As to "verses" in general, and their rhetorical quality as a proof of divine inspiration and revelation, it would be well for Bahais to remember that the Bab recognized divine quality in the verses of Subh-i-Azal, which the Bahais reject with disdain. When the "verses" of Azal came to the Bab, he "rejoiced exceedingly,"[63] nominated him as his successor, and left to him the completion of the "Bayan." Was he mistaken in so important a matter? However that may be, the Bahais contradict him and pronounce the "verses" of Azal good for nothing. M. Ahmad Zohrab,[64] the interpreter of Abdul Baha, avers that "the writings of Azal are most childish. They are jumbled, confused, meaningless composition." Another Bahai, Nabil the poet, at one time wrote "revealed verses," and Azal approved of them and sealed their inspiration. Afterwards Nabil repudiated his own "divinity." Evidently, then, the "proof from verses" is a very uncertain and unreliable one.
(2) They claim superiority for the contents of the Revelation. In describing the substance and variety of it, their "great swelling words" know no bounds. Abdul Baha says: "They are universal, covering every subject. He has revealed scientific explanations ranging throughout all the realms of human inquiry—astronomy, biology, medicine, etc. He wrote lengthy tablets upon civilization, sociology, and government." "One book of the Blessed Perfection is more comprehensive than fifty volumes of the world's greatest wisdom." Empty boasting!
Professor Browne[65] says: "The countless tablets are for the most part rhapsodies interspersed with ethical maxims." Let us give a few of Baha's "revelations" on morals, philosophy, and science. His ethics permit bigamy and tagiya, dissimulation regarding one's faith; his Law punishes habitual theft by branding, and arson by burning, and compounds adultery with a small fine; his philosophy affirms the eternity of matter and the emanation theory of divine Manifestations; his science decides the purity of water by three points—"colour, taste, and smell"—but knows nothing of analysis, and affirms that "the food of the future will be fruits and grains"; it abolished the weeks and months and substitutes nineteen months of nineteen days each, and a system of nineteen units for the decimal or metric system; it creates a new alphabet to bother childhood; its ritual for prayer, fasting, and pilgrimage somewhat resembles the Moslem, with times and places changed. These are samples of its new and superior (?) laws and precepts, which are mingled with a mass of ordinary moral teaching. There is far too much of it for a religious system, but it is entirely inadequate as a judicial and criminal code. Abul Fazl[66] grossly exaggerates when he writes that "Baha has enacted laws and regulations concerning every point or subject."
As a system Bahaism is not superlative. "It is," says Professor Browne,[67] "at most a new synthesis of old ideas; ideas with which the Eastern mind has for centuries been familiar, and which have ere now been more clearly and more logically systematized by older schools of thought, though perhaps they were without a certain tincture of modern Western terminology which is perceptible in Bahaism." "Of the doctrines of the Bab"—and the same is true of Bahaism—"taken separately, there was hardly one of which he could claim to be the author, and not many which did not remount to a remote antiquity."[68] "The theories of symbolism,[69] incarnation, and other doctrines differ in no essential particular from those held by the Ismielis." If desirable, the doctrines and laws could be traced severally, as has been done by Doctor Tisdall in his "Yanab-ul-Islam" regarding the Koran, and the source of each shown. Borrowing so much from the Shiah sects, its fundamental basis in philosophic thought is inferior even to Islam. But because it borrows so much from the enlightened principles and practices of advanced Christian peoples, its moral system is an advance on Islam. Christianity may boldly assert its unique superiority to this "half-cooked" system, to use a Persian idiom. Professor Browne[70] vetoes its claim to superiority, saying: "I do not admit that the Bahai or any other religion can supply a rule of life higher than that which Christ has given us." Discussing with the Bahais in Shiraz,[71] he said: "The religion of Mohammed was certainly not a higher development of the religion of Christ. It is impossible for any one who has understood the teachings of Christ to prefer the teachings of Mohammed. As you say each Manifestation must be fuller, completer, and more perfect than the last, you must prove that the doctrines taught by Baha are superior to those of Christ—a thing that I confess seems to be almost impossible, for I cannot imagine a doctrine purer and more elevated than that of Christ."
IV. Bahaism claims to be the Universal Religion. Dreyfus called his book on Bahaism "The Universal Religion." Remey[72] says: "The Universal Religion is what the Bahai movement offers to the world." Phelps[73] says: "It is divinely inspired world-religion in its first youth. Baha Ullah is a world-teacher in a broader sense than they"—i. e., the founders of other religions. This claim is not only that it is intended "for all people, under all conditions," and is adapted to all, but that it is so all-inclusive and latitudinarian that it can[74] "unite all those now following many systems into one universal faith," and that "each religious sect[75] will hear in the words of Baha its own oft-repeated message, which has been dulled and distorted."
The latter phase of this claim we may dismiss in a word. It is simply a gloss. It is an imagination of enthusiastic Bahais. Neither Christians, Moslems, nor others will be thus included, except some few before they understand Bahaism. The only inclusion it offers is by accepting the divine character and mission of Baha and Abbas;[76] in other words, by becoming Bahais. When they address the Hindu, saying, "We are one with you," "We teach the original Hinduism of your fathers," it is simply to add: "Baha is the fulfillment of your books, follow him." When they allow the Jewish Bahai of Hamadan still to consort with the Jews as a Jew, and to be baptized and pass as a Christian at the same time, it is an inclusiveness which is unjustifiable and deceitful. It is teaching tagiya or religious dissimulation to other races after the manner of the Persian Shiahs. It is, at most, merely a temporary subterfuge.
Let such double-faced Bahais read Remey's article in the Star of the West,[77] entitled "Let the New follow the New," and they will see how untenable is their position. He says: "The Bahai Cause is not merely one of many phases of universal truth (as some say), but is the only living truth to-day; the only source of divine knowledge to mankind. The revelation of Jesus was for His own dispensation—that of 'the Son.' Now it is no longer the point of guidance to the world. We are in total darkness if we are refusing the revelation of the present dispensation. Bahais must be severed from all and everything that is past—things both good and bad—everything. Now all is changed. All the teachings of the past are past. Abdul Baha is now supplying all the world." We read this, with amazement at such pretensions, such groundless assumptions, yet are pleased with the ring of sincerity. We, too, say, "Let a Bahai stand for Bahaism." Even so, let a Christian stand for Christianity, and not stultify his intellect by professing to hold to both religions. But such teachings as Remey's absolutely negative the claim of Bahaism to be able to include the professors of all religions. In conclusion, Bahaism aims at being universal just as every other "ism," even as Mormonism, by persuading the world to forsake its old faiths and adopt its new dogmas. Baha[78] states in a tablet: "Blessed is the brave one, who, with a firm step, walks out of the corridors of intimacy [the old religious restrictions] and takes a place in the ranks."
Is Bahaism fitted to be a universal religion? It has copied much from Christianity and Islam; it would not be strange if it has caught something of the same impetus towards universality. This is specially to be looked for in Bahaism, since it is historically a revision of Babism—revised with an aim to broadening it. Babism was notoriously unfitted to be universal. Dreyfus[79] confesses: "Looking at the Bab's work, we cannot fail to notice in it a certain sectarian particularism which would have confined to Shiah Islam its benefits." Similarly Professor Browne pronounced it[80] "utterly unfitted for the bulk of mankind," and refers to[81] "the useless, impractical, and irksome regulations and restrictions" which Baha abolished in order to make it more capable of becoming what he intended it to be—"a universal system suitable to all mankind." The question arises, Where was the Bab's power of supernatural revelation if he promulgated a system and regulations of such inferiority and destined to be superseded in less than a score of years? Among these regulations[82] were the prohibition of the learning of foreign languages, logic, philosophy, and jurisprudence, discouraging foreign travel, enjoining the expulsion of all unbelievers from the five chief provinces of Persia, together with the confiscation of their property, the destruction of all books more than 202 years old, etc.
Baha, like a tailor trying to change a misfitting garment, ripped up the seams, cut a piece out here and there, added some patches imported from Christian civilization, until he had a coat of many colours, which he advertised as the latest style of religion, fitted to humanity in general. But he should have heeded the precept not to put new cloth on an old garment. No wonder they have never yet published the "Kitab-ul-Akdas" in English. It would tax their ingenuity to adapt all its regulations and laws to the world-life.
Again I return to the question, "Is Bahaism specially adapted to be universal?" By no means. It is unfitted in the most essential particular. It is a religion of laws, not of principles. Mirza Abul Fazl, in "The Brilliant Proof,"[83] emphasizes the fact that Bahaism enjoins, commands, has imperative ordinances, laws, and enactments. But the Gospels enunciate principles. These principles of the New Testament are conscience-educating and life-directing. They are applicable to all conditions the world over, and to every stage of human development. Christianity implants in the heart great ruling motives. Its laws and regulations are few. Hence it does not find itself butting against a wall of unforeseen circumstances. Bahaism, on the contrary, is full of the "beggarly elements." It has regulations, as we have noticed, in regard to personal habits, hygiene, sociology, languages, the calendar, civil government, penology, etc. It is like an omnibus with its top overloaded with all sorts of baggage, which will delay and finally wreck the vehicle. It has made itself a "judge and divider of inheritances."[84] It gives directions as to the barber and the undertaker; how you must bathe and wash your face, and what prayers you shall say during each process. It directs as to the use of knives and forks, of chairs, of perfumes. It graciously permits one to shave his beard, but "the hair must not be allowed to grow below the level of the ear." It tells us that "the nails are to be cut at least once a week," that "every one should wash his feet daily in summer, and at least every three days in winter." And alas! for antique furniture and old Persian rugs! For house furnishings must be changed every nineteen years. In obedience to this command my old teacher in Persia got rid of his rugs, whose sheen was polished and colours were mellowed with age, and refurnished his house with gaudy modern rugs. In prescribing the Moslem fast and namaz (prayer-rite), with some modifications, Bahaism limits the spirit of liberty, which is the essence of universality.