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 document 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 God, 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 Constitutional 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, asserts 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 documents 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 Shiahs 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 "bastard," 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 pronounced 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 hell"; the "New History" affirms "that he passed 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 attitude, 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 assassinate 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 Shiah historian, who gives a circumstantial account of how twelve Babis, including one high leader, laid the plot. But Count Gobineau[429] is entitled 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 noble 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.