legitimate areas of study. Baha’u’llah abrogated the Bab’s law concerning the destruction of books, and his eleventh “glad-tidings” is that to study sciences and arts of all descriptions is allowable; but such sciences as are profitable, which lead and conduce to the elevation of mankind.”100 Baha’u’llah stressed the importance of acquiring knowledge in the sciences:
ascending. To acquire knowledge is incumbent on all, but of those sciences which may profit the people of the earth, and not such sciences as begin in mere words, and end in mere words. The posses- sors of sciences and arts have a great right among the people of the world.101 Possibly this was the aspect of Baha’u’llah’s teachings which ‘Abdu’l- Baha formulated into the principle of the “harmony of science and religion” for his Western audiences. The principle for ‘Abdu’l-Baha means:
with scientific fact and proof, so that science will sanction religion and religion fortify science. Both are indissolubly welded and joined in the reality. If statements and teachings of religion are found to be unreasonable and contrary to science, they are the outcome of super- stition and imagination.102 Equality of Men and Women Marzieh Gail has some basis for charging: In Judaism, Christianity, Islam, sex equality does not exist. The Old Testament says (of the man to the woman): “He shall rule over thee” (Genesis 3:18). And the New Testament: “let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence” (I Timothy 2:11-12). “Wives, submit yourselves unto your husbands, as unto the Lord” (Ephesians 5:22). Of men and women the Qur’an, watch how- ever gives women a higher place than did previous Faiths, says: “Men are a degree above them” (2:228).103 Baha’is believe that their faith gives equality to the sexes. ‘Abdu’l-Baha affirms that the principle of “the equality of men and women” was among Baha’u’llah’s teachings. That the Babi and Baha’i movements did accord a higher status to women than did Islam may readily be acknowledged, although Browne observes that “their efforts to improve the social position of woman have been much exaggerated.104
the veil (covering the face) by their women members in their meetings, thereby acquiescing to the example of the Babi heroine, Qurratu’l-‘Ayn (Tahirih). The Baha’i women in Persia, however, continued to wear the veil in public until the law permitted them to remove it.105 Baha’u’llah made it incumbent upon fathers to educate both their sons and daughters, but whether Baha’u’llah taught the full equality of men and women is another matter. Baha’u’llah allowed a man to take two wives,106 but seems not to have granted to women a similar right to have two husbands. Baha’u’llah, himself, had at least two wives, and according to some accounts as many as four.107
are from ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s writings, not Baha’u’llah’s.108 But even ‘Abdu’l- Baha did not allow women to be members of the “Houses of Justice,” the administrative bodies in the faith. The “Spiritual Assemblies” were origi- nally called “Houses of Justice” or “Houses of Spirituality.”109 ‘Abdu’l- Baha approved of organizing “Houses of Justice” of men and separating the women into “Assemblies of Teaching.”110 In time these bodies became known as “Spiritual Assemblies,”111 composed of both men and women, but even today women are barred from being members of the Universal House of Justice, the highest administrative body in the Baha’i world. Universal Peace Upheld by a World Government Another principle which ‘Abdu’l-Baha claims to find in Baha’u’llah’s teachings is “universal peace upheld by a world government.” Baha’is sometimes maintain that “it was Baha’u’llah who first admonished men to come together and consult for peace, to form an international body to regulate the affairs of the world, to limit and gradually do away with armaments.”112 Baha’u’llah was not the first to propose peace and disarma- ment, for, as Wilson points out, the American Peace Society was formed as early as 18156 “to promote permanent peace through arbitration and disarma- ment,”113 and for this purpose world congresses were convened at London (1843), Brussels (1848), Paris (1849), Frankfort (1850), and London (1851),114 but Baha’u’llah did admonish “the elected representatives of the people in every land” to take “counsel together” and to let their “concern be only for that which profiteth mankind, and bettereth the condition thereof.”115
of Justice” be formed, composed of nine or more men, who will act as the “stewards of the Merciful” and “agents of God for the whole earth.”116 Among the duties of the House of Justice are legislating on topics not revealed in the Kitab-i-Aqdas,117 selecting an international language,118 and concerning themselves with matters which benefit mankind.119 ‘Abdu’l-Baha maintains that the House of Justice is “endowed with a political as well as a religious function, the consummate union and blending of church and state.”120 He further comments:
Its rulings shall be in accordance with the commands and teachings of Baha’u’llah, and that which the universal House of Justice ordains shall be obeyed by all mankind. This international house of Justice shall be appointed and organized from the Houses of Justice of the whole world, and all the world shall come under its administration.121 The election of the Universal House of Justice is to be “after the manner of the customary elections in Western countries such as those of England,” ‘Abdu’l- Baha specifies.122
in the teachings of Baha’u’llah, such as the oneness of mankind. Other of the principles find some basis in Baha’u’llah’s teachings but have under- gone some modification in their formulation for a Western and scientifically oriented audience. ‘Abdu’l-Baha adapted Baha’u’llah’s teaching that certain sciences are allowable and profitable for study and his requirement to gain knowledge from the sciences into the principle of the “harmony of science and religion.” The higher status given to women in the Baha’i religion becomes for ‘Abdu’l-Baha the full-fledged “equality of men and women.”
in the United States, points out that his speeches were adapted to his audiences. In speaking to the Theosophists, he used “extended and complex reasoning patterns” but “where the audience represented a lower educational level, … the reasoning was minimized in favor of simple analogy.”123 A similar adaptation is at work in all of ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s messages in the West. He emphasized aspects of the faith which would find a more ready hearing in the West, giving to some teachings a more scientific coloring, presenting the religion as a more advanced form of Christianity, and minimizing dogmatic aspects in favor of a social and humanitarian emphasis. NOTES TO CHAPTER V 1 E. E. Elder and William Miller, trans. and ed., Al-Kitab Al-Aqdas or The Most Holy Book, by Mirza Husayn ‘Ali Baha’u’llah, “Oriental Translation Fund,” New Series Volume XXXVIII (London: Published by the Royal Asiatic Society and sold by its Agents Luzac & Company, Ltd., 1961), p. 56 (hereinafter referred to as Aqdas). 2 Baha’i World Faith: Selected Writings of Baha’u’llah and ‘Abdu’l-Baha (Wilmette, Ill.: Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1956), pp. 209-10 hereinafter referred to as Baha’i World Faith). Miller points out that the titles for ‘Abdu’l-Baha (Ghusn-i-A‘zam) and Muhammad ‘Ali (Ghusn-i-Akbar) are both superlatives so that an accurate translation would be, respectively, “the Most Mighty Branch” and “the Most Great Branch” (William McElwee Miller, The Baha’i Faith: Its History and Teachings [South Pasadena, Calif.; William Carey Library, 1974], pp. 173-74). Browne says that he wrongly transposed the two titles in his first article on the Babis in the J.R.A.S., July, 1889 (Edward G. Browne. A Year amongst the Persians [3d ed.; London: Adam and Charles Black, 1950], p. 368, n. 3), but he seems rather to have been wrong in giving the titles in A Year amongst the Persians. 3 Elder and Miller, Aqdas, p. 70. 4 J. R. Richards, The Religion of the Baha’is (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1932), p. 97. 5 ibid.
6 This evening, as noted earlier, would actually be May 22, 1844. 7 Myron H. Phelps, Life and Teachings of Abbas Effendi (New York & London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, the Knickerbocker Press, 1904), p. 13. 8 Thornton Chase, The Baha’i Revelation (New York: Baha’i Pub- lishing Committee, 1919), p. 59. The Bab’s declaration was two hours and eleven minutes after sunset. 9 J. E. Esslemont, Baha’u’llah and the New Era (Wilmette, Ill.: Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1960), p. 19. 10 ibid., p. 64. 11 The Centenary of a World Faith: The History of the Baha’i Faith and Its Development in the British Isles (London: Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1944), p. 28. 267
York: Pyramid Books, 1970), p. 64. 13 Edward G. Browne, comp., Materials for the Study of the Babi
14 Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By (Wilmette, Ill.: Baha’i Publish- ing Trust, 1957), pp. 279-80. 15 For an account of ‘Abdu’l-Baha in London, see Abdul-Baha in London. Addresses & Notes of Conversations (Chicago: Bahai Publishing Trust, 1921), Lady Blomfield (Sitarih Khanum), The Chosen Highway (Wilmette, Ill.: Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1967), pp. 147-78, and H. M. Balyuzi, ‘Abdu’l-Baha,
pp. 140-58. 16 For these addresses, see Paris Talks, Addresses Given by ‘Abdu’l-
This work was first published in 1912 and was published in the United States under the title The Wisdom of Abdul-Baha. For an account of ‘Abdu’l-Baha in Paris, see also chapter III of Blomfield, The Chosen Highway, pp. 179-87, and chapter XI of Balyuzi, ‘Abdu’l-Baha, pp. 159-66. 17 ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s addresses delivered in the United States have been collected and published in two volumes entitled The Promulgation
1921-1922), Vol. II (Chicago: Baha’i Publishing Committee, 1925). See also Allan Lucius Ward, An Historical Study of the North American Speaking Tour of ‘Abdu’l-Baha and a Rhetorical Analysis of His Address (Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio University, 1960), and Balyuzi, ‘Abdu’l-Baha, chapters XII-XVIII, pp. 171-339.
18 Balyuzi, ‘Abdu’l-Baha, p. 186, and The Baha’i Centenary, 1844- 1944, comp, by the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is of the United States and Canada (Wilmette, Ill.: Baha’i Publishing Committee, 1944), p. 84. 19 James T. Bixby, “What Is Behaism?” The North American Review Vol. 196, No. DCLXXIXCXCV (June, 1912), 83353. 20 “Personal Glimpses: A Prophet from the East,” The Literary
21 “Will Bahaism Unite All Religious Faiths?” The American Review of Reviews, XLV (June, 1912), 748-49. 22 Robert M. Labaree, “The Baha’i Propaganda in America,” The Missionary Review of the World, XLII (Aug., 1919), p. 591. 23 Ruth White, Bahai Leads out of the Labyrinth (New York: Univer- sal Pub. Co., 1444), p. 7. Ruth White later fell from grace in the eyes of Baha’is under Shoghi Effendi’s guardianship. See the next chapter. 24 For a brief account of ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s travels, see Shoghi Effen- di, God Passes By, pp. 279-81. 25 Balyuzi, ‘Abdu’l-Baha, pp. 420-22. 26 ibid., p. 443. 27 Shoghi, God Passes By, pp. 310-13. 28 ibid., p. 247. 29 Browne, Materials, p. 75. 30 ibid., p. 76. 31 ibid., p. 77. 32 ibid., p. 77, n. 1. 33 ibid., p. 79. 34 Elder and Miller, Aqdas, p. 39. Brackets mine. See also Brown, Materials, p. 82. 35 Ruhiyyih Rabbani, Prescription for Living (London: George Ronald, 1960), p. 182. 36 Browne, Materials, pp. 94-95; Balyuzi, ‘Abdu’l-Baha, p. 65. 37 R. P. Richardson, “The Persian Rival to Jesus, and His American Disciples,” The Open Court, XXII (Aug., 1915), 477. 38 Browne, Materials, pp. 117-18. 39 See Samuel Graham Wilson, Bahaism and Its Claims (New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1915), 93-94, and Marzieh Gail, Baha’i Glossary (Wil- mette, Ill.: Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1957), p. 8. 40 Blomfield, The Chosen Highway, p. 211. 41 ibid., p. 134. 42 Arthur Pillsbury Dodge, Whence? Why? Whither? Man, Things, Other Things (Westwood, Mass.: Ariel Press, 1907), pp. 87, 264. 43 Isabella D. Brittingham, comp., The Revelation of Bahä’-Ulläh, in a Sequence of Four Lessons (Chicago, Baha’i Publishing Society, 1902), p. 24; cited by Wilson, Bahaism and Its Claims, p. 94. See also other quota- tions in Wilson, pp. 94-95. 44 Horace Holley, Bahai: The Spirit of the Age (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Truübner and Co., Ltd., 1921, p. 25. 45 ibid., pp. 56-57, 61, 71. 46 Julia M. Grundy, Ten Days in the Light of Acca (Chicago: Bahai Publishing Society, 1907), pp. 36-37. 47 ibid., p. 48. 48 Constance Elisabeth Maud, “Abdul Baha,” The Fortnightly Review, XCIII, N.S. (April, 1912), 715. 49 George Townshend, The Mission of Baha’u’llah and Other Literary Pieces (Oxford: George Ronald, 1952), p. 47. 50 David Hofman, The Renewal of Civilization, Talisman Books (London: George Ronald, 1946), p. 28. 51 Browne, Materials, p. 101. 52 ibid., p. 102. 53 ibid., pp. 101-10. 54 These letters were called to my attention by Miss Marjorie Giffis, Reference Librarian, Union Theological Seminary Library, in a letter dated February 5, 1970. They are uncatalogued letters, located with other material in the section numbered OU23 pam. The letters are in English, probably translations of originals written in Persian. The English copies indicate that the letters were signed by “Mohammed Ali” and “Badi Allah” from “Acre” on “March 31st 1901.” 55 Browne, Materials, p. 197. For an English translation of this tract and also an epistle setting forth the reasons behind Badi‘u’llah’s switch to ‘Abdu’l-Baha, see Mirza Badi Ullah, An Epistle to the Bahai World, trans. by Ameen Ullah Fareed (Chicago: Bahai Publishing Society, 1907). The “confession” occupies three pages at the beginning. This publication appears in facsimile in Ruth White, The Bahai Religion and Its Enemy the Bahai Organi-
56 Richards, The Religion of the Baha’is, p. 99. 57 Ethel Stefana Stevens, “The Light in the Lantern,” Everybody’s
59 Hofman, The Renewal of Civilization, p. 30. 60 Horace Holley, “A Statement of the Purpose and Principles of the Baha’i Faith,” Baha’i Year Book, Vol. I (New York: Baha’i Publishing Committee, 1916), p. 14. 61 George Townshend, Christ and Baha’u’llah (London, George Ronald, 1957), p. 96. 62 J. R. Richards, Baha’ism, “Christian Knowledge Booklets,” No. 5 (London: S.P.C.K., 1965), p. 19. 63 Tablets of Abdul-Baha Abbas (3 vols.; Chicago: Bahai Publish- ing Trust, 1909-1919), I. 15-16 (hereinafter referred to as Tablets). 64 Hud is an ancient Arabian prophet after whom the eleventh surah of the Qur’an is named. According to the Qur’an, he was sent to his people of the tribe of A‘ad (VII, 65; II, 50; XXVI, 124: XCVI, 21). 65 Salih is another ancient Arabian prophet sent to the tribe of Thamud (VII, 75; XI, 61; XXVI, 142; XXVIII, 45). 66 Baha’u’llah. The Kitab-i-Iqan: The Book of Certitude, trans. by Shoghi Effendi (2d ed.; Wilmette, Ill.: Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1950), pp. 7-65. 67 ‘Abdu’l-Baha, Promulgation of Universal Peace, I, 192. 68 ibid., I, 216, II, 339-40; ‘Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, collected and trans. by Laura Clifford Barney (Wilmette, Ill.: Baha’i Pub- lishing Trust, 1964), p. 189. 69 One Universal Faith (Wilmette, Ill.: Baha’i Publishing Trust, n.d.), p. 5. 70 Hugh E. Chance, “Baha’i Faith,” Collier’s Encyclopedia, 1965, III, 462. 71 ‘Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 143. 72 ibid., pp. 136-37. 73 ibid., p. 103. 74 ibid. 75 ibid., pp. 120-21. 76 ibid., pp. 124-25. 77 ibid., p. 130. 78 ‘Abdu’l-Baha, Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 289.. 79 ibid., p. 82. 80 ‘Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 310. 81 Marzieh Gail, The Sheltering Branch (London: George Ronald, 1959), pp. 51, 57-58. 82 ‘Abdu’l-Baha, Tablets, I, 149. 83 ‘Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 103. See above, p. 256.
84 ibid., pp. 133-38, 240-42. 85 ibid., p. 137. 86 ibid., pp. 117-21. 87 ibid., p. 127. 88 Wilson, Bahaism and Its Claims, p. 34. 89 ‘Abdu’l-Baha, Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 285. 90 Richards, The Religion of the Baha’is, p. 111. 91 Miller, The Baha’i Faith, p. 233. 92 Baha’u’llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, pp. 3-4. 93 The Hidden Words of Baha’u’llah, trans. by Shoghi Effendi (Wilmette, Ill.: Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1963), pp. 3-4. 94 Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, trans. by Shoghi Effendi (Wilmette, Ill.: Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1963), p. 218 (hereinafter referred to as Gleanings); Baha’u’llah. Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, trans. by Shoghi Effendi (Wilmette, Ill.: Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1962), p. 14. 95 Gleanings, p. 25. 96 Baha’u’llah, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 24.
98 Richards, Baha’ism, pp. 16-17; see also Richards, The Religion of the Baha’is, p. 101. 99 See above, pp. 158-59. 100 Baha’i World Faith, p. 195. 101 ibid., p. 189. 102 ‘Abdu’l-Baha, Promulgation of Universal Peace, I, 170-71. 103 Gail, The Sheltering Branch, p. 81. Perhaps worth noting, though, are Paul’s words in Galatians 3:28 that “there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” 104 Edward G. Browne, “Babiism,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th ed., III, 95.
105 Gail, The Sheltering Branch, p. 83. 106 Elder and Miller, Aqdas, p. 40. 107 Baha’u’llah’s first wife, whom he married in 1835, was named Nawwab. She was the mother of ‘Abdu’l-Baha, Bahiyyih Khanum, three eons who died in childhood, and of one eon who died at ‘Akka. Baha’u’llah married his cousin Mahd-i-‘Ulya in 1849. She was the mother of Muhammad Ali and Badi‘u- ’llah, leaders in the opposition against ‘Abdu’l-Baha, of two children who died in childhood, and of another son and a daughter (Browne, Materials, pp. 320-21). Wilson holds that Baha’u’llah had “three wives, or two wives and a concubine.” The third wife (or concubine) was taken in the last year in Bagh- dad (1867-1868) (Wilson, Bahaism and Its Claims, pp. 159-61). The third wife was named Gohar. Mention is made also of a fourth wife whom Baha’u’llah married in his later years, named Jamaliyya, a niece of Khadim Allah, a loyal follower (Elder and Miller, Aqdas, p. 40, n. 3). 108 John Ferraby, All Things Made New (rev. American ed.; Wilmette, Ill.; Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1960 , pp. 94-95; Esslemont, Baha’u’llah and the New Era, 3d rev. ed., pp. 154-56. 109 ‘Abdu’l-Baha, Tablets, I, 8. 110 ibid., I, 27; see also p. 90. 111 See Tablets, I, p. 69, where ‘Abdu’l-Baha addressee the Muskegon, Michigan, assembly as “O Spiritual Assembly.” 112 Rabbani, Prescription for Living, p. 179; see also Charles Mason Remey, The Bahai Movement: A Series of Nineteen Papers upon the Bahai
114 Wilson, Bahaism and Its Claims, pp. 75-76. 115 Gleanings, p. 254. 116 Elder and Miller, Aqdas, p. 31. 117 Baha’i World Faith, p. 184. 118 ibid., p. 199. 119 Elder and Miller, Aqdas, p. 30. 120 Baha’i World Faith, p. 247. 121 ibid., p. 248. 122 Baha’i World Faith, p. 447. 123 Ward, An Historical Study of the North American Speaking Tour
Yüklə 2,06 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|