Chapter 5.
V. THE DIFFERENCE IN THE PUBLICATION OF THE TESTAMENT OF
BAHA'ULLAH AND THAT OF THE ALLEGED TESTAMENT OF ABDUL BAHA
The fact that Abdul Baha,
the "Center of the Covenant and Interpreter of the Words of
Baha'u'llah", was supposed to become his successor was known for a long
time in advance through Baha'u'llah's presentation in Kitab-i-Akdas,
Kitab-i-Ahd (Book of the Covenant) and in the Tablet of the
Branch." 123The opening of
Baha'u'llah's Testament is accurately passed down to us and reported by Shoghi
Effendi in God Passes By on page 238, "... unsealed, on
the ninth day after His ascension in the presence of nine witnesses...; read
subsequently, on the afternoon of that same day, before a large company
assembled in His Most Holy Tomb, including His sons, some of the Bab's kinsmen,
pilgrims and resident believers."How was it, on the other hand, with
the alleged testament of Abdul Baha? First a telegram from Haifa arrived on
December 22, 1921 for Consul Schwarz in Stuttgart:"Memorial meetings
world over january seven produce prayers for unity and steadfastness master
left full instructions In his will and testament translations will be sent
inform friends greatest holy leaf" 124
Shoghi was not yet back in Haifa, although Miss Hauff (Stuttgart), the present Baroness of Werdern, had written her parents on December 3, 1921 in a letter from Haifa, ".. - until the instructions which Abdul Baha gave, and his Last Will are read, which will be done by his oldest grandson, who is expected back from England in the next few days." 125The "last instructions" of Abdul Baha were naturally known at this time to a small group of initiates. This fact is clear Irom the telegram to Consul Schwarz: "The master left full instructions in his will and testament." How far these "exact instructions regarding his will and testament" agreed with the real "last stipulations", is not known to us. Because the Testament of Baha'u'llah, with the exception of Abdul Baha's appointment to the "Center of the Covenant" and "Interpreter" of his teachings, was of an even more general nature, the testament of the Master might have gone even more in that direction. The announced "translations" were indeed sent on just three years later (for the first lime in February, 1925, in the United States).
Shoghi was not yet back in Haifa, although Miss Hauff (Stuttgart), the present Baroness of Werdern, had written her parents on December 3, 1921 in a letter from Haifa, ".. - until the instructions which Abdul Baha gave, and his Last Will are read, which will be done by his oldest grandson, who is expected back from England in the next few days." 125The "last instructions" of Abdul Baha were naturally known at this time to a small group of initiates. This fact is clear Irom the telegram to Consul Schwarz: "The master left full instructions in his will and testament." How far these "exact instructions regarding his will and testament" agreed with the real "last stipulations", is not known to us. Because the Testament of Baha'u'llah, with the exception of Abdul Baha's appointment to the "Center of the Covenant" and "Interpreter" of his teachings, was of an even more general nature, the testament of the Master might have gone even more in that direction. The announced "translations" were indeed sent on just three years later (for the first lime in February, 1925, in the United States).
This fact, that the
contents of the last instruction of Abdul Baha were not made known until after
Shoghi's return from Europe but had been read, although not published, earlier
comes from a letter which A. Diebold received from Shoghi's former secretary —
his cousin, Rouhi Afnan - and which was legally authorized by Shoghi himself in
a postscript, "Read and approved, Shoghi". It was dated March 12,
1930. This letter says, ".. the other members of the family, i.e. my
grandmother, her four daughters and sons-in-law, myself as the only grand-son
present and Khosrow, a trusted servant of the Master. Together, we got the key
from His dress pocket which lay near His couch and went to the sate. Before
them all, I opened the safe and directed by Monever Khanum found and opened the
tin tube in which the Will was. I opened the Will and we took turns in reading
it. We kept the purport of the Will a secret until Shoghi Effendi came from
Oxford. In short, I opened the document in the presence of the whole family the
next day after the Master passed away."
Some critical comments
concerning these statements:
1. Whoever has read the
alleged Will of Abdul Baha will confirm our opinion that it takes half an hour
to read it, and then one must have read very quickly. The ten persons present
would have needed, then, five hours altogether. It seems a little doubtful that
the family would have stood it so long. Even one reading aloud of the Will
would have proved a long sitting. About this, however, nothing is said.
2. In the letter of Rouhi
Afnan, the secretary and cousin of Shoghi, to A. Diebold there is nothing said
about Shoghi not being informed about the contents of the testament of
Abdul Baha by telegram or letter. The telegram which arrived December 22, 1921
in Stuttgart might therefore be traced back indirectly to Shoghi.This
presentation is a new proof that the real last will is not identical with the
one whose typed translation was distributed to recognized Bahais from February,
1925, on.In any case, Shoghi was still in England on December 22, 1921. Most
probably Shoghi was also not yet back by the end of December, 1921, because we
read from Ahmad Sohrab, "Shoghi . . . went to Oxford ... He was there when
Abdul Baha passed away from this life and was unable to return until more than
a month after the funeral services."126A further
telegram that Consul Schwarz of Stuttgart received on January 16, 1922 from
Haifa might have been sent on from Haifa shortly after Shoghi's return there:
"In will Shoghi Effendi appointed guardian of cause and head of house ot
justice inform friends greatest holy leaf" cit. White, loc. cit., p.
3).Ruth White writes about
the further development, "An unsigned, undated typewritten translation of
the alleged will of Abdul Baha arrived In America four weeks later and was read
by Mr. Horace Holley to a gathering of Bahais. But no details whatsoever, or
comments, upon the alleged will were vouchsafed the audience." Mrs. White,
who was there herself, gives this presentation in The Bahai Religion and its
Enemy, the Bahai Organization (1929, page 3). Therefore, this appointment of a
successor for Abdul Baha seemed like a "thunderbolt out of a clear
sky", since Abdul Baha had never given an indication of naming a
successor. The leadership of the Bahai Cause was supposed to be handed over to
the House of Justice.
In Star ot the West of
November 23, 1913, Abdul Baha said on page 238, "The promised One of
Baha'u'llah will appear after one thousand or thousands of years. This is the
Covenant which Baha'u'llah made .. . In case of difference, Abdul Baha must be
consulted . . . After Abdul Baha whenever the Universal House of Justice is
organized, it will ward off differences." 127Only
three years later in February, 1925, typewritten copies were distributed only
among "old and recognized believers" with permission from Shoghi.
Mrs. White also received a copy.In the meantime, parts of the alleged testament
of Abdul Baha had been published as, for example, in "Sonne der
Wahrheit" in August, 1922. This publication of excerpts of the alleged
testament of Abdul Baha was extremely meager. The first point of discussion is
the covenant breakers, then the branches and hands of the cause, and finally
the disciples of Christ and their task after the death of their Lord and
Master. This Is followed by the part about "conflict and contention",
which is not allowed. Here the anticipated reactions to the publication of the
whole testament are dampened by immediately taking the wind
out of the sails of potential attackers from the very beginning. Nothing at all
is spoken of the real aggravating elements of the alleged testament. The tenor
of these selections is extraordinarily quiet and moderate: some parts of it
could have originated from a testament really attributed to Abdul Baha.These harmless
parts of the testament correspond approximately to the parts which were
published in 1923 In the Bahai Scriptures (New York) and attached at the very
end. As a clever tactic, Mr. Holley, the publisher of the book, printed the
section about "conflict and contention are in no wise allowed" as the
very first statement. He knew exactly what would happen. The statement
"from the onslaught of the insincere" 128 follows
the section about the "Covenant-breakers" and the
"Branches"; that is, the relatives of Abdu! Baha and the "Hands
of the Cause".129The section about the disciples of Christ after their Lord's death
is followed by the previously mentioned statement, which again nullifies all
the modifications of the testament by referring to the "Most Holy Book"
or the House of Justice. There, everything must really be in order. Not one
word is mentioned about the name of the Guardian and his function as head of
the House of Justice. The prohibition of the involvement in political affairs
which is published here in addition to the fragments in the "Sonne der
Wahrheit",130 is supposed to strengthen the believers in the idea that
everything is okay. The counterpart to this, thus the message that Shoghi is
the head of the House of Justice and thus has been promoted up to the highest
functionary of this world parliament, is simply avoided. This fact was
indicated, to be sure, in the telegram of the "Greatest Holy Leaf" of
February 16, 1922, but they wanted to push this pure politicking as far as
possible into the background by not mentioning it in the abridgement of the
testament.In 1923, another book which deals with sections from the alleged
testament of Abdul Baha less frugally appeared. We are speaking of the
Esslemont book, which by that year had appeared in English. Here we confront
the Guardian dynasty for the first time. The first-born of the Guardian is
supposed to follow in his footsteps. Further, Shoghi is allegedly established
as the "Interpreter of the Word of God" by Abdul Baha. The group of
the "nine hands" which is to be chosen from the total number of the
"Hands" arises here for the first time. Nothing Is spoken at all here
of their special function as bodyguards. Instead, the Guardian again steps up
as "Head of the Universal House of Justice". The financing of the
Guardian's privy purse, the "fixed money offering" with the Persian
name "Huququ'llah" or "Right of God", is also not yet
mentioned here.No criticism can be raised against the linguistic presentation
of all these statements. From this point of view it would appear not impossible
at all that Abdul Baha had made these stipulations. The language is as innocent
as a lamb. Only once are the "covenant-breakers" dealt a blow because
they are ". . .foolish and ignoble ... they discern not good from evil . .
. and walk In the footsteps of the most imperfect and foolish amongst
them".Except for this one sentence, everything could originate — according
to the tone — from Abdul Baha." 131 However,
this one sentence can never be attributed to Abdul Baha, as we have proven
earlier. If one but takes the whole alleged testament in hand, a completely
different, icy wind blows in his face. There Is almost no hint of this in the
first excerpts. Because we earlier had plentiful opportunity to get to know the
different language of the testament by contrasting the alleged testament of
Abdul Baha with the major work of Shoghi, we can eliminate it here. One can
still read today just how carefully the Guardian kept step at that time. In the
fourth German edition of the Esslemont book (1963) there is this sentence:
"In view of the momentous importance of the last Will and Testament of
Abdul Baha, the gravity of the issues it raises and the profound wisdom
underlying its provisions, we feel that it would be inadvisible, for the
present, to undertake any commentary on its contents ..." (German Edition
Frankfurt/M 1963, p. 319. !n the Third revised English Edition Wilmette 1970,
the second part of this sentence — in italics — has disappeared, author's
statement).This passage remained in the famous book for exactly forty years
after it was first edited (London 1923, p. 223) and also was in the German
edition published six years after Shoghi's death. It is not conceivable
that someone simply forgot to take it out. Perhaps the reason for this is the
wide circulation of the book which, as far as one can read, is the work most
often translated into other languages of the Bahai literature. The possibility
that the book might come into the hands of a non-Bahai is also especially great
here. is not an intelligent man shocked by some sayings of this alleged
testament of Abdul Baha; for example, by the Judgment of damnation? Or was
somebody afraid that an alert but non-Bahai reader would find it a regression
into a long past time, that a doubt surfacing by chance also might not be
expressed since the "outcast clause" must be brought to bear by the
Hands as well as by the friends? Or would they like for it not to betrue that
the Guardian had to be supported monetarily by his believers? Or were they
afraid that an alert reader would be offended by the hard, sometimes downright
common manner of expression in the alleged testament of Abdul Baha? We don't
know! But we do know one thing: Many of the published sections of the alleged
testament of Abdul Baha could have come from a testament that he actually left
behind, but certainly not the unpublished parts!
PART FIVE
PART FIVE
123. H. Grossmann, Das Bundnis Gottes in jer
Offenbarungsreligion, Frankfurt, 1956, p. 32f
124. "Sonne der Warheit", January, 1922, p. 169
125. "Sonne der Warrheit", January, 1922, p. 182
126. A. Sohrab, Abdul Baha's Grandson, 1943, p. 168
127. cit. White, loc. cit., p. 4
128. W.& T..p. 22
129. W.& T..p. 9.f
130. W.& T..p. 15
131. cited from Esslemont, New Era, 1970, p. 259f.
124. "Sonne der Warheit", January, 1922, p. 169
125. "Sonne der Warrheit", January, 1922, p. 182
126. A. Sohrab, Abdul Baha's Grandson, 1943, p. 168
127. cit. White, loc. cit., p. 4
128. W.& T..p. 22
129. W.& T..p. 9.f
130. W.& T..p. 15
131. cited from Esslemont, New Era, 1970, p. 259f.
No comments:
Post a Comment