Have did the close bahai friend of Abdul-Baha leave him ?
Reasons which induced Ibrahim George Khayru'llah to forsake Abbas Effendi ( Abdul Baha ) and adhere to his brother Muhammad Ali Effendi.
IBRAHIM GEORGE KHAYRU'LLAH IN THE POSITION OF A THIRD PERSON OF BAHAI FAITH :
The Conquest of America for the Baha'i religion by means of Dr. Ibrahim George Khayru'llah literally transcribed from what the above- mentioned Kheyrolah wrote, putting
himself in the position of a third person. ( 6 )
EDUCATED AT BEYROUT.
Khayru'llah's father died while he was still a child at the breast , and his mother undertook his education, placing him first in the primary schools, and then sending him to the College in Beyrout, and thence to the American University College, where, in 1870 (A.H..1287 he obtained the degree of Bachelor of Science "B.A.". ( 5 )He was one of the five [students] who were the first fruits of this celebrated college.
RECEPTION OF KHAYRU'LLAH BY ABBAS EFENDI.
About twenty-four hours after he had disembarked, he set off from Hayfa in a carriage with Husayn the Persian, of the village of Khamna, a dependency of Tabriz, who had been appointed by Abbas Efendi to meet the pilgrims and the two went together to Akka and alighted at the house where dwelt His Holiness 'Abbas Efendi. ( 4 )There, in the reception-room on the upper floor, 'Abbas Efendi entered and greeted Khayru'llah, saying, " Welcome to the friend ! " Then he clasped him to his breast and kissed him, saying, "Welcome to thee, O Baha's Peter, O second Columbus, Conqueror of America!" Then he sat down talking to him kindly and affectionately, and asking him about the pilgrims who went coming from America, and about the believers there. Then he asked him to stay with him in the house, and he agreed thereto and stayed there. And on the next day a military officer came and put a fez on Khayru'llah's head instead of a hat, saying to him, "Verily Abbas Efendi has ordered this fez for Baha's Peter, Columbus the Second, the Conqueror of America." After this the believers there began to send congratulations on this distinction, calling him at one time Columbus the Second, Conqueror of America, and at another Baha's Peter.
When Abbas Efendi brought Khayru'llah into the room wherein was deposited the body of His Holiness our Master Baha'u'llah, he told him that he was the first pilgrim to whom the door of this chamber had been opened for entrance" thereunto and to perform the ceremonies prescribed for the visitation. And thereafter he begun to open it for the entrance of other pilgrims.
KHAYROLAH HELPS TO LAY THE FOUNDATION STONE OF THE BAB'S MAUSOLEUM.
Another of the distinctions which he enjoyed was the that, one day Abbas Efendi came to Hayfa and alighted at the house in which Khayru'llah was lodging with his family, and invited him to accompany him to Mount Carmel to participate with him in laying the foundation-stone of the mausoleum which was to be erected to receive the body of the " First Point " His Holiness the Bab, this honour being assigned to him instead of to Abbas Efendi's brother "the Most Great Branch" Muhammad Ali Efendi.
*So they went together, and then on Mount Carmel Abbas Efendi took a pick-axe and gave Khayru'llah another pick-axe, which one of the attendants had brought for this purpose, and, after asking help from God, they both began to dig the foundations, while the servant who was present removed the excavated earth. Thus the Work continued for a few minutes, when Abbas Efendi laid aside his pick-axe and ordered Khayru'llah to do likewise. Then he said to him, "This is an honour which none of the believers except thee has enjoyed." And he kept praising his action and his instruction of the Americans before the assembly of the believers and often did he make mention thereof in his writings. He also entitled him "the Shepherd of God's flocks in America," and presented him with the works of His Holiness Baha (to whom be glory !). As for Abbas Efendi's followers they, treated Khayru'llah with all kindness and affection.
It is worth mentioning here that Her Holiness Bahiyya Khanim "the Blessed Leaf," the sister of Abbas Efendi, gave Khayrullah her book, which was written in a beautiful hand and contained a number of Holy Tablets revealed by the Supreme Pen; and told him that it was a present from her to Baha's Peter, the Conqueror of America, who had wrought for the extension of the Faith what no other of the missionaries had achieved. And he thanked her, and put it by with other precious Writings.
Notwithstanding that Khayru'llah had repeatedly begged His Holiness Abbas Efendi before he went to visit him to send him a volume of the Holy Verses which had been revealed by the Supreme Pen so that he might compare them with his teachings, in order to guard against the incidence of error, and His Holiness Abbas Efendi had promised him this, yet he sent him nothing of what he had demanded. So Khayru'llah determined when he went to Akka to attain this supreme aim, to wit the acquisition of knowledge at first hand; and, whenever he foregathered with Abbas Efendi he used *to explain to him the teachings which he gave to the Americans, even translating lengthy sections thereof, and asking His Holiness to correct what was erroneous. But His Holiness confirmed them and praised them publicly before all the believers, both Easterns and Americans. He repeatedly declared explicitly to the American pilgrims that all which Khayru'llah had taught was correct; but whenever he had explained to the Americans any matter, and afterwards understood that his explanation was not in accordance with that given by Khayru'llah, be used to avoid disagreement saying that everything had two meanings one spiritual and the other material, and that the explanations given to them-by himself and by Khayru'llah were both correct.
Reasons which induced Ibrahim George Khayru'llah to forsake Abbas Effendi ( Abdul Baha ) and adhere to his brother Muhammad Ali Effendi.
These reasons were:
THE STUMBLING BLOCKS OF Ibrahim George KHAYRULLAH.
1- Abbas Effendi's claim to Divinity.
First, AbdulBaha's claim to Divinity, in that he declared himself to be the Manifestation of Service, which is the greatest of the Divine Manifestations, and peculiar to the Father, the Lord of Hosts (Jehovah) alone. This is the supreme limit of Manifestation, which none claimed save only His Holiness Baha' (to whom be glory), who explicitly declared in numerous Tablets that He was the Servant, and the Visage and Very Self of the Eternal Essence. Again he declares himself to be the Enunciator (mubayyin), that is, God, as the Supreme Pen has explicitly declared in different passages. So like wise he claims to be the Centre of the Covenant, which is God alone, Baha, who Himself covenanted with Himself before the creation of the heavens and the earths that man should worship none save God alone; as when He says, exalted is He: ' Ho took the Covenant at the time of the Dawn from those who believed that they should worship none but God "; ( 1 ) and [he advanced] other pretensions which it is unnecessary to mention. ( 2 )
2- His teachings inconsistent with those of Baha'u'llah.
Secondly,, that Abbas Efendi's teachings were at variance with the teachings of His Holiness Baha'u'llah in all respects, and were contrary to reason.
3- His duplicity.
Thirdly, that the conduct of AbdulBaha and his daily actions were like those of a double-faced man, which is forbidden in the Scriptures.
4- Dissension and discord produced by his actions.
Fourthly, that whereas His Holiness Bahaollah in many passages of His works and in the Book of His Testament, commanded this community in the most categorical manner to put aside discord, to extinguish the fire of sectarian hatred, and to consort with [the adherents of ] all religions and sects in courtesy,, love. spirituality and fragrance, Abbas Efendi made naught of this most great gift and most high and glorious aim; in that he, for his private ends and personal ambitions, laid the foundations of hatred, rancour, discord and diversity amongst the People of Baha, in such wise that he produced separation and discord between brother and sister, husband and wife and father and son. We seek refuge in God the Preserver, the Almighty, from Whom help is invoked !
PRECAUTIONS TAKEN BY ABBAS EFFENDI ( Abdul Baha ) TO PREVENT STRANGERS FROM MEETING HIS BROTHER.
One feature of the policy of Abdol-Baha was to attach to every pilgrim who came to 'Akka men of his own faction, to consort with that stranger-pilgrim with the utmost kindness and tenderness, wait upon him, remain with him night and day, and accompany him wherever he went. Thus passed the days of his visit without the pilgrim being able to meet one of the Holy Family or their followers, so that he would return without being informed of the truth of the matter, or of the causes of the dissension which had arisen between Abbas Efendi and Mohammed Ali Effendi. But if any one [of the pilgrims] was so bold as to ask His Holiness Abbas Efendi to permit him to meet his brother Mohammed Ali Effendi or his followers, he would grant such permission to the seeker, with a smiling and cheerful countenance, to go to meet his brother Muhammad'Ali Efendi, expressing an eager desire to he reconciled with his brother; but at the same time he would hint to the enquirer that there was absolutely nothing to be gained by this action of his. Then he would enjoin his partisans and attendants to make it clear to that pilgrim that it would be a great mistake for him to foregather with Mohammed Ali Efendi, or any of his followers, or to speak with them, and that it was one of the things which would distress the sensibilities of Abbas Efendi. So the pilgrim would refuse to meet anyone of the rival faction, even as happened to Kheiralla himself, when be refused to meet His Holiness the Branch (Ghusn) Badi'ullah Efendi when the latter came to call upon him at the inn where he was staying in the city of Hayfa. For he refused to meet the above mentioned Badi'u'llah Efendi, in consequence of what had been suggested to him by His Holiness Abbas Efendi and his followers. ( 3 )
In consequence of what has just been set forth, none of all the American pilgrims went to interview His Holiness Mohammed Ali Effendi, or Her Holiness the Mother of the" Branches " (Aghsan).
ATTEMPT TO PREJUDICE THE AMERICAN VISITORS AGAINST MOHAMMED ALI
Besides what has been mentioned, Abbas Efendi used to take every opportunity in the presence of Khayru'lláh to rise up and speak amongst his followers and attendants, and in the presence of the pilgrims and the Americans, explaining to them how he was wronged, and the vexations which he daily suffered at the hands of the Government and its agents, the origin of all of which he ascribed to the treacherous intrigues of his brother Muhammad Ali Effendi, inciting them to avenge him, inspiring in their minds angry suspicions and the very spirit of hatred and enmity, and relating to them stories to the prejudice of the Members of the Holy House, at which the natural instinct revolted. So like wise his followers also imitated his procedure, communicating to the pilgrims the infamies which they ascribe to the Members of the Holy House. Consequently some of the American pilgrims communicated these scandalous stories to the believers in America after their return from 'Akka.
Is not such conduct diametrically opposed to the Baha'i Spirit and Truth, to the Christian Spirit, and to the Spirit of the Prophets and Apostles ?
******************
Notes :
( 1 )i.e. of the Manifestation or Theophany.
( 2 )page 87 "Materials for the study of Babi Religion"
by Renowned historian EDWARD BROWNE.
( 3 ) page 82 "Materials for the study of Babi Religion"
by Renowned historian EDWARD BROWNE.
( 4 )page77. "Materials for the study of Babi Religion"
by Renowned historian EDWARD BROWNE.
( 5 )page 72. "Materials for the study of Babi Religion"
by Renowned historian EDWARD BROWNE.
( 6 )Since this translation was made, Dr. Khayru'llah has published the substance of the information given below in a book entitled,
O Christians! Why do ye believe not in Christ? pp. 165-192. This book was published in 1917 in the U.S.A., probably at Chicago, though no place is specified on the title page. I cite this as the ''English Autobiography."
Connections of Bahai faith to Foreign colonialpower (Politic)
The Role of Foreign Powers in the Origin and Growth of the Bahai Faith
“God Passes By”. Author: Shoghi Effendi , First Guardian of the faith
Here we shall bring from this book the Bahai connection with the imperialistic powers and how each has helped the Cause of the Faith.
Refer the incident of Manucher Khan in the earlier portion of this article
§In the morning (following the killing of the Bab), the Russian Consul in Tabriz, visited the spot (of the killing) and ordered the artist who had accompanied him to make a drawing of the remains of the Bab as the lay beside the moat (page 38 God Passes By)
§The Czar of Russia, a contemporary chronicler had written, had even shortly before Bab's martyrdom, instructed the Russian Consul in Tabriz to fully inquire into the matter and report the circumstances of starting a Movement (page 39 God Passes By)
§A Russian poetess produced a drama called the "Bab" (page 39 God Passes By)
§Baha after the assassination attempt on the Shah went and stayed in the house of his brother-in-law Mirza Majid, who at that time was acting as a secretary to the Russian Minister Prince Dolgourki and whose house adjoined that of his master. The Shah was informed of this and he, greatly amazed, dispatched his trusted officers to the region, demanding that the accused (Baha) be forthwith delivered into his hands. Refusing to comply with the wishes of the royal envoys, the Russian Minister requested Baha to proceed to the house of the Grand Vizier, to whom he formally communicated his wish that the Trust of the Russian Government was being delivered into his hands should be insured. (page 47-48 God Passes By)
§The persistent and decisive invention of the Russian Minister Prince Dolgourki who left no stone unturned to establish the innocence of Baha in the Shah assassination case. (page 66 God Passes By)
§The Russian Minister as soon as he was informed of the Imperial decision (to take Baha wherever he desired), expressed his desire to take Baha under his protection and offered to extend every facility for His removal to Russia…Baha mentions this in His epistle to the Czar of Russia, Nicholaevitch Alexander II, "One of my ministers extended me his aid". In yet another illuminating testimony Baha says, "When this Wronged One was sore-afflicted in prison, the ministers of the highly esteemed government (of Russia) - may God Exalted and Glorified be He - assist them! My freedom was gained through the solicitude and the endeavour of His Excellency The Minister…His imperial Majesty, The Most Great Emperor - may God Exalted and Glorified be He - assist him!... extend to me foe the sake of God his protection. On 1st Rabiuss Saani, 1269 AH, Baha along with some of the members of His family and escorted by an official of the Imperial bodyguard and an official representing the Russian legation, set out on his three months journey to Baghdad.
§Sultan Abdul Malik of Iraq refused to countenance the requests of the Persian Government either to deliver Baha to their representatives or to order His expulsion from the Turkish territory. (page 84 God Passes By)
§Baha had friendly intercourse with the officials including the governor of the city (of Baghdad) (page 74 God Passes By)
§Colonel Sir Arnold Burroughs Kemball, consul-general of the British Government in Baghdad and offered Baha protection of the British citizenship, called on him in person, undertook to transmit to Queen Victoria any communication He might wish to forward to her. He even wished to arrange for the transfer of His residence to India, or to any other place agreeable to Him (page 83 God Passes By)
§The Turkish Government had fixed as allowance for the maintenance of the exiles and their families. (page 106 God Passes By)
§In Surah-e-Muluk (a tablet), Baha asserts his innocence and the loyalty to the Sultan (Abdul Aziz) and his ministers. He assures him of his prayers to God on his behalf. (page 109 God Passes By)
§Baha was accused of having conspired with the Bulgarian leaders and certain ministers of European powers to achieve with the help of some thousand followers the conquest of Constantinople. (page 113 God Passes By)
§Some of the consuls of foreign powers called on Baha and expressed their readiness to intervene with their respective Governments on his behalf. Baha expressed his appreciation for their cooperation as he himself says, 'The consuls of that city (Adrianople) gathered in the presence of this youth at the hour of his departure and expressed their desire to aid him. They, verily, evinced towards us manifest affections'. (page 114 God Passes By)
§A European General was granted audience along with the Governor to meet Baha. (page 122 God Passes By).
§Abdul Baha visited Beirut at the invitation of a forum Grand Vizier of Turkey. His associations with the civil and ecclesiastical leaders of that city, his several interviews with the well-known Shaikh Muhammad Abdu served to enhance immensely the growing prestige of the community and spread abroad the fame of its most distinguished member. (page 122 God Passes By)
§The community prospered in Ishqabad in Russian Turkistan assured of the goodwill of a sympathetic Government enabling it to establish a Bahai cemetry and to purchase and thereon structures. (page 123 God Passes By).
§Through his intervention with the civil and military authorities, he succeeded in obtaining the freedom of his followers in Akka and in enabling them to continue to earn, without interference, the means of livelihood. (page 166 God Passes By)
§The Spanish Consul a kinsman of the agent of an Italian steamship company in his love for Abdul Baha and his anxiety to avert the threatening, had gone so far as to place at his disposal an Italian freighter, ready to provide him a safe passage to any foreign port of his choice. (page 169 God Passes By)
§At the invitation of the Lord Mayor of London, Abdul Baha had breakfast with him at the Mansion House. (page 178 God Passes By God Passes By)
§Persian princes and noblemen and ex-ministers the Turkish Ambassador in Paris, an ex-Vali of Beirut, Turkish Pashas and ex-ministers and Viscount Arakawa, Japanese Ambassador to the court of Spain were among those who had the privilege of attaining his presence. (page 178 God Passes By)
§In America, Secretariat of State, Ambassadors, Congressmen… and other eminent people attained his presence. Among them were the Dutch, British and Swiss Ministers in Washington,, the Turkish Ambassador in that city and the Prince of Egypt. (page 181 God Passes By)
§The edifice (of Mashrikul Azkar at Ishraqabad) the foundation of which was laid in the presence of General Krupatkin, the Governor General of Turkistan who had been delegated by the Czar to represent him at the ceremony. (page 188 God Passes By)
§The Oriental Pilgrim House, erected on Mount Carmel by a believer from Ishqabad, soon after the embodiment of the Babi remains for the convenience of visiting pilgrims, was granted tax exemption by the civil authorities, the first time such a privilege has been conceded since the establishment of the Faith in the Holy Land. (page 192 God Passes By)
Bahaism and Governments ofcolonialistpower (Colonialism)
From the beginning of the appearance of the Babi and Baha’i dispensation, many were of the opinion that the czarina Russia wanted to reap the benefits of these circumstances to make division and discord among Iranians. And after the overthrow of the Russia Empire, the Great Britain Empire followed the same goal and tried to achieve it.
*Preface: behind the act of politics
From the beginning of the appearance of the Babi and Baha’i dispensation, many were of the opinion that the czarina Russia wanted to reap the benefits of these circumstances to make division and discord among Iranians. And after the overthrow of the Russia Empire, the Great Britain Empire followed the same goal and tried to achieve it.
Abdul-Baha, the second leader of Bahais, had a key role in the events of the First World War, especially in the occupation of Palestine and its separation from Ottoman Empire. He received the title of "knighthood" and later was called "Sir" because of his efforts.
At the time of Shoghi, the third leader of Bahais, and after the establishment of Israel in the occupied Palestine, the relations of this sect and the colonial countries improved and this progress indicated that the Baha’i dispensation is expanded by colonial countries to follow their seditious goals.
But, Bahais cannot bear this bitter fact and always try to penetrate these relations as usual and in some cases as divine!
About the growth and expansion of Baha’i dispensation, there are different points of view. Some people deny it, some emphasize it and some hesitate about it, some response positively and some response negatively. Anyhow, everybody tries to prove the truthfulness of his beliefs.
But really how can we find the truth? How can we recognize it among these decisive partisanships?
I think we can find it only by such a fair research in which justice is observed and prejudice is avoided.
Is Baha’i dispensation really originated by colonial countries to follow their goals or it is only a slander made by Muslims to accuse Bahais?
Bahais reject this claim and the first reason they give to get rid of it, is their religious order in which they are prohibited from interference in political issues. But this reason is not convincing because the mere existence of an order in a religion cannot be a guaranty to obey it. If so, the Muslims will claim that because accusation is illegitimate in their religion, they will never accuse others and in this manner, all of Bahais certainly are cooperating with colonial countries. In such a case there is no claim and it can be taken into account as a kind of fact.
By means of this logic, neither of the Bahais’ reasons nor of the Muslims’ responses is acceptable. We conclude that the best way for proving the accuracy or inaccuracy of a historical fact, is referring to history and because the historical documents of Muslims are not accepted by Bahais completely, we use Baha’i history books. In this case there is no reason for objection or protest.
Fortunately, in our studies we find convincing documents that can be useful for those who seek for the truth.
You can read the texts and judge yourself!
*Introduction
About the relations between Bahais and strangers we prepare two notes and each of them has two acts.
* The first note is named "the footprint of tsar" and is about the relation of Babes and Bahais with czarinas Russia.
* The second note is named "the old colonizer" and is about the relations of Bahais with Ottoman Empire, Britain and Israel.
Both of them will prove the fact that even if the Babi and Baha’i dispensations were not generated by colonialism, they are certainly growing in the heart of strangers and colonizers and they have been supported by them.
*The third act: In the embrace of the old colonizer
*Flattery and spurious prayer
It was mentioned that after the king’s thwarted assassination, Baha’u’llah was accused of collaboration with the agents of this terror and he was arrested, but by the generous efforts of the Russian ambassador, he was released and exiled to Iraq. After a time, when his division with his brother was intensified, the Ottoman Empire which governed Iraq and Palestine, exiled Baha’u’llah and his family to Palestine and after his death, his son who was called Abdul-Baha controlled the affairs of Bahais.
Abdul-Baha was also one of the devotees of the Russian emperor like his father. He was always praying for that glorious government. But after the disintegration of the czarina Russia, Abdul-Baha missed his supporter and because he was living in ottoman at those days, he began to pray for Ottoman Empire. He supplicated God humbly in his prayers:
O my God! O my God!
Assist the glorious government of Ottoman and this Mohammedan succession with Thy good pleasure and secret confirmation; strengthen them in earth and in Empyrean by Thy power for the spreading of Thy divine fragrances! I supplicate Thou to immune the lands of this empire and secure their center of succession from difficulties and sufferings.
As you see, Baha’u’llah humbly prays for the endurance of Ottoman Empire and besides it, he calls their government “a Mohammedan succession” and claims that they are true successors of the prophet of Islam. He set the divine seal to their government and in addition, he wishes the strengthening of this empire in all around the world and also in the empyrean!
We understand nothing about the government of Ottoman Empire in the empyrean. Maybe he supplicated God to give them a power to rule over the angels in the empyrean!
An elegant point in this supplication is the implied confession of Baha’u’llah on the seal of the prophet of Islam and on the eternity of Islam; on the one hand he supplicates for the endurance of Ottoman Empire in the world, and on the other hand, he supposes them the true successors of the prophet of Islam, in fact, by this supplication he is insisting on the eternity of Islam.
This supplication continues as follows:
O Thou Glorious Lord
Immunize ottoman government and safeguard them by Thy eye of loving kindness. Because ottoman government protects the sacred spot and the Sinai desert and Bahais are under their auspices and support. Verily Thou art the Powerful, the Precious, the Protecting!
The important part in this supplication is this part:
“Bahais are under the auspices of ottoman empire.”
Don’t forget this part, because in following pages you will read Shoghi’s words about Ottoman Empire completely in contrary to these expressions.
As you see, Abdul-Baha supplicated God to strengthen Ottoman Empire. he endorsed the justice of this government and confessed that the flag of justice of this government is staffed in the countries under its dominance and he seeks the authority of the emperor’s military forces.
Let’s read another prayer of Abdul-Baha for the endurance of Ottoman Empire:
O Thou Glorious Lord!
Aid the fair government of Ottoman by Thou pleasure and confirmation.
O my God! Assist their forces and confirm their raised flag.
Make the commands of this government effective and penetrating.
O God! Support their supporters and keep whatever which should be protected in this government.
O God! Expand the fame and respectability of this empire.
Disseminate their signs and works and elevate their flags.
O Thou Glorious Lord! Do whatever had been requested by Thy power which is capable of doing everything in the world.
Verily, Thou assist every one thou desire and thou art the Mighty.
By considering these prayers, it became obvious that Abdul-Baha had been in great allegiance and devotion to Ottoman Empire. The important point is that he was known as a Muslim when he was living under the protection of this empire. Even in the period of the occupation of Palestine by Britain, he continued to pretend as a Muslim and in spite of Bahai orders, in which collective prayer is inhibited, he was attending in collective prayers of Muslims and even he sometimes was the chaplain of these prayers.
*The accusation of spying and its background
Although Abdul-Baha tried to appease the authorities of Ottoman government by means of spurious and flattering supplications, but “Jamal Pasha” who was the ottoman commander-in-chief was very suspicious of him and found him guilty.
The following story is narrated by Abdul-Baha:
“When Jamal Pasha arrived in Akka and wanted to visit me, I got on a donkey and went to his home. When he saw me, he received me and then seated me beside himself and suddenly said to me: you are a seditious man in religion and that’s why the Iran government had exiled you.
But I thought he is Turk and I should reply him in a ridiculous and silencing manner.”
This suspicion has a background and although Shoghi Effendi tried to pretend it something else, but intelligent people who are familiar with the policies of the old colonizer (England) will find out the truth.
Let’s review Shoghi’s narrations about this matter and then you can judge yourself. After pretending the claim that people welcome Baha’u’llah, Shoghi claimed:
“Functionaries of foreign governments, attempted, in their short-sightedness, to secure His support and assistance for the furtherance of the designs they cherished; designs which He unhesitatingly and severely condemned.” (God passes by. Part 2, p.83)
The people who are familiar with politics will understand this part nicely; the functionaries of foreign government “in their short-sightedness!” found thoroughly that they can “secure His support and assistance for the furtherance of the designs they cherished”. Now, the question is that if they are short-sighted, how do they find the fact that Baha’u’llah is a good agent to help them to achieve their political goals?
Anyhow, they found the truth and that’s why:
“Nor was the then representative of the British government, Colonel Sir Arnold Burrows Kimball, consul-general in Baghdad, insensible of the position which Baha’u’llah now occupied. Entering into friendly correspondence with Him, he, as testified by Baha’u’llah Himself, offered Him the protection of British citizenship, called on Him in person, and undertook to transmit to Queen Victoria any communication He might wish to forward to her. He even expressed his readiness to arrange for the transfer of His residence to India, or to any place agreeable to Him. This suggestion Baha’u’llah declined, choosing to abide in the dominions of the Sultan of Turkey.”
These points can be gathered from Shoghi’s words:
1- Representative of the British government, Colonel Sir Arnold Burrows Kimball, consul-general in Baghdad, was not insensible of the high position of Baha’u’llah.
2- After this sensibility (which maybe completely Devine and spiritual!), he wrote a letter to Baha’u’llah.
3- The consul- general offered Him the official protection of Britain government.
4- And emphasized that Great Britain Empire is ready to imitate and follow Baha’u’llah!
It seems Shoghi’s intention is the suggestion of citizenship of Britain government to Baha’u’llah.
5- In their meeting, the Consul- General undertook to transmit to Queen Victoria any communication He might wish to forward to her.
6- Consul- General expressed his readiness to arrange for the transfer of His residence to India, or to any place agreeable to Him.
7- Baha’u’llah declined all of offerings seemingly and preferred to abide in the dominions of the Sultan of Turkey (Ottoman Empire).
Later on, after the hidden and obvious relations of Abdul-Baha and Britain government, the reasons of such compliments by consul-general and such denials by Baha’u’llah became obvious; At those days, Baha’u’llah was under the protection of tsarina Russia and he enjoyed the obvious supports of them (he was condemned to death because of his collaboration with the agents of the Nasiridin shah’s terror and then by the efforts of the Russia ambassador he was released),so it was not advisable to have a relation with England which was known as Russia political antagonist!
But according to narrations of his son (Abdul-Baha), Baha’u’llah had revealed some tablets about Britain to pave the way for their support in future:
“Although the justice and good politics of the glorious government of Britain had been mentioned in the blest tablets of Baha’u’llah but now it became apparent. Actually, the people of this land experience convenience and comfort after great sufferings.”
We are not sure about the revelation of such tablet by Baha’u’llah because these expressions are narrated by Abdul-Baha when Russia Empire had been disintegrated and Palestine had been occupied by Britain. Maybe these words are attributed to Baha’u’llah (by Abdul-Baha) as a prediction before the victory of Britain!.
But if we accept the truth worthy of this claim, by considering the words of Baha’u’llah about the justice of Britain empire and their good policy and considering the future events and the role of Abdul-Baha in these events, it will be obvious that although according to Shoghi, The functionaries of foreign governments could not secure Baha’u’llah’s support and assistance for the furtherance of the designs they cherished, but they could profit the presence of Abdul-Baha for their achievements thoroughly.
It should be mentioned that not only the short-sighted politics of Britain but also not well informed politics of French were sensible about the loftiness of the positions of Baha’u’llah . They wanted to reap the benefits of Bahaullah’s assistances and achieve their political and materialistic goals. When he was in Adrianople:
“The deputy consul of France who was one of the friends of Baha’u’llah, came to visit him secretly and had a private meeting with him, it took about 30 minutes. Officials were not aware of their talks. He had said to Baha’u’llah: if you become disgusted with Islam and introduce yourself as an allegiance of France, we will support you”
These points can be gathered from Shoghi’s words:
1- Baha’u’llah had a record of friendship with deputy consul of France and we don’t know anything about the reason of this friendship.
2- The deputy consul came to visit Baha’u’llah secretly as if the officials were not aware of this meeting.
3- He requested Baha’u’llah at this short meeting to become disgusted with Islam and to be a citizen of France.
4- If he accepts their suggestions, the France government will support him.
We don’t know what the deputy consul means when he asked Baha’u’llah to disgust Islam, but it is necessary to know that:
a- Baha’u’llah’s behavior had been in the manner that French people supposed him a Muslim.
b- But actually, he wasn’t a Muslim at those days because in the story of “Badasht”, Islam had been abrogated by the Babis who were present over there and Bahaullah was one of them.
So maybe, the France government intention had been leaving the citizenship of Iran by disgusting Islam.
Although Baha’u’llah declined these offerings too, but really we don’t know what was in the behavior of Baha’u’llah which attracts all the colonial countries!?
The Frenchmen had been attracted not only by the characteristics of Baha’u’llah but also by the characteristics of his son, Abdul-Baha.
Abdul-Baha expressed his opinions in the tablets which revealed for Abul-fazl Golpayegani:
“I received some letters from Tehran in which the authorities of France embassy insisted to send some of Bahai teachers to Africa, Algeria and Tunis and they promise to observe and prepare the conditions for teaching the people of those countries.”
It is very surprising that the Frenchmen worry about the religion and spiritual affairs of their colonial countries to the extent that they insist to send the Baha’i teachers over there! Why didn’t they invite them to Paris? What is their intention by asking Abdul-Baha to teach the people of those countries while the French authorities promise to collaborate with them thoroughly?
The wise people will understand nicely the goals of colonizers behind these sympathetic and spiritual requests!
Bahai faith and involvement of Foreign powers (Imperialism )
*Preface: behind the act of politics
From the beginning of the appearance of the Babi and Bahai dispensation, many were of the opinion that the czarina Russia wanted to reap the benefits of these circumstances to make division and discord among Iranians. And after the overthrow of the Russia Empire, the Great Britain Empire followed the same goal and tried to achieve it.
Abd-ul-baha, the second leader of Bahais, had a very important role in the events of First World War especially in the occupation of Palestine and its separation from Ottoman Empire. He received the title of "knighthood" and later was called "sir" because of his efforts.
At the time of Shoghi, the third leader of Bahais, and after the establishment of Israel in the occupied Palestine, the relations of this sect and the colonial countries improved and this progress indicated that the Bahai dispensation is expanded by colonial countries to follow their seditious goals.
But, Bahais can not bear this bitter fact and always try to penetrate these relations as usual and in some cases as divine!
About the growth and expansion of Bahai dispensation, there are different points of view. Some people deny it, some emphasize it and some hesitate about it, some response positively and some response negatively. Any how, every body tries to prove the truthfulness of his beliefs.
But really how can we find the truth? How can we recognize it among these decisive partisanships?
I think we can find it only by such a fair research in which justice is observed and prejudice is avoided.
Is Bahai dispensation really originated from colonial countries to follow their goals or it is only a slander made by Muslims to accuse Bahais?
Bahais reject this claim and the first reason they give to get rid of it, is their religious order in which they are prohibited from interference in political issues. But this reason is not convincing because the mere existence of an order in a religion can not be a guaranty to obey it. If so, the Muslims will say that because accusation is illegitimate in their religion, they will never accuse others and therefore all of Bahais certainly are cooperating with colonial countries. In such a case there is no claim and it can be taken into account as a kind of fact.
By means of this logic, neither of the Bahais reasons nor of the Muslims responses is acceptable. So the best way for proving the accuracy or inaccuracy of a historical fact is referring to history and because the historical documents of Muslims are not accepted by Bahais completely, we use Bahai history books. In this case there is no reason for objection or protest.
Fortunately, in our studies we find convincing documents that can be useful for those who seek for the facts.
You can read the texts and judge yourself!
*Introduction
About the relations between Bahais and strangers we prepare two notes and each of them has two acts.
* The first note is named "the footprint of tzar" and is about the relation of Babes and Bahais with czarinas Russia.
* The second note is named "the old colonialism" and is about the relations of Bahais with Ottoman Empire, Britain and Israel.
Both of them will prove the fact that even if the Babi and Bahai dispensation were not the generated by colonialism, they are certainly growing in the heart of strangers and colonizers.
*The first act: the footprint of tzar (1)*
*Escape from Shiraz
When Mirza Ali Mohammad claimed that he is "bab-e-baqiat Allah" i.e. the gate of Qaim Mahdi of Islam, he caused turbulence and unrest in Shiraz and was recalled by government and when was slapped in the face, he desisted from his claim and ascended a pulpit in Vakil mosque in Shiraz and confessed in front of people:
"Damn to the men who call me as the attorney of the Hidden Imam.
Damn to the men who suppose me as the denier of Imamate of Amir-Al Momenin Ali (A.S.) and other Imams.
Damn to the men who called me as the Bab of Imam." (2)
After this confession, Bab was under the surveillance of government. But when cholera was widespread in the city and anarchy prevailed, he found a good situation to escape from Shiraz. He escaped while he was "fearful and feeling"(3) and then he went to Esfahan.
Before entering Esfahan, he sent a letter to the governor and asked him to prepare a settlement for him. The governor was Manochehr khan Gorgi who was known as "motamed-ul saltaneh" i.e. the one who is trusted by government and he did as it was mentioned in the letter.
*Manochehr khan Gorgi
He was from Georgia and he was Armenian and Christian. In 1209 A.H., Manochehr khan was among the prisoners whom were brought to Iran by Agha Mohammad khan Qajar. After a time he made a good progress and because of his ingenuity and efficiency or maybe because of his commission by intelligence organization of Russian emperor in Iran, he became one of the most influential figures in Qajar government and later he was appointed as the governor of Esfahan. He was a powerful governor in Esfahan from 1254 to 1263 A.H and as it was mentioned in history books, he was an efficient manager, very oppressor, severe and hard-hearted. He pilled up a mass wealth during his government and was known as one of the affluent men in Iran. He was also the establisher of "Motamed press" in Iran.
*The surprising support
Manochehr khan didn't know Bab but surprisingly, after receiving his letter, ordered the chief mullah of Friday prayers of Esfahan to prepare his house for Bab's settlement and entertainment and also ordered him to send his brother out of the gates of the city to welcome Bab.(4)
Why did Manochehr khan try to respect Bab highly while he didn't have any precedence about him?
Bab was under surveillance of the government of Shiraz at that time and as it was mentioned by him he was obliged to escape from Shiraz.
So really what is the reason for such a support from such a guilty man?
Did they have friendly relationship before these circumstances? No.
Did the high ranking authorities urge the Christian and Georgian governor of Esfahan to welcome and respect Bab? Maybe yes.
Because Manochehr khan had a Georgian nationality, he surely was attached to Russia empire and it is not unlikely that Russia government obliged him to do so.
*The hypocritical behavior
When Bab arrived in Esfahan, he went to the house of the chief mullah of Friday prayers and was entertained by him.
After a time because of the request of the mullah, he wrote a commentary on Sourih of Val-asr in Quran. (5) The mullah admired the commentary and informed the governor about it. Manochehr Khan visited Bab and in a meeting where Bab and some religious authorities were present, the governor ordered all of them to prove the prophecy of the holy prophet of Islam (s.a.v.a) for him. The clerics couldn't do that convincingly and only Mirza Ali Mohammad (Bab) wrote a treatise by the name of "the special prophecy" and convinced the governor! Manochehr Khan studied the treatise and converted to Islam (6) and confessed in a loudly voice that he didn't believe in Islam sincerely up to that time. (7)
By this confession, it became obvious that he was a double-faced, liar and intriguing man who had deceived the Qajar government because at those days they never appoint a non-Muslim as governor of a city. he may also pretend this claim to deceive Bab and encourage him falsely and maybe both of these probabilities are correct.
Is Bahai faith in favor with “Unity of Religions” ? (Christianity)
How Bahai faith is in favor with “Unity of Religions” when Christians do not see Baha'u'llah as the Second Coming of Jesus !
BAHA'I-CHRISTIAN DIALOGUE
by Francis J. Beckwith
Description
In February 1988 on a Boston radio program I had the opportunity to dialogue with Robert Stockman, a Baha'i leader and doctoral candidate at HarvardDivinitySchool. Stockman argued that just as the Jewish leaders were mistaken about Jesus' fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, so also the Christian church has failed to see how Baha'u'llah fulfilled a number of biblical prophecies. In his view, Jesus was rejected because the Jews interpreted the Old Testament prophecies literally, and in the same manner, Christians do not see Baha'u'llah as the Second Coming of Jesus because they interpret the New Testament prophecies literally.
Another interesting response came from a Baha'i in southern Nevada, Bill Garbett, who told me that Baha'ism has suffered no divisions as has Christianity in its many schisms. He concluded from this that the Baha'i World Faith must be God's religion.
*****
One religious group to originate in the past two centuries that has not received enough attention from evangelical Christians is the Baha'i World Faith.1 Baha'is believe that all of the world's major religions are progressive revelations from God, each designed for its particular historical era. The Baha'i religion teaches that Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses, Buddha, Confucius, Jesus, Muhammad, and the Bab (the Persian founder of a nineteenth-century religious movement which laid the foundation for Baha'ism) were all prophets or manifestations of God for their time.2 However, Baha'u'llah, the founder of the Baha'i religion, the successor of the Bab, and the most recent manifestation, is the one who should now be revered and obeyed.
Baha'u'llah's greatest teaching was the oneness and unity of mankind. According to Baha'u'llah, every race, both sexes, and the great religious truths all come from one God. While Christians may appreciate some of the humanitarian and peace doctrines of the Baha'is, they take issue with the Baha'i claim to compatibility with their faith; for Baha'ism denies several essential Christian doctrines.
Since the publication of my Christian response to the Baha'i World Faith, Baha'i (Bethany House, 1985), I have had several encounters with both Baha'is and non-Baha'is who have questioned my position on a number of key issues regarding the relationship between Baha'ism and Christianity. For example, in a detailed critique of my book, Steve McConnell, a non-Baha'i from Bellevue, Washington, asked me, "Could Christianity's conception of God withstand the cursory logical tests to which you subject the Baha'i's God?"3 McConnell contends that it is unfair for me to argue that because the Baha'i manifestations of God give us contradictory concepts of God (monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, etc.), the Baha'i view of God must be false. After all, he insists, the Christian conception of God has its own logical problems.
In February 1988 on a Boston radio program I had the opportunity to dialogue with Robert Stockman, a Baha'i leader and doctoral candidate at HarvardDivinitySchool. Stockman argued that just as the Jewish leaders were mistaken about Jesus' fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, so also the Christian church has failed to see how Baha'u'llah fulfilled a number of biblical prophecies. In his view, Jesus was rejected because the Jews interpreted the Old Testament prophecies literally, and in the same manner, Christians do not see Baha'u'llah as the Second Coming of Jesus because they interpret the New Testament prophecies literally.
Another interesting response came from a Baha'i in southern Nevada, Bill Garbett, who told me that Baha'ism has suffered no divisions as has Christianity in its many schisms. He concluded from this that the Baha'i World Faith must be God's religion.
In this article I will respond to these arguments as they relate to the different views held by Baha'is and Christians on (1) the nature of God, (2) biblical prophecy, and (3) religious unity.
BAHA'IS AND THE NATURE OF GOD
Although Baha'is teach that God is unknowable in his essence, they believe that God does reveal something of himself to man, especially through his "manifestations" (i.e., Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, Baha'u'llah, et. al.).4 For those familiar with the conflicting doctrines of the major world religions associated with these "manifestations," however, it is rather apparent that they cannot all be true (see Table). Yet this is exactly what the Baha'is maintain, namely, that each of these religious leaders was a manifestation of God for his own era and therefore spoke some truth about God's nature.
The Doctrine of God Taught by the Alleged Manifestations5
MANIFESTATION
IMPORTANT ELEMENTS IN HIS DOCTRINE OF GOD
Moses
One personal God. The universe is not eternal, but was created by God (Gen. 1-3; Deut. 6:4; etc.).
Krishna
Mix of polytheism and impersonal pantheism. The universe is eternal.
Zoroaster
One good god and one evil god (religious dualism).
Buddha
God not relevant; essentially agnostic.
Confucius
Polytheistic.
Muhammad
One personal God who cannot have a Son.
Jesus Christ
One personal God who does have a Son (Mark 12:29; John 4:24; 5:18-19;etc.)
Baha'u'llah
God and the universe, which is an emanation of God, are co-eternal.6
The fact that the various alleged manifestations of God represented God in contradictory ways implies either that manifestations of God can contradict one another or that God's own nature is contradictory. If the manifestations are allowed to contradict one another, then there is no way to separate false manifestations from true ones or to discover if any of them really speaks for the true and living God. Yet the Baha'is obviously do not accept every person who claims to be a manifestation of God (e.g., Jim Jones, founder of Jonestown). If, on the other hand, God's own nature is said to be contradictory, that is, that God is both one God and many gods, that God is both able and not able to have a Son, both personal and impersonal, etc., then the Baha'i concept of God is reduced to meaninglessness.
Can Christian Doctrines Withstand Scrutiny?
As I noted earlier, Steven McConnell has asked whether the Christian concept of God could measure up to this sort of scrutiny. He asserts, "Subjected to the glossy examination you give the Baha'i God, the paradox of Jesus being fully human and fully divine as well as the paradox of the unity and individuality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit would be mere contradictions!" He then asks, "So why are Christianity's paradoxes (contradictions) more virtuous than Baha'i's?"7
Several comments are in order. First, Christian thinkers take an entirely different attitude toward their problematic doctrines than the Baha'is. For example, many Christian philosophers and theologians have spent much time trying to explain these doctrines in a way that is coherent and philosophically sound.8 Christians believe that these problematic doctrines are logically reconcilable because they are in fact ultimately noncontradictory. On the other hand, the Baha'is do not seem particularly concerned about whether their doctrine of God is internally consistent.
Second, the paradoxes inherent in the Christian doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity are not comparable to the contradictions inherent in the Baha'i concept of God. When the Bible asserts both the humanity and the deity of Jesus it is not asserting something that is self-contradictory by definition. Christians do not believe that Jesus was both God and not-God, but rather that Jesus was both God and man. In other words, when Christians assert that God became man they are not asserting that God became merely man (although He was fully man), but rather that the Son of God took on a human nature in addition to His divine nature. Although we may not fully comprehend how the divine and human natures interacted in the person of Jesus, this is not the same thing as saying that the concept of a God-man is self-contradictory.
Likewise, the doctrine of the Trinity, although paradoxical, is not self-contradictory. The doctrine of the Trinity asserts that three divine persons share the same substance or essence (i.e., the three persons are one and the same God). It does not assert that there are three individual substances which are one substance or that there are three gods which are also one god, either of which would be contradictory. That is, Christians are not saying that God is both one substance and not-one-substance, but rather that God is both one substance and three persons. Even if God's triunity cannot be fully comprehended by man, at least the Christian is not involved in a contradiction when he asserts that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God.
On the other hand, the Baha'i is required to accept that blatantly contradictory concepts of God were all infallibly revealed by God through his "manifestations." For instance, monotheism (what Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad taught) and polytheism (what Confucius and Zoroaster taught) cannot both be true, since it is contradictory to say both that there is only one god and that there is more than one god. Therefore, unlike the Christian doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity, the Baha'i view of God implies mutually exclusive concepts of God.
BAHA'IS AND BIBLICAL PROPHECY
The Baha'is claim that Baha'u'llah is the fulfillment of the biblical prophecies of the return of Christ.9 Taken literally, of course, the biblical prophecies of Christ's return do not fit Baha'u'llah. The Bible speaks of Jesus Himself returning in the skies before the entire world in a cataclysmic fashion to judge the living and the dead (e.g., Matt. 24). By contrast, Baha'is recognized as the "Christ" another person (Baha'u'llah) who came into the world in relative obscurity through natural means (i.e., conception and birth).10
How, then, can the Baha'is claim that Bah'u'llah fulfills the biblical prophecies of Christ's return? They can do this only by insisting that the literal meaning is to be ignored. According to Baha'i doctrine, Jesus' description of His second coming in the Bible should be understood spiritually rather than literally. That is, the text of the Bible is said to have some symbolic meaning which is contrary to the ordinary meaning of the words used.
Literal and Symbolic
The Baha'is do not, however, follow this line of interpretation consistently in their reading of the Bible. Whenever they find a biblical passage that clearly states that Jesus will return at the end of the world in a way contrary to Baha'u'llah's arrival, the Baha'is simply assert that we should not take that passage literally. No reason for this assertion is ever produced from the text of the Bible itself. However, on other occasions where a literal interpretation might seem to the Baha'is to support their views (e.g., Dan. 8:13-17),11 they do not consider interpreting the passage nonliterally.
This sort of clip-and-paste view of biblical interpretation proves very little. After all, by the same rationale one could "prove" that any number of different individuals was Christ returned. Accepting as literal only those texts which seem to fit one's doctrinal views while pleading for a nonliteral interpretation for passages which contradict one's position is a favorite tactic of pseudo-Christian groups. For example, this interpretive technique is employed by the UnificationChurch to show that Sun Myung Moon is the Messiah.12
With this method of interpreting biblical prophecy Baha'is employ circular reasoning (in which the arguer assumes what he or she is trying to prove). Because the Baha'i accepts Baha'u'llah's claim to fulfill Christ's second coming, he (or she) thinks he is justified in interpreting biblical prophecies symbolically which, if taken literally, would disprove Baha'u'llah's claim, but if taken nonliterally can be used to prove it.13 Thus, probably without even realizing it, the Baha'i is assuming the very point that he is trying to prove in his citing of biblical prophecy.
Jews, Christians, and Baha'is
In this article's introductory comments I mentioned Robert Stockman's assertion that just as the Jews were mistaken about Jesus' fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy (that is, the Jews as a nation; many individual Jews accepted Jesus), the Christians of today are mistaken about Baha'u'llah's fulfillment of New Testament prophecy. There are two ways of understanding this argument. Perhaps it is meant to be a proof that Baha'u'llah fulfills biblical prophecy, in which case the argument might be stated more formally in the following manner:
1. The Jews thought that Jesus was not the Messiah, and they were wrong.
2. Christians today think that Baha'u'llah was not the Messiah (or Christ returned).
3. Therefore, Christians are wrong to reject Baha'u'llah.
Such an argument, if that is what Robert Stockman intended, would certainly be another case of faulty reasoning. By this reasoning Christians and Baha'is alike would be wrong to reject Jim Jones as a manifestation of God, or Sun Myung Moon as the second coming of Christ. Clearly, the mere fact that the Jewish rejection of Jesus was unjustified does not prove that the Christian rejection of Baha'u'llah is also unjustified.
There is another way of interpreting Robert Stockman's argument, however, that is not so obviously fallacious. Perhaps he is intending to argue only that the Christian rejection of Baha'u'llah is based on the same sort of error that led the Jews to reject Jesus. Baha'is generally argue that in both cases the error that led to the rejection of the "manifestation" was an overly literal interpretation of biblical prophecies. Such an argument would take the following form:
1. The Jews rejected Jesus because they interpreted the Bible too literally.
2. Christians today reject Baha'u'llah because they interpret the Bible too literally.
3. Therefore, Christians are wrong to reject Baha'u'llah on the basis of their literal interpretation of the Bible.
This argument, unlike the one discussed previously, has some logical value. If its premises go unchallenged, they lend strong support to its conclusion. However, both of the premises of this argument do invite challenge.
In the case of the second premise, for Baha'u'llah one could substitute any of the other modern religious leaders claiming to be a manifestation of God or a fulfillment of the Second Coming of Christ. A follower of Sun Myung Moon could argue with equal validity as follows:
1. The Jews rejected Jesus because they interpreted the Bible too literally.
2. Christians today reject Rev. Moon because they interpret the Bible too literally.
3. Therefore, Christians are wrong to reject Rev. Moon on the basis of their literal interpretation of the Bible.
In other words, the second premise is really immaterial. It amounts to saying that if the actual words of the Bible are ignored, anyone at all can be claimed to be a fulfillment of the Bible's "spiritual" or symbolic meaning.
As for the first premise, as a matter of historical fact it is simply false. The fact of the matter is that the Jews rejected Jesus as the fulfillment of biblical prophecy not because they interpreted it too literally, but because they did not interpret it literally enough. The Bible clearly predicted that the Messiah would be God (Ps. 45:6; Isa. 7:14; 9:6), but the Jews found Jesus' claim to be God scandalous and blasphemous in the extreme. The Bible also clearly announced that the Messiah would suffer and be killed as an atonement for Israel's sins (Isa. 53; Dan. 9:26), but the Jews regarded Jesus' crucifixion as proof that He was not the Messiah.
Not every Old Testament passage applied to Jesus in the New Testament was understood by first-century Jews as referring to the Messiah. However, there were a fair number of Old Testament prophecies which Jewish leaders and scholars in the first century did regard as literal predictions concerning the Messiah and which were fulfilled literally by Jesus.14 Since Jesus fulfilled these prophecies, what caused most of His contemporaries not to recognize this?
The answer is that the Jews allowed their assumptions about the Messiah to color and even distort their reading of the biblical text. Specifically, it was their expectation of a conquering political Messiah which led first-century Jews to reject the literal meaning of the text, which presents the Messiah as both suffering and conquering.15 Consequently, they had a concept of the Messiah which Jesus could not fit. Their desire for a political Messiah incited them to ignore or twist biblical passages predicting a suffering Messiah that were literally fulfilled in Jesus.
Similarly, the assumption made by the Baha'is that Baha'u'llah is God's manifestation for this age leads to distortions in their reading of the New Testament. (At least the Jews had some warrant in the biblical text for their view of the Messiah; the Baha'is have none.) They too are forced to ignore or twist biblical passages concerning Christ (in this case those concerning His return), which they do in order to apply them to Baha'u'llah. Ironically, then, it turns out that Robert Stockman's argument actually has things turned around. The truth is that the Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah for much the same sort of reason that Baha'is accept Baha'u'llah (which, in effect, is also rejecting Jesus): in both cases, religious assumptions about the Messiah interfered with a plain reading of the text. Like the Jews in Jesus' day, the Baha'is fail to interpret the Bible literally enough.
Also like the Jews, Baha'is are forced to explain why the Old Testament presents both a suffering and a conquering Messiah. The Baha'i answer is that the Old Testament really predicts two "Messiahs": Jesus was the suffering Messiah and Baha'u'llah the conquering one.16
This interpretation ignores the critical fact that both descriptions of the Messiah can be found within the same passages and are obviously referring to one person. For example, Daniel 9:25 calls the Messiah a "Prince" and 9:26 states that he will be "cut off," that is, killed.17 Jesus fulfilled in detail those prophecies referring to the Messiah's place of birth (Mic. 5:2), time of ministry (Dan. 9:24-27), death (Dan. 9:26; Isa. 53; Ps. 22), and resurrection (Ps. 16:10), as well as a number of others.18 Therefore, we should accept Jesus' claim (e.g., Matt. 24-25) and the teaching of the rest of the New Testament (e.g., Luke 1:33; Acts 1:9-11; 1 Thess. 4:14-17; Rev. 1:7; 22:16-21) that He will personally return to fulfill the remaining prophecies which describe a conquering Messiah.
Certainly there is no reason to accept Baha'u'llah's claim to be that Messiah. He failed to fulfill any of the biblical prophecies concerning Christ's second coming,19 and Baha'i's cannot produce a single text from the Bible that suggests that Jesus will not Himself fulfill those prophecies.
The preceding discussion of the interpretation of biblical prophecy should be understood in the light of a more general appreciation of proper biblical interpretation.20 In contrasting "literal" with "symbolic" interpretations, I am not suggesting that biblical symbolism should not be interpreted as such. Rather, I am simply saying that what is understood as symbolic and what is taken more literally should be based on the text itself (as when Daniel interprets his visions as symbols, or when Jesus interprets His parables as earthly illustrations of spiritual truths). Where the Baha'is go wrong is in reading into the Bible doctrines that are totally foreign to its text and can only be justified by assuming their truth.
BAHA'IS AND RELIGIOUS UNITY
The third Baha'i argument against Christianity that I wish to address is the claim that Baha'ism must be God's true religion for this age because, unlike Christianity, it has not suffered any schisms. One Baha'i writer takes this so far as to proclaim boldly that "there are not Baha'i sects. There never can be."21
There are two problems with this argument: (1) It rests on a false premise — Baha'ism has in fact suffered divisions. (2) The conclusion does not follow — an undivided religion is not necessarily the true religion.
Division in Baha'ism
First, the fact is that Baha'ism has suffered several divisions, from its early days to the present. One group, known as the Free Baha'is, has published a book denouncing Shoghi Effendi (who took over leadership of the Baha'i World Faith after Baha'u'llah's son 'Abdu'l-Baha died).22 Another group, the Orthodox Baha'i Faith, was formed after Shoghi Effendi died, and recognizes Jason Remey as Effendi's successor.23 Yet another group, Baha'is Under the Provision of the Covenant (BUPC), is led by Montana chiropractor Dr. Leland Jensen. Though it has "Baha'i" in its name, it is not endorsed or recognized by the main body "as a legitimate Baha'i organization."24 As Vernon Elvin Johnson concludes in his BaylorUniversity dissertation on the history of Baha'ism, "obvious schism has occurred in the Baha'i religion, for various factions each claiming to belong to the Baha'i religion have existed in the course of the faith's history."25
Some Baha'is may be tempted to counter that anyone who breaks off from the Baha'i World Faith is automatically not a Baha'i and therefore no schism has really occurred. Such an argument is circular in nature and commits what Antony Flew calls the "no-true-Scotsman" fallacy ("No Scotsman would do such a thing....Well, no true Scotsman would").26 As Johnson points out, the Catholic and Mormon churches have used similar reasoning to defend their claim to be the one true church27 (although the Catholic church no longer tends to take such an exclusive stance).
Division and Truth
Second, it simply does not follow that a religion that is undivided must be the true religion, or that a religion that is divided cannot be the true religion. For the Baha'i argument to be persuasive it must be shown, and not simply assumed, that the true religion must be unified organizationally. This is not a biblical teaching: unity of the faith is presented in the Bible as a goal for the church to reach, not a prerequisite for the church to be God's people (Eph. 4:11-16).
Since on independent grounds we know that Christianity is true (for example, the evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus,28 which Baha'is deny29), we may justifiably conclude that organizational unity is not a requirement for a religion to be true. The argument can be stated more formally as follows:
1. Either the true religion is unified or it is not.
2. Christianity is the true religion and it is not unified.
3. Therefore, the true religion is not unified.
The truth of Christianity is independent of whether its adherents congregate under the same organizational banner. Its truth depends rather on the truth of the Bible's teachings concerning the person, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
This is not to deny that Christians have an obligation to exhibit unity and love as a testimony to the world of the truth of Jesus Christ (John 13:34-35; 17:21-23). To our shame we confess that although Christianity is true, Christians have not always been true to Christ. Nevertheless, this does not alter the fact that Jesus Christ is the only Savior from sin and God's last word to man prior to the consummation of history (John 14:6; Acts 4:12; Heb. 1:1-3; 13:8). On this basis Christianity stands vindicated as true and Baha'ism stands condemned as a rejection of God's truth as revealed in Jesus Christ.
NOTES
1 The only book-length Christian critiques of Baha'ism in print are Francis J. Beckwith, Baha'i (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1985), which focuses on doctrine, and William McElwee Miller, The Baha'i Faith: Its History and Teachings (South Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library Publications, 1984), which focuses on history.
2 This is the current list of the manifestations. The Baha'is have altered the list over the years. See Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan: The Book of Certitude, 2d ed., trans. Shoghi Effendi (Wilmette, IL: Baha'i Publishing Trust [hereafter "BPT"], 1950), 7-65; `Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, trans. Laura Clifford Barney (BPT. 1930), 189; and a current Baha'i tract, One Universal Faith (BPT, n.d.), 5.
3 Personal letter from Steven McConnell, 1 June 1987.
4See Beckwith, 8, and works cited there.
5 This table is based on Beckwith, 17.
6 Concerning God's relation to the universe, Baha'i writer J. E. Esslemont writes, "Baha'u'llah teaches that the universe is without beginning in time. It is a perpetual emanation from the Great First Cause." J. E. Esslemont, Baha'u'llah and the New Era, 3d ed. (BPT, 1970), 204. It should be noted that it is untenable both philosophically and scientifically to maintain that the universe is without a beginning. See J. P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), 18-42, and works cited there; and Francis J. Beckwith, David Hume's Argument Against Miracles: A Critical Analysis (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1989), chapter 5.
7 McConnell, 2.
8 For example, Thomas V. Morris, The Logic of God Incarnate (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986).
9See `Abdu'l-Baha, 110-12.
10 Esslemont, 214.
11 On this and other so-called Baha'i biblical prophecies, see Beckwith, Baha'i, 28-39.
12See James Bjornstad, Sun Myung Moon and the UnificationChurch, rev. ed. (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1984), 19-52.
13See, for example, Esslemont, 222-26; `Abdu'l-Baha, 110-12.
14See Norman L. Geisler, Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976), 340-41; Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict, rev. ed. (San Bernardino, CA: Here's Life Publishers, 1979), 141-77.
15SeeArnold Fruchtenbaum, Jesus Was a Jew (San Antonio, TX: Ariel Ministries, 1981), 23-64.
16 For example, see Esslemont, 214-16; see also Beckwith, Baha'i, 35-37.
17See for further reading, Fruchtenbaum, 23-24; Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971), 160-80.
18See n. 14.
19See Beckwith, Baha'i, 23-25.
20See especially James Sire, Scripture Twisting: 20 Ways the Cults Misread the Bible (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1980).
21 David Hofman, The Renewal of Civilization, Talisman Books (London: George Ronald, 1960), 110.
22 Hermann Zimmer, A Fraudulent Testament Devalues the Bahai Religion into Political Shoghism, trans. Jeannine Blackwell, rev. Karen Gasser and Gordon Campbell (Waiblingen/Stuttgart: World Union for Universal Religion and Universal Peace — Free Bahais, 1973).
23Vernon Elvin Johnson, An Historical Analysis of Critical Transformations in the Evolution of the Baha'i World Faith (Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms, 1974), 362-80.
24 Joel Bjorling, "Leland Jensen: The Prophet Who Cried 'Wolf,'" Understanding Cults and Spiritual Movements 1, 3 (1985):6.
25 Johnson, 410.
26Antony Flew, Thinking Straight (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1975), 47.
27 Johnson, 412.
28 On the evidence for the resurrection, see especially William Lane Craig, Knowing the Truth about the Resurrection (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Publications, 1988), and Gary Habermas, The Resurrection of Jesus: An Apologetic (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980).
29See Beckwith, Baha'i, 14, 25-26.
