Bahaism and Its Claims Part 15

VIII

Its Record as to Morals

The Bahais are ignorant of the dogmas of Babism and of its history and its book. The "Traveller's Narrative," a work of Abbas Effendi, is a bad romance, composed solely for the purpose of proving that the Bab is simply a precursor and announcer of Baha Ullah. With extreme bias, he misconceives in every instance the true history, and the author has not even searched, as I have, in the immense works of the Bab for the autobiographical notes which are so plentiful. He is satisfied with the legends which fall in best with the end he is pursuing. It is regrettable that a man like Abbas Effendi should show himself ignorant of the life of the Bab.--_"Beyan Persan," A. L. M. Nicolas, Vol. I, p.

xvi._

To represent him (the Bab) as simply the forerunner of Baha is an historic falsehood. It is another to pretend that the religion of the Bab was universalized by Baha Ullah.--_Ibid., Vol. III, p. v._

The Bab did not consider himself as the herald or forerunner of another dispensation, as a John the Baptist to Christ. This is devoid of historic foundation. In his own eyes as in those of his followers, M. Ali Mohammed inaugurated a new prophetic cycle and brought a new revelation which abrogated the Koran. He declared that he is not the last Manifestation. There would be a greater, whom he calls "Him whom G.o.d would manifest," but the Bab expected that the next manifestation would be separated from his own by an interval such as had separated previous dispensations. Possibly the "Bayan" indicates 1511 or 2001 years as the interval.--_Professor Browne, "Introduction to Mirza Jani's History."_

The moral conduct of the founders of a religion, especially one that requires trust in the person of its author, is a necessary subject of investigation. The conduct of the immediate followers is not to the same degree a subject of criticism. From one point of view it is no argument against the truth of Bahaism that Bahais fail to live up to its precepts and principles, for this can be said of all religions. But the claims of Bahai writers make it necessary to consider their conduct. They boast of superior exemplary character and make this a proof of Bahaism. Hence it is necessary to show the groundlessness of their a.s.sertions. In the following review, which covers several chapters, the conduct of Baha, Abdul Baha and their early followers is treated together. The claim made for the founders is nothing short of blessed perfection. For the disciples, it is one of superlative excellence. Myron Phelps says:[380]

"This faith does not expend itself on beautiful and unfruitful theories, but has a vital and effective power to mould life towards the very highest ideals of human character--as exemplified in the life of Abbas and the salient characteristics of his followers." The Bahai historians say:[381] "They are remarkable only for their charity, kindliness, purity, G.o.dliness, rect.i.tude, sincerity, integrity, generosity, chast.i.ty and strict avoidance of all forbidden things." "In their conduct, action, morality and demeanour was no place for objection.... People have confidence in their trustworthiness, faithfulness and G.o.dliness."

Abul Fazl[382] speaks of the supernatural character and morals of the followers of Baha, who became universally celebrated for their just characters, good conduct and excellent morals. So Remey:[383] "The effect of this cause upon the lives of the peoples of every race and religion leaves no doubt as to the divine source of its teachings."

Mirza Jani, speaking of the proofs the Babis gave to the Moslems, says:[384] "We say, 'We have witnessed miracles on the part of this man.' They retort, 'He is a sorcerer.' We say, 'Come, let us invoke G.o.d's curse on whomsoever is in error, leaving to Him the decision.'

They reply, 'This is not permitted by our law.' We say, 'Let us kindle a fire and enter into the midst together.' They answer, 'You are mad.' We further say, 'Consider the G.o.dliness, piety and self-renunciation of those who believe.' They return us no answer." I propose to return the answer.

1. One characteristic of the Bahai leaders is _dishonesty in dealing with their history_. This sometimes takes the form of the suppression and concealment of doc.u.ments, sometimes of the omission or perversion of essential facts or their presentation in such a way as to falsify history. In the writing of political history and in scheming for the triumph of a political party, we may expect crookedness in dealing with facts, but in the propagating of a new religion designed to supersede Christianity and Islam, and purporting to be an improvement on them, we do not expect to find dishonesty and misrepresentation. Yet this is exactly what we find, namely, "a readiness to ignore or suppress facts, writings or views (undoubtedly historical), which they regard as useless or hurtful to their aims."[385]

When Mirza Husain Ali (Baha Ullah) started out as a "Manifestation," it was necessary to get rid of certain facts and beliefs held by Babis. He must reduce the Bab from his position as the Point of Divinity--the Lord of a new Dispensation, as well as supplant and supersede the Bab's successor, Subh-i-Azal.[386] Thoroughly to accomplish this object (after the Babis leaders had been put out of the way), the history was rewritten. While claiming that the Bab gave testimony to Baha and taking to themselves the glory of Babi heroism and martyrdoms, the Bahais relegated the "Bayan" and other "revelations" of the Bab, not yet a score of years old, to dust-covered oblivion.[387] Subh-i-Azal avers that they wilfully destroyed them. He writes[388] that thirty or more bound books of the Bab were given in trust by him to his relatives (Baha and his family) as trustees. "They carried off the trust," and "making strenuous efforts, got into their hands such of the books of the Point as were obtainable, with the idea of destroying them and rendering their own works attractive." Professor Browne[389] informs us that it was very difficult to obtain a Babi book from Persian Bahais and next to impossible to get a glimpse of one at Acca, where the Bahais had them concealed. The "holy, divine books" were shelved from motives of policy.

A primitive Babi work of first importance was the "History," by Mirza Jani. This was an original narrative of events, at first hand, prepared in sincerity by one who shortly suffered martyrdom for the cause (1852).

But its facts did not suit the Bahais. So it was superseded, first by the "New History"[390] (1880), and secondly by the "Traveller's Narrative" (1886). Both these histories purport to be written by European travellers. We might excuse their being anonymous, to avoid possible persecution, but to make pretense that the authors are travellers who have come from afar ostensibly to investigate, and into whose mouths are put praises of the religion, is but part of the insincerity noticeable in other things.[391] Mirza Jani's "History"

pa.s.sed out of sight, and it was only because a copy had been deposited by Count Gobineau in the Bibliotheque Nationale at Paris that it has reached our hands.[392]

Of the "New History" little need be said, except that it perverted the history and "carefully omitted every fact, doctrine and expression,"[393] not in accord with the policy of Baha.

Let us examine somewhat in detail how Abbas Abdul Baha treats facts in his "Traveller's Narrative." He is undoubtedly the princ.i.p.al author of this work.[394] The Persian Bahai, who sent Professor Browne the lithographed (Bombay) copy of it, wrote, "It contains the observations of His Holiness, the Lord, Mystery of G.o.d (May my personality be his sacrifice)." Professor Browne was also presented with a copy of it at Acca, which he published in Persian with an English translation. Of it he says,[395] "It was written to discredit the perfectly legitimate claims and to disparage the blameless character of his less successful rival" (Azal). "There is good ground for suspecting a _deliberate misstatement_[396] of facts and dates." He specifies[397] various points in which Abbas Effendi perverted the facts. Undoubtedly one of the aims of Abbas was to eliminate Azal. The latter had been regularly appointed by the Bab as his successor,[398] but he refused to make way for Baha.

The Bahais tried to get rid of the question by suppressing all mention of him, even of his name, and "of all doc.u.ments tending to prove the position which he undoubtedly held."[399] They would have consigned him to oblivion.[400] The "New History" makes but one doubtful reference to Azal.[401] Professor Browne says, "Abbas Effendi,[402] in order to curtail the duration and extent of Subh-i-Azal's authority and to give colour to their a.s.sertion that it was but temporary and nominal, _deliberately and purposely antedated_ the Manifestation of Baha." And he continues to the present to misrepresent the facts. In "Answered Questions"[403] Baha is presented as the chief influence in Persia immediately after the Bab. Other Bahai writers repeat this error.[404]

2. Another practice of the founders of Bahaism is _falsifying and changing the doc.u.ments and texts of their Sacred Writings_, namely, those of the Bab and Baha, according to the exigency of circ.u.mstances.

Subh-i-Azal made the accusation "that the Bahais had tampered with the Bab's writings to give colour to their own doctrines and views."[405] I pa.s.s this by, to notice how they have tampered with their own "Revelations." For example, take Baha's "Epistle to the Shah of Persia."

Its original text was published by Baron Rosen.[406] It is embodied by Abbas Effendi in the "Traveller's Narrative."[407] The two do not agree.

"Very considerable alterations and suppressions were made in the text by the author of 'Traveller's Narrative.'"[408] "The text has evidently been toned down to suit a wider audience and to avoid giving offense to non-believers."[409]

There is also another "Epistle to the Shah" which is contained in the "Surat-ul-Maluk." Its tone is strikingly different. The first is a careful diplomatic doc.u.ment which acknowledges the faults of the Babis, pleads pardon for the past and for religious toleration. It is monotheistic, representing Baha as a humble suffering servant, with no pretense to Divinity. The other "adopts a tone of fierce recrimination towards the Shah, and upbraids him for the Bab's death, saying, 'Would you had slain him as men slay one another, but ye slew him in such a way as the eyes of men have not seen the like thereof and heaven wept over him, and by G.o.d, the eye of existence hath not beheld the like of you; you slay the son of your prophet and then are of those who are joyful.'"

He excuses the attempt on the life of the Shah, and threatens vengeance[410] on him. These two Epistles to the Shah have been a puzzle to the critics. This threatening, fierce letter seems so contrary to the policy of Baha. An adequate and not improbable explanation[411]

would be that one letter was prepared for the perusal of his Majesty and the other for the Bahais, to impress them with the boldness of their prophet.

Another example of this is seen in the suppression[412] of part of the "Lawh-i-Basharat" ("Glad Tidings"). Its fifteenth section commands Const.i.tutional Government. When the Tablet was sent to Russia, this section was suppressed by Bahais. The Tablet was published in its mutilated form by Baron Rosen. Expediency, which rules Bahai practice, required that an incomplete "Divine Revelation" should reach Russia.

Playing fast and loose with the "Revelations" prevailed still more at the time of the bitter quarrel and schism on the death of Baha. Though Baha's Tablets are regarded as "Holy Books" in the highest sense, yet the Bahais commit the grave offense of changing them so as to misrepresent facts. Mirza Mohammed Ali and Badi Ullah, younger sons of Baha, in refuting the claim of Abbas Effendi to be Baha's successor, say, "Has Abbas dared to change the texts uttered by Baha Ullah? Most certainly, Yes. We have in our possession _many_ texts of Baha Ullah which have been changed[413] by Abbas Effendi." Further, "he and his party have stolen the first paragraph of a sacred Tablet and have perverted its meaning, with deception."

Khadim-Ullah,[414] the lifelong amanuensis of Baha, a.s.serts that Abbas actually rejected a "Sacred Tablet," written in the handwriting of Baha Ullah. Other Tablets are repudiated. For in "Hidden Words"[415] Baha Ullah refers to the "Fifth Tablet of Paradise" and the "Ruby Tablet."

Abbas Effendi warns against accepting any such Tablets if they should be brought to light. What other reason for this can we imagine than fear that their contents would be against his claim. Enough has been said to show the truth of the charge that the Bahais deal dishonestly with the doc.u.ments of their alleged revelation.

A peculiar instance of forgery occurs in the writings of Baha Ullah. In his Epistle to the Shah Baha quotes certain verses as from the "Hidden Book of Fatima." This book, the s.h.i.+ahs believe, was revealed by Gabriel to Fatima, the daughter of Mohammed, disappeared with the twelfth Imam, and will be brought back by the Mahdi at his coming. Professor Browne[416] wrote to Acca making inquiry about this "Book of Fatima" and the quotations from it. The authoritative reply which he received was, "That naught is known of such a book but the name, but Baha Ullah mentioned it in this manner to make known the appearance of the Kaim"

(Mahdi). In other words, Baha was making a false pretense of quoting from the "Book of Fatima," as if he, as Mahdi, had brought it with him.

3. Bahais make _false representation of facts in political history_. The "Traveller's Narrative" perverts the truth for "political opportunism."[417] Contrary to the contemporary historian, Mirza Jani, and the European chroniclers, the Shah is represented as ignorant and innocent of and averse to the repressive measures taken by his government against the Babis. Let me give specific proofs of this.

At the first trial of the Bab, at Tabriz, according to Mirza Jani,[418]

Nasr-ud-Din, then Crown Prince, whom he dubs "b.a.s.t.a.r.d," treated the Bab disrespectfully by rolling a globe towards him and taunting him with ignorance of it and by ordering him to be bastinadoed. The "Traveller's Narrative,"[419] per contra, says, "The heavenly-cradled Crown Prince p.r.o.nounced no sentence with regard to the Bab, but the Mullahs ordered a bastinado." The former history states that the Prime Minister consulted, about the execution of the Bab, with the Shah,[420] who gave him full authority to act in the matter," and that he then communicated with Prince Hamza Mirza, Governor of Azerbaijan, who proceeded to make plans for it. Abbas' Narrative[421] states that "the Minister, without the Royal command and without his cognizance and entirely on his own authority, issued commands to put the Bab to death"; "that Prince Hamza utterly refused to have part in the trial and execution." Gobineau[422]

confirms the original account, and states that Prince Hamza "took a leading part in the condemnation of the Bab." It is certain that contemporary Babis[423] held the Shah responsible for their persecution and were bitter against him. Mirza Jani records the death of Mohammed Shah, by saying that "he went to h.e.l.l"; the "New History" affirms "that he pa.s.sed to the mansions of Paradise." Nasr-ud-Din was no puppet king, he was fully cognizant of the affairs of state. Regarding the imprisonment of Baha, the "Traveller's Narrative"[424] says, "His Majesty, moved by his own kindly spirit, ordered investigation and the release of Baha Ullah." He had just ordered the execution of twenty-eight Babis, with horrid cruelties, after the attempt on his life. Regarding the torture and execution of Badi, who bore the Epistle to the Shah, it says:[425] "It was contrary to the desire of the Shah, and he manifested regret for it." This and much in that Epistle is written with the idea of conciliating the Shah and obtaining toleration.

It is a sensible att.i.tude, did they not maintain it with so much misrepresentation and hypocrisy. The real spirit of Bahais towards Nasr-ud-Din is seen in Baha's "Surat-ul-Maluk," and is one of "fierce recrimination." Confirmation of this comes from conversations with Bahais.

Another misrepresentation of history, which is universal among Bahais, is in belittling the plot to a.s.sa.s.sinate Nasr-ud-Din Shah in 1852. Abbas Effendi says,[426] "It was done by a certain Babi, by sheer madness, one other person being his accomplice." His sister, Bahiah Khanum, says,[427] It was "by a young Babi who had lost his reason."

Kheiralla,[428] says, It was "by a weak-minded, insane believer."

Similarly all their writers propagate a tradition that one irresponsible man made the attempt. It is permitted to doubt the s.h.i.+ah historian, who gives a circ.u.mstantial account of how twelve Babis, including one high leader, laid the plot. But Count Gobineau[429] is ent.i.tled to credence when he says that there were a number of Babis in the plot and three took part in the attempt. A nephew of one of the accomplices told Professor Browne[430] that there were seven in the plot and three of them went out to commit the act. Why will not Bahai writers give the facts straight?

Another misrepresentation fostered by them is that of calling the Babi martyrs Bahais. Thus Abdul Baha says,[431] "When they brought Kurrat-ul-Ayn the terrible news of the martyrdom of the Bahais, she did not waver." Again he says,[432] "Thousands of His (_i. e._, Baha Ullah's) followers have given their lives, and while under the sword shedding their blood they have proclaimed, 'Ya Baha-ul-Abha.'" He said[433] in Doctor Cadman's church, "The King of Persia killed 20,000 Bahais." Again,[434] "In all parts of Persia his enemies rose against Baha Ullah, imprisoning and killing _his_ converts, razing thousands of dwellings." These are gross misstatements. In Kurrat-ul-Ayn's time there were no Bahais, only Babis. No such efforts as those described were ever made to crush Bahaism. The thousands who gave their lives were Babis.

Perhaps some one remarks, "What's the difference?" Foreign writers may not know the difference, and an American audience certainly does not.

But Abdul Baha, from whom I have quoted, makes a great difference. It arouses one's indignation to read Bahai literature, in which they claim credit for all that is n.o.ble in Babi annals, such as the martyrdoms, and yet they disparage and deny the Babis.

Read Abul Fazl's "Bahai Proofs." He said[435] to Prince Naibus-Sultaneh, "The unseemly actions of the Babis cannot be denied nor excused, but to arrest Bahais for them is oppression, for these unfortunates have _no connection with the Babis_, who took up arms, _nor are they of the same religion or creed_." In another place he writes[436] repudiating the wars and disorders of the Babis, and affirming that they were guilty of many censurable actions, such as taking men's property and pillaging the dead, and engaging in conflict and bloodshed. If then the Bahais repudiate them, they must not appropriate their glory, for the old Babis, with all their faults, were at least heroic. Bahaism has, on the contrary, the spirit of _tagiya_.

I pa.s.s on to consider Abdul Baha's representations regarding Sultan Abdul Hamid. I present two quotations from Tablets addressed to American believers. The first says,[437] "Here one witnesses the fairness and impartiality of H. I. Majesty the Padishah of the Ottomans, who has dealt with the utmost justice and equity. In reality to-day, in the Asiatic world, the Padishah of the Ottoman Empire and the Shah of Persia, Muzaffar-ud-Din, are peerless and have no equals. These two kings have treated us with mildness--both are just. Therefore, pray ye and beseech for their confirmation in the threshold of the Almighty, especially for Abdul Hamid, who has dealt at all times in justice with these exiled ones." Abdul Hamid--a peerless, just one! Surely this would have remained among the _hidden things_ had not one "Servant of G.o.d"

(Abd-ul-Baha) revealed it to us about that other "Servant of G.o.d"

(Abd-ul-Hamid). This "revelation" is dated 1906. After Abdul Hamid was deposed, Abdul Baha speaks[438] of "his oppression and tyranny," for the Sultan sent "an oppressive, august commission, that with all kinds of wiles, simulations, slander and fabrication of false stories, they might fasten guilt upon Abdul Baha. But soon fetters and manacles were placed around the _unblessed_ neck of Abdul Hamid." Did the "Infallible Pen"

err in the former character sketch? No, but Abdul Baha's oppression[439]

of his brothers, in retaining their patrimony, resulted in a bitter quarrel and complaints, followed by an investigating Commission and Abdul Baha's imprisonment. On this account the whitewash scaled off from Abdul Hamid.

Another form of misstatement is their habitual way of speaking of the imprisonment of Baha and Abdul Baha. Abdul Baha says of Baha,[440] "His blessed days ended in the cruel prison and _dark dungeon_." "He pa.s.sed his days in the Most Great Prison."[441] Abdul Baha continually speaks of himself in such words as the following, "Forty years I was a prisoner; I was young when I was put in prison, and my hair was white when the prison doors opened."[442] "After all these long years of prison life." "My body can endure anything; my body has endured forty years of imprisonment."[443] Now, what are the facts?

In Phelps' Life, Bahiah Khanum[444] says, "We were imprisoned in the barracks at Acca two years (1868-70)." Then[445] "we were given a comfortable house[446] with three rooms and a court." After nine years of such restriction Baha Ullah moved to a beautiful garden outside the city and built there a Palace, called Bahja. He had the freedom of the surrounding country, visited Mount Carmel, and later spent a part of each year at Haifa.[447] Baha Ullah died in this Palace, not in a _dungeon_.[448]

As to Abbas Effendi, during the first brief period only he was restricted to the barracks. He was even temporarily put in chains in the dungeon[449] when accused of partic.i.p.ation in the a.s.sa.s.sination of the Azalis. After that, for a period of _thirty years_, "he was permitted to go about at his pleasure, beyond the walls of Acca."[450] He built a fine residence[451] at Haifa, which I have seen. He journeyed to Tiberias and as far as Beirut. Only after his quarrel with his brothers and on their accusation was he ordered back to Acca, and even then he had the freedom of the city (1905).[452] Such are the facts about Abbas Effendi, whom Canon Wilberforce introduced in his church as "for forty years _a prisoner for_ the cause of _brotherhood and love_." In truth it was the quarrelling of the brothers, Azal and Baha, that led to the banishment from Adrianople to Acca, the murder of Azalis by Bahais increased its severity, the bitter hatred of the younger generation against each other brought back the restraint.

4. Another immoral practice of Bahais is _tagiya_ or _ketman_, religious dissimulation. This is taught and practiced by s.h.i.+ah Moslems,[453] and it is continued with all its offensiveness against good morals by Bahais. In it concealment, denial or misrepresentation by word or act is allowed for self-protection or for the good of the faith. It was formally permitted by Baha Ullah. In accordance with this practice Abdul Baha and his followers at Acca keep the Fast of Ramazan[454] in addition to the Bahai Fast at Noruz. Dr. H. H. Jessup[455] wrote, "He is now acting what seems to be a double part--a Moslem in the Mosque, and a Christ in his own house. He prays with the Moslems, 'there is no G.o.d but G.o.d,' and expounds the Gospels as the incarnate Son of G.o.d." Mirza Abul Fazl, a Bahai missionary, lately died in Egypt. At his public funeral[456] the Moslem _taziah_, with reading of the Koran, was held, though he was a strenuous worker for the abrogation of Islam. Most Bahais in Persia live in habitual _tagiya_. Fear of persecution is some palliation for this, but it is a great defect. Very far from the truth is the statement of Lord Curzon[457] that "No Babi (or Bahai) has ever recanted under pressure." Mr. Nicolas,[458] the French Consul at Tabriz, shows from the Bab's own writings that he himself denied his Manifestation at his examination at s.h.i.+raz and signed a recantation. At the execution[459] of the Bab in Tabriz (1850) two of his intimate disciples denied the faith. The explanation of the fact is remarkable and instructive. They were enjoined to do so by the Bab in order that they might convey certain doc.u.ments to a safe place. In other words, they were to lie for the faith, by divine injunction. In another notable instance,[460] seven Babis stood firm and were executed at Teheran, while thirty recanted, being told by their leader to judge whether they were justified by family ties, etc., in renouncing the faith. "They determined to adopt a course of concealment, _tagiya_." Some years ago a Bahai was called before the Governor of Tabriz and questioned, "Are you a Bahai?" "I am a Mussulman." "Will you curse Baha?" "It is written in the Koran not to curse, I am not a Bahai." By payment of a peshkesk this answer was made acceptable. And no offense was recognized in conscience, for Baha had said, "If your heart is right with me, nothing matters."

It were scarcely necessary to note that some Babis and Bahais have denied their faith, except to correct the mistake of travellers, but the fact that denial is permitted and approved is important. For _tagiya_ is a deeply-rooted seed which bears evil fruits in their characters and conduct.

Even their propaganda is carried on in the same deceitful spirit. The Bahai conceals from the one he approaches his status and beliefs, insinuates himself into his confidence, suits the substance of his message to the preconceptions and prejudices of his hearer and leads him on, perhaps omitting to mention the real essentials of Bahaism.[461] One of their methods is to worm themselves into the employ of Christian Missions and clandestinely carry on their propaganda while they undermine the work of the Mission. Perhaps the Mission wishes a language teacher or a mirza. A Bahai presents himself. He talks well. In the course of conversation the missionary inquires his religious views. He appears liberal minded. Direct inquiry is made, "Are you a Bahai?" He replies, "No, _I am not_, but I am tired of Islam; I am a truth-seeker."

The missionary employs him. After a time, maybe, he professes to be a Christian, and is baptized. Such were a certain Mirza Hasan and a Mirza Husain, who deceived the Swedish Mission and received salaries as Christian evangelists, but had been and continued to be Bahais and propagandists. I have heard that in a certain Station (not American) Bahais, without revealing their faith, accepted positions as cook, language-teacher, financial agent, etc., and so surrounded the new Mission that it was a Bahai more than a Christian establishment. Doctor Shedd[462] tells of an a.s.sistant he had with him in school work--a Persian, with whom he discussed religious topics freely. For years the man disavowed belief in Bahaism, but finally threw off the mask and became an active propagandist. After his dismissal he instigated the Persian pupils, whom he had previously secretly beguiled, and they complained to the Persian Government that "they, as good (?) Mohammedans, were offended by having to study the Christian Scriptures."

Great is _tagiya_!

What else can we expect, since Abdul Baha instructs his disciples in pretense. A certain Madame Canavarro,[463] staying at Acca, expressed her desire to a.s.sist in spreading Bahaism among the Buddhists, and spoke of the difficulty of introducing it as a new religion. Abdul Baha replied, "At first teach it as truths of their own religion, afterwards tell them of me." She replied that she herself was imbued with the spirit of Buddhism. He answered, "What you call yourself is of no consequence." To a certain American lady who was afraid her friends would be repelled by the idea of a new religion, Abdul Baha advised, "Remain in the Church and teach Bahaism as the true teaching of Christ."

A striking instance of this religious dissimulation is seen in Hamadan.[464] There about two-and-a-half per cent. of the Jews have accepted Baha as the Messiah. But many of these continue in the outward forms and a.s.sociations of the Jews.[465] Others professed to be Christians, and were protected as such by the Shah's government. After a decade or two it became evident that they were hypocrites, cloaking their Bahaism under the Christian name.

This Oriental dissimulation takes on a different phase in Western Bahaism. The principle of the latter is stated thus, "Adhere to any religious faith with which you are a.s.sociated."[466] "No religious relation[467] should be severed, but these relations should become as avenues for giving forth the message of the Bahai faith." This idea is delusive; it is self-deception, ignorance, or worse. No Christian can give allegiance to Baha as incarnate G.o.d and accept, as he then must, Islam,[468] Babism and Bahaism as successively true, and as higher revelations abrogating Christianity, and still be loyal to Christ.

Bahaism is not a philosophy like Tolstoism, nor a theory of economics like the "single tax"; it is a religion as much as Mormonism is.

A plain example of Bahai _tagiya_ is in connection with the organization known as the "Persian-American Educational Society." This was organized at Was.h.i.+ngton, D. C., under the patronage of Mirza Ali Kuli Khan, Persian Charge d' Affaires. Its organizing body, committee to draft its const.i.tution, its executive, are Bahais, yet its circular sets forth seventeen purposes for its existence without naming the propagation of Bahaism as one of them. It appealed for funds on general philanthropic and educational grounds, never mentioning its religious motive. It introduced the names of President Taft, Secretary Root, and other prominent men in such a way as to lead the public to understand that the movement had their intelligent endors.e.m.e.nt. To its real purpose, viz.: aiding existing and establis.h.i.+ng new Bahai schools in Persia and the Orient,[469] I am making no objection. It is the _concealment_ of this purpose which is objectionable when contributions are asked from the general public. It claims to be _unsectarian_, because its schools take in pupils of all sects and religions. So do the schools of Christian Missions, but they are none the less Christian schools, and the "Orient-Occident" schools are distinctively Bahai. They _disclaim proselytizing_. The claim is simply false. Bahai schools are hotbeds of proselytizing, and must be so by their nature. Their law[470] says, "Schools must first train the children in the principles of the religion." Dreyfus[471] adds, "There is no fear of a prescription, emanating from such authority, ever being disregarded." The Bahai school in Teheran worked under cover for some years. Remey says,[472] "This inst.i.tution is not generally known as a Bahai School. However, it is in the hands of the Bahais. From the directors down through the teachers and students, the majority were of our faith." Similarly in Bombay,[473]

the Bahai teacher concealed his faith. "The Zoroastrian parents of his pupils suspected him of Bahaism and so took their children out."

But to find the supreme example of Bahai _tagiya_ we have to go to the fountainhead. Abdul Baha himself, oblivious to its moral obliquity, lays bare the fact in his "Traveller's Narrative."[474] We have seen that Subh-i-Azal, the half-brother of Baha Ullah, was appointed by the Bab as his successor. According to Abdul Baha, this appointment was a dishonest subterfuge on the part of Baha, arranged by him through secret correspondence with the Bab, in order that Baha might be relieved of danger and persecution and be protected from interference. So "out of regard for certain considerations and as a matter of expediency, Azal's name was made notorious on the tongues of friends and foes even to jeopardizing his life, while Baha remained safe and secure, and no one fathomed the matter." Abul Fazl[475] states the position of the "Traveller's Narrative" as follows, "The Bab and Baha Ullah, after consulting together, made Azal _appear_ as the Bab's successor. In this manner they preserved Baha Ullah from interference." This account shows the low ideas of honour and truthfulness in the minds of Baha and Abdul Baha. And although their explanation is not true (but an invention of their _tagiya_--_corrupted_ minds), it shows to what straits[476] they were put to explain away the succession of Azal, the legitimacy of which Azal still, in his ripe old age, maintains. Abdul Baha published to the world Baha's deceitfulness, but only made the matter worse for him.