In the Land of Refuge

214^ According to the translator’s calculations, 2 Rabí‘u’l-Avval occurred on a Friday.

215^ Original text in INBMC 51:471–75. Fayzí, Khándán Afnán, pp. 260–62, provides two Tablets revealed for Siyyid Muhammad-Husayn and Siyyid Hasan on their father’s passing.

216^ At this point, the Tablet switches into Persian.

217^ Provisional rendering by Dr. Khazeh Fananapazir in collaboration with Ismael Velasco.

218^ ‘Andalíb composed the following eyewitness account of Bahá’u’lláh’s passing (Díván-i ‘Andalíb, pp. 471–74):

He is the All-Powerful, the All-Mighty, the Beloved.

Oh, in life’s cup the wine-pourer of the feast of decree

Poured life-ending venom instead of spirit-elating wine.

For every ache there is a remedy, for every trouble a solution,
Oh, for this remediless ache and this balmless trouble.

The eye of creation was stunned, the world’s heart darkened,

Heart’s orchard was withered, the nightingale of life silenced.

From this loss, the pillars of existence were dismantled,

From this loss, the eternal throne was crushed.

The waves of the surging Sea of Grace were stilled; instead,

Waves of grief’s ocean gushed in the hearts and souls of the near ones.

The banner of the Most Excellent Names fell to the dust,

The lamentation of God’s Party was raised to the high heavens.

The One by Whose Manifestation the Day of Resurrection dawned upon the world,

By the setting of His sun a commotion made the world to quake.

The One Who in the Sinai of nearness called, “Behold, and thou shalt see,”

Dismayed many a Moses by His roar, “Never shalt thou behold.”

The Most Mighty Ocean sunk its Ruby Ship,

Whence a tempest of tears descended from the eyes of Noah.

Thus was the king of the visible world established upon the placeless throne,

Thus the Sun-like countenance became hid in the West of the eternal Holiness.

The ear was deprived of the song of the Nightingale of Paradise,

the eye was forbid the effulgence of the Sun-like countenance.

For nineteen days that heavenly Beauty was bed-ridden,

At the dawn of Saturday, second of Dhi’l-Qa‘dah He was veiled from us.

It was the sixteenth of the Roman month of Ayar,

It was the thirteenth of the month of ‘Azamat.

Of the Persian Naw-Rúz seventy days had passed,

And of the Migration, one thousand three hundred and nine years elapsed.

Then it was this tragedy occurred, this loss appeared,

And the phrase “Verily the Lord was hidden” became the mark of this tragedy.

With mine own eyes did I behold the clear morn of the Day of Resurrection,

As it surrounded the entire the land of ‘Akká,

As for the funeral ‘Akká’s population entire, low and noble,

Gathered in Bahjí to express their faithfulness.

The Persian believers lamented fate’s unchangeable decree,

And the native Arabs cried out, “Oh our Lord, Oh our Lord!”

For the washing of the Sacred Body in the haram, the Most Mighty Branch,

Stood at service solely out of His patience, resignation, and acquiescence.

His Holiness God’s Most Mighty Branch spoke to the friends compassionately,

With a speech eloquent and enchanting.

“No one should be disturbed since God has said,

In His Kitáb-i Aqdas for all creation:

“‘O people, when the Sun of My Beauty has set,

And My heavenly Temple is hidden from all eyes.

“‘All must arise for the triumph of My Cause,

Remain assured and raise its banner the world over.

“‘There was a wisdom in My Manifestation, and a wisdom also in My disappearance,

None will this wisdom comprehend save God Himself.’

“Therefore must we become united in His Cause’s spread,

We must become united both in outward seeming and within our hearts.

“For teaching and triumph of the Faith we must be as one body,

Instill a new spirit by this Call into the temple of the world.

“Eleven were the Disciples of Jesus Christ;

After the passing of God’s Spirit they gave healing to world’s dwellers.

“Praised be God at present our number is several thousand,

All enlightened by the effulgence and the Writings of Bahá.”

Thanks be God’s that we are all beneath the Most Mighty Branch’s shade,

The Branch of that Ancient Stock and the wave of that Ocean of Grace.

Remain constant and assured in this mighty Cause,

Patient in this tragedy, thankful in adversity.

‘Andalíb regrets that ere this tragedy struck

He did not drink a cup borne by death’s angel!

219^ Several of Bahá’u’lláh’s Tablets addressed to him are in INBMC 51:441–47, nos. 446–54. A description of this twin martyrdom is given in Mázandarání, Táríkh Zuhúru’l-Haqq, vol. 6, pp. 874–76.

220^ As noted earlier, in order to protect the believers of Shíráz, Núri’d-Dín left Iran for more than 16 years and lived first in India and then in Egypt.

221^ Provisional rendering by Dr. Khazeh Fananapazir in collaboration with Ismael Velasco.

222^ City’s central square where cannons are kept on permanent display.

223^ Since Imám Husayn had been refused water during His final moments, it is customary in Iran that victims are given water before their execution.

224^ A description of Murtidá’s martyrdom is given in Mázandarání, Táríkh Zuhuru’l-Haqq, vol. 5, pp. 373–74, and vol. 6, pp. 875–76.

225^ One of Bahá’u’lláh’s Tablets in honor of Murtidá is found in INBMC 51:397, no. 408.

226^ See Balyúzí, Eminent Bahá’ís in the Time of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 142–55, and Bámdád, Sharh Hál Rijál Iran, vol. 1, pp. 42–43.

227^ Because of his fame and Qájár background, Shaykhu’r-Ra’ís was directed by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá to conceal his conversion to the Bahá’í Faith.

228^ Pages 317–21 contain several poetic exchanges between these two believers; these exchanges do not bear directly on the historical events and as such have not been translated.

229^ A different translation of this interview formerly appeared in Balyúzí, Eminent Bahá’ís in the Time of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 252–60. A summary is in Mázandarání, Táríkh Zuhúru’l-Haqq, vol. 6, pp. 1013–15.

230^ Núri’d-Dín’s letters from Búshihr are extant and are dated AH 1311 [1893]. Therefore, most likely “1312” is a copyist error, and the actual date is AH 1311.

231^ Mírzá Habíbu’lláh adds parenthetically: (The Hujjatu’l-Islám had family ties with the Afnán, that is to say their fathers were paternal cousins, and he was also closely related to the father of the Báb. It was for this reason that he was trying to arrange the meeting.)

232^ The Ministry of Muhammad lasted some twenty-three years.

233^ The correct year should be AH 1300 [1882].

234^ The records of the Afnán family indicate that a copy of this will found its way to Mírzá Habíbu’lláh Afnán (Abú’l-Qásim Afnán, private communications, August 1995).

235^ Under the feudalistic system of the time, the Afnáns were among the affluent landlords, owning many properties throughout Fárs, including homes, farms, and other properties in Ábádih (Abú’l-Qásim Afnán, private communication, August 1995).

236^ For a biography see Balyúzí, Eminent Bahá’ís in the Time of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 156–70, and Sulaymání, Masábíh Hidáyat, vol. 3, pp. 417–83.

237^ In Bahá’u’lláh’s Writings he is referred to as “the son of the wolf.”

238^ The symbolism is that of Moses’ admonishment to the Pharaoh.

239^ Since ‘Abdu’l-Bahá had instructed Shaykhu’r-Ra’ís to conceal his faith, he had denied association with a well-known believer in order to safeguard his own precarious situation.

240^ One of the foremost early Bábí–Bahá’ís, he was a survivor of the battle of Shaykh Tabarsí and served with distinction and renown in Khurásán; for a biography see Rabbani, The Voice of Heroes: Genesis of the Bahá’í Faith in Khurásán.

241^ The Ábádih incident is also told by Áqá Mírzá Qábil Ábádi’i in his valuable unpublished history, Táríkh Ábádih va Tavabi‘, (147 pages in the author’s hand, chapter “The Sixth Event”, pages 40–55), henceforth referred to as Qábil. There are some additional notable details provided by Qábil, as well as some differences between his version and the present document by Mírzá Habíbu’lláh. To the extent practical, these are noted below. For a biography of Mírzá ‘Abbás Qábil, see Sulaymání, Masábíh Hidáyat, vol. 2, pp. 182–234.

242^ Qábil, p. 40, notes that in the company of Núri’d-Dín, Furúghí arrived at Ábádih on 17 Dhi’l-Qa‘dih AH 1313 [30 April 1896]. On the same day, Qábil himself arrived from Yazd. On page 41, Qábil notes that Furúghí had just returned from the Holy Land and in his meetings, urged the friends to steadfastness in the Covenant and avoidance of Mírzá Muhammad-‘Alí and other opponents of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá.

243^ Qabil, p. 2, notes that he was a son of Karbalá’í Muhammad-Taqí and surnamed “Bá’yí” [enduring] by Bahá’u’lláh.

244^ Ábádih has had a checkered history of Bahá’í persecution. Many of these episodes are described in detail in Qábil. One early incident is told in Mázarandání, Táríkh Zuhúruh’l-Haqq, vol. 5, p. 93.

245^ The monarch’s assassination by Mírzá Ridá Kirmání took place on 19 April 1896.

246^ Qábil, p. 42, notes that the Imám-Jum‘ih connived with a number of other clerics in presenting the Bahá’ís as the Sháh’s murderers and as engaged in preparation of warfare against the state. This accusation caused the Ruknu’d-Dawlih to become particularly apprehensive of the situation. According to Qábil, the Hishmat-Nizám was ordered by the governor to remain in Ábádih to ensure the security of the region and if necessary, to seize and imprison the Bahá’í leadership.

247^ Qábil, p. 43, gives the date of this event as 1 Dhi’l-Hajjih AH 1313 [14 May 1896].

248^ Qábil, p. 47, indicates that these two men remained in the prison for the duration of the troubles. The same source, page 50, indicates that the fine was 300 tumáns.

249^ Qábil, pp. 45–47, gives a detailed account of a severe beating that he received during this period. Further, in pages 49–50, he gives the details of his presentation to the Hisámu’s-Saltanih on 22 May, implying that he must have been in prison for the duration of the troubles. On page 51, Qábil gives the exact date of his departure for Yazd as two hours into the night of 12 Dhi’l-Hajjih [25 May].

250^ Qábil, p. 53, places this event in the course of the second wave of troubles, that is, after the Hisámu’s-Saltanih’s visit, and on 25 May 1896. Further, he suggests that the lad’s injuries were self-inflicted, which seems rather unlikely.

251^ Qábil, p. 53, gives the fee as ten tumáns.

252^ Qur’án 7:44.

253^ Qábil, p. 47, indicates that the entire Bahá’í communities of Ábádih, Dirghúk, and Himat-Ábád fled into the mountain fastness.

254^ Qábil, p. 47, indicates that the leader of the armed Bahá’ís, Áqá Haydar-‘Alí Himat-Ábádí, and ‘Abbás Khán Dirghúkí appealed to the two Bahá’í prisoners, Dá’yí Husayn and Hájí ‘Alí Khán, for permission to attack and free them by force. However, noting that ‘Askar Khán and one hundred of his men guarded the prison round the clock, the Bahá’í captives discouraged this effort.

255^ Presumably, a reference to Siyyid Ismá‘íl Zavari’í, surnamed Dhabíh; see Balyúzí, Bahá’u’lláh the King of Glory, pp. 132–34, and Taherzadeh, Revelation of Bahá’u’lláh, vol. 1, pp. 101–3.

256^ Qábil, p. 55, gives the date of Furúghí’s arrival in Yazd as 28 Dhi’l-Hajjih [10 June].

257^ Qábil, pp. 47–48, indicates this event took place on 7 Dhi’l-Hajjih [20 May 1896] and that the group of 500 Bahá’í women from Ábádih and Himat-Ábád were led by the Siraju’l-Hukamá, ‘Abbás Khán’s wife, and Hájí ‘Alí Khán’s wife.

258^ Qábil, p. 54, indicates that he arrived in Yazd on 16 Dhi’l-Hajjih [29 May] and briefed the Vakílu’d-Dawlih of the events. Thereupon, a telegram was sent to Tihrán, and on the following day a cable was received from the Prime Minister’s office:

Response to the citizens of Ábádih:

[Attention of] the illustrious Ruknu’d-Dawlih:

Why has Mírzá Siyyid Yahyá Khán, [the Hishmat-Nizám,] the commander of the Hamadání forces, through the instigation of the mischievous Imám-Jum‘ih of Ábádih and in collaboration with the scoundrel Zál Khán of the Telegraph Office, caused such tumult in Ábádih? And why have they caused the citizens of that region to be scattered on the mere accusation of being Bahá’ís, and plundered their possessions and properties, slain or injured a number of them, and yet again extracted fines from some others? Of a certainty, Siyyid Yahyá Khán must move at once from Ábádih, and all the confiscated properties and possessions must be returned to their rightful owners and peace must be re-established.

259^ He had received the same title as his father, and therefore the notations “I” and “II” are used to differentiate between the two. For a biography, see Bámdád, Sharh Hál Rijál Iran, vol. 1, pp. 70–71.

260^ Qábil, p. 48, gives the date of his arrival as 9 Dhi’l-Hajjih [22 May 1896].

261^ Not to be confused with a name of the famous building in Shíráz that for a long period served as the residence of the governor-general of Fárs.

262^ Qábil, pp. 50–51, states that with departure of the Hisámu’s-Saltanih II from Ábádih, the Hishmat-Nizám decided to renew mischief and planned on the murder of Qábil. However, the latter was informed of this plot and fled to Yazd in the middle of night.

263^ A.Q. Afnán maintains that this journey took place prior to the events of Ábádih (private communication, December 1997).

264^ Malmirí, Khátirát Malmirí, p. 126, indicates that Núri’d-Dín remained in Ábádih for a year.

265^ The remains of the Báb were interred in His permanent Shrine on Naw-Rúz 1909. For the history of events leading to this interment, see, Rabbani, “Efforts to Preserve the Remains of the Báb: Four Historical Accounts.”

266^ The text on page 412 quotes five lines of this poem that are not rendered into English in the present translation. The concluding verse gives the date of this event, 1327 [1909], as the numerical value of the phrase “Hadíratu’l-Qudsí.”

267^ The text on pages 413–15 contains a copy this missive and poem, which have not been reproduced in this translation.

268^ Bámdád, Sharh Hál Rijál Iran, vol. 1, pp. 28–29, indicates that he was first appointed governor-general of Fárs in AH 1318 [1900]. See appendix 3 for a Tablet of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá about this governor’s potential.

269^ In the story of Adam and Eve in the Qur’án, chapter 34, it is wheat, not the biblical apple, which is forbidden unto man.

270^ The author cites only these three couplets out of the nineteen.

271^ See Afnán, Memories of the Báb, Bahá’u’lláh, and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, chapter 11 for ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s Tablets with regard to the purchase of this house in 1921.

272^ INBMC 52:366, no. 410.

273^ Bámdád, Sharh Hál Rijál Iran, vol. 4, pp. 156–57, indicates that Malik Mansúr Mírzá, being among the most affluent Iranians with an enormous annual stipend, planned to seize Bazaar Vakíl and the shops around the Karím Khán’s quarter. However, these belonged to the Qavám family, who induced a popular uprising that resulted in the Prince’s being recalled from his post.

274^ Two Turkish tribes of Fárs.

275^ A.Q. Afnán states: “From the beginning of Rabí‘u’l-Avval of AH 1321 [28 May–27 June 1903], the clamor of malice and enmity was noised abroad throughout many towns of Iran. It that same year, more than eighty destitute Bahá’ís were martyred in Yazd, and the earth of that region was reddened and ennobled with the blood of these souls. Contemporaneously, out of fear of the perfidiousness of Áqá Najafí and the treachery of Zillu’s-Sultán, the friends of God in Isfahán took refuge in the Russian Consulate” (private communication, September 1997).

276^ Based on his father’s recollections, A.Q. Afnán writes (private correspondence, September 1997):

From the beginning of his regime, the ‘Alá’u’d-Dawlih had the custom that he would devote Saturdays to investigating the complaints of various Shírázís, such as merchants, nobles, and shopkeepers. The rest of the week, he would spend on other matters pertaining to the administration of the province. Since he was a capable, yet severe and heartless person, and was particularly known for his foulmouthed expressions, people were deeply frightened of him and would try not to create a circumstance that would require his intervention. His other custom was that all complaints had to be presented in writing, whereupon the text would be read aloud in his presence and he would order the immediate summoning of parties and an investigation, and then he would pronounce decisions. On occasion, he would delegate the task of inquiry to others, such as the ‘ulamá or the dignitaries, who had to report their findings on the following Saturday, at which time, he would issue the final ruling in the presence of both parties. He also had the habit of immediately enforcing his decision and punishing the guilty, and if he found the initial complaint to be invalid, often it was noted that he would force the petitioner to eat his entreaty and to receive a beating.

277^ Many of the upper echelon of the administrative machinery of Fárs were Bahá’ís, and it continued that way throughout much of the Constitutional Revolution. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá confirms the same in His 23 July 1912 talk, “...a Bahá’í may hold a political office and be interested in politics of the right type. Ministers, state officials, and governor-generals in Persia are Bahá’ís, and there are many other Bahá’ís holding governmental positions...” (The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 238).

278^ One of the devoted Bahá’ís of that era.

279^ He was a Bahá’í, and as such, his brother, though not a believer, had a particular affinity for the Bahá’ís.

280^ Reference to Mírzá Jalál Zarqání.

281^ During his final months, Núri’d-Dín was attacked in Shamshírgarhá Street, where the House of the Báb was situated, and eventually passed away from these injuries.

282^ ‘Akká was a district of Syria; see Balyúzí, Bahá’u’lláh the King of Glory, pp. 471–73.

283^ See, Afnán, Memories of the Báb, Bahá’u’lláh, and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, chapter 2.

284^ His father, Násiri’d-Dín Sháh (r. 1848–1896)

285^ Qur’án 76:1. The full verse is: “Did there not pass over man a [long] space of time during which he was a thing not worthy of remembrance?”

286^ A.Q. Afnán has recorded that when relating this story his father would add: And Bahá’u’lláh further said, “The Qavámu’l-Mulk has succored the captives and helped the wronged believers, and to the extent within his power, he has protected and shielded the Faith. For as long as he and his family do not arise against the Cause, he will remain in his position—confirmed, assured, and successful” (private communication, August 1997).

287^ Qur’án 110:2.

288^ A.Q. Afnán has recorded the following additional details from his father (private communications, August 1997): “The clergy in Shíráz, following the example of the ‘ulamá of Yazd, commenced mischief and disturbances against the Bahá’ís of the city. Some shopkeepers, encouraged by Siyyid ‘Alí-Akbar Fál-Asírí, his son Siyyid Muhammad, Shaykh Muhsin Qannád, and Shaykh Ja‘far Mahallátí, closed their businesses in protest. The clergy ascended the pulpits and began insulting the Faith and provoking the religious fervor of the multitudes until a complete uprising against the Cause and the massacre of all Bahá’ís seemed inevitable.”

289^ He served as a high-ranking military officer.

290^ During this period, the ‘Alá’u’d-Dawlih wanted to demonstrate to the officials in Tihrán his foresight and general abilities in administering affairs, as he desired a cabinet post in the capital. He knew that if Shíráz were to sustain the same fate as Yazd, it would end his political ambitions.