The attempt to assassinate Nasr-i-Din Shah (1852) shows also the murderous spirit of the Babis. From seven to twelve[541] Babis were engaged in the plot, and four of them started out to take part in the assault. It was not, as is commonly represented by Bahais, the act of an unbalanced, weak-minded individual, but the revengeful plot of a number. The spirit of vengeance was very strong within them. Of this we have a witness from a very unexpected quarter, namely, the celebrated Bahai apologist, Mirza Abul Fazl. He writes,[542] "Numerous historical and tangible evidences can be furnished to prove that it was the pen of Baha Ullah which protected from death his own enemies, such as Subh-i-Azal, Nasr-i-Din Shah and certain great doctors and divines. Otherwise the Babis would not have allowed a single one of these people to have escaped alive." He certainly must include Bahais, for the Babis would not have desired to kill Subh-i-Azal. But the assertion of M. Abul Fazl, that Baha was as the "Prince of Peace" among a lot of untrained, untamed disciples, will not stand investigation. For Baha's history shows the contrary.
6. Baha also commends suicide for his sake. It is narrated by Abdul Baha[543] that rather than be separated in exile from Baha, "Haji Jafar was moved to lamentation, and with his own hand cut his throat." Baha, in the Lawh-i-Raiz, alluded to this event, saying, "One from amongst the Friends sacrificed himself for myself and cut his throat with his own hand for the love of God. This is such that we have not heard from former ages. This is that which God hath set apart for this dispensation." Another disciple attempted suicide about the same time.[544] This "old and faithful follower seized a knife and exclaiming, 'If I must be separated from my Lord, I will go and join my God,' cut his throat. With the aid of a physician, his life was saved. Again when the ship bearing the exiles reached Haifa, Abdul Ghaffar, finding himself to be separated from his Lord, determined to sacrifice his life, and threw himself into the sea from the steamer, exclaiming, 'O Baha! O Baha!'" The sailors rescued him.[545] This tendency to suicide reveals an astonishing degree of fanaticism among the Bahais. But suicide is so rare among the Persian Shiahs that these reports arouse suspicion and call for further investigation. I was informed of one person whom the Bahais at Acca reported as a suicide, but who in reality had been murdered by them. Of another, named Haji Mirza Riza, who would have written a history favourable to Azal, the latter wrote to Professor Browne that "they (the Bahais) sought to slay him, and at length gave out that, on the first night of his imprisonment, he had bound a cord about his throat and destroyed himself and so became a martyr."[546] The celebrated Nabil, Bahai poet and historian, is reported to have committed suicide by throwing himself into the sea, shortly after the death of Baha Ullah. "He could stay on earth no longer—he loved and yearned so for Baha Ullah."[547] As this same Nabil had himself claimed to be the Manifestation,[548] it was very convenient that he should make away with himself at that time, instead of renewing his pretensions.
These instances of suicide are cited as proofs of the truth of the religion by M. Mohammed Husain Shirazi, who says,[549] "More faithful and devoted (than the early Christians), some martyrs of our day have killed themselves with their own hands out of devotion to their Lord Baha." Again Baha sent Badi, the messenger, to the Shah, with the "Epistle" from Acca, assuring him beforehand that he was going to death.[550] The letter could easily have been sent through one of the foreign consulates without sacrifice of life.
Doctor Jessup says:[551] "They teach unscrupulous persecution of those obnoxious to them. I had a friend, a learned Mohammedan of Bagdad, called Ibrahim Effendi, of scholarly bearing, refined and courteous—a brother of the wife of Abbas Effendi. His father, a wealthy man, died when he was young and his uncle determined to bring him up as a Babite (Bahai). But the boy refused to accept it. His uncle then robbed him of his property," and threatened him. He fled and came to Beirut. He professed Christianity and was baptized at Alexandria, Egypt. While at Beirut, "he went down to Acca to visit. One night he found that his life was in great danger if he stayed through the night and he escaped to Beirut in great terror."[552]
7. Psychological attestation of the accusation against the Bahais, of assassination, is seen in their doctrine of the power and prerogative of the "Manifestation," and the inference made by the Bahais from that doctrine. This is set forth in the Tablet of Ishrakat,[553] "Verily He (Baha) hath come from the Heaven of the Unseen, and with Him the standard of 'He doeth whatsoever He willeth,' and the hosts of power and authority. As to all else save Him: It is incumbent upon them to cling unto that which he hath commanded." "Woe unto those who denied and turned away from Him." "The Most Great Infallibility" is applied only to one (the Manifestation), whose station is sanctified above commands or prohibitions. He is proof against error. Verily if he declares heaven to be earth, right to be left, or south to be north, it is true, and there is no doubt of it." "No one has a right to oppose him, or to say, 'Why or wherefore'; and he who disputes Him is verily of the opposers." "He doeth whatsoever he willeth, and commandeth whatsoever he desireth."
In like manner Abdul Baha states the authority of the Manifestation,[554] "He is not under the shadow of the former laws. Whatever he performs is an upright action. No believer has any right to criticize." "If some people do not understand the hidden secret of one of his commands or actions, they ought not to oppose it."
These principles are boldly interpreted and applied by the Bahais to the subject under discussion. Sayid Kamil, a Bahai of Shiraz, said to Professor Browne[555] with a look of supreme surprise, "You surely cannot pretend to deny that a prophet, who is an incarnation of the Universal Intelligence, has a right to inflict death, openly or secretly, on those who stubbornly opposed him. A prophet is no more to be blamed for removing an obdurate opponent that a surgeon for an amputation of a gangrenous limb." This opinion prevailed among the Bahais. At Yezd they said,[556] "A divine messenger has as much right to kill and compel as a surgeon to amputate." The Bahai missionaries maintained[557] that, "A prophet has a right to slay if he knows it necessary; if he sees that the slaughter of a few will prevent many from going astray, he is justified in commanding such slaughter. No one can question his right to destroy the bodies of a few that the souls of many may live." A Bahai acquaintance of Doctor Frame, of Resht, told him[558] "without any appearance of shame, that he paid so much to have a persecutor removed."
8. In connection with all the above facts, it must be kept in mind that "religious assassination has been freely practiced since the beginning of Islam, and that the prophet Mohammed gave it the sanction of his example on numerous occasions." Professor Browne,[559] who thus emphasizes this fact, and gives instances from the Moslem biographies of Mohammed, points out its bearing on our judgment regarding the assassinations alleged against the Bahais, and concludes, "In Asia a different standard of morality prevails in this matter." Certain facts regarding the Imams revealed in the dark annals of Islam show what historical precedents the Babis and Bahais had back of them. Consider the deaths of the twelve Imams. Ali was[560] assassinated with a dagger, Husain killed after battle, nine other Imams were poisoned, and the last one mysteriously disappeared.
To sum up. Our investigation has led to the conclusion that the Bahais were guilty of these assassinations as charged. The evidence is both direct and circumstantial, with names and places. Some of the witnesses are still living. Some have given their testimony in writing, some in conversation with Europeans, who have reported it accurately to the world. The environment in which they lived, and the historical and theological traditions on which they fed, strengthen the direct proofs.
The answer to these charges by Mirza Abul Fazl in his "Brilliant Proof"[561] is, that we should hear both sides, and that it is not right to accept the witness of enemies against the Bahais, which is as that of Protestants against the Catholics and vice-versa. Our reply is, that both sides have been heard, and examined, and that some of the most damaging testimony is from Bahais themselves. It should be noted that the testimony is altogether from the followers of the Bab, of various kinds and not from Moslem writers. Mr. Phelps, like many Bahai writers, would ignore the charges. He says,[562] "I do not think that it would be time well employed to advert to them in detail." He pronounces them "incredible" and "flatly in contradiction to the spirit, lives and teachings of Baha Ullah and his successor," and destined "quickly to fade away and be forgotten, if left to themselves." No indeed! Lovers of truth will not overlook and forget such a record. They will judge Bahais by their deeds, not by their professions.