I pass 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 God" (Abd-ul-Baha) revealed it to us about that other "Servant of God" (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 passed 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 participation in the assassination 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 Shiah 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 God but God,' and expounds the Gospels as the incarnate Son of God." 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 Shiraz 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 documents 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 assistant 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 assist 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 associations 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 associated."[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 God 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 Washington, D. C., under the patronage of Mirza Ali Kuli Khan, Persian Chargé d' Affaires. Its organizing body, committee to draft its constitution, 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 endorsement. To its real purpose, viz.: aiding existing and establishing 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 institution 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."