A new version of the Bahá’í Reference Library is now available. This ‘old version’ of the Bahá’í Reference Library will be replaced at a later date.
The new version of the Bahá’i Reference Library can be accessed here »
Announcement to the Kings |
The writings which have been quoted in the foregoing were revealed, for the
most part, in conditions of renewed persecution. Soon after the exiles’ arrival
in Constantinople, it became apparent that the honors showered upon Bahá’u’lláh
during His journey from Baghdad had represented only a brief interlude. The
Ottoman authorities’ decision to move the “Bábí” leader and His companions to
the capital of the empire rather than to some remote province deepened the
alarm among the representatives of the Persian government.
1
Fearing that the
developments in Baghdad would be repeated, and might attract this time not only
the sympathy but perhaps even the allegiance of influential figures in the
Turkish government, the Persian ambassador pressed insistently for the dispatch
of the exiles to some more distant part of the empire. His argument was that
the spread of a new religious message in the capital could produce political as
well as religious repercussions.
18
|
Initially, the Ottoman government strongly resisted. The chief minister,
‘Alí Páshá, had indicated to Western diplomats his belief that Bahá’u’lláh was
“a man of great distinction, exemplary conduct, great moderation, and a most
dignified figure.” His teachings were, in the minister’s opinion, “worthy of
high esteem” because they counteracted the religious animosities dividing the
Jewish, Christian, and Muslim subjects of the empire.
2
|
Gradually, however, a degree of resentment and suspicion developed. In
the Ottoman capital, political and economic power was in the hands of court
functionaries who, with but few exceptions, were persons of little or no competence.
Venality was the oil on which the machinery of government operated, and
the capital was a magnet for a horde of people who flocked there from every
part of the empire and beyond, seeking favors and influence. It was expected
that any prominent figure from another country or from one of the tribute
territories would, immediately upon arrival in Constantinople, join the throngs
of patronage-seekers in the reception rooms of the pashas and ministers of the
imperial court. No element had a worse reputation than the competing groups of
Persian political exiles who were known for both their sophistication and their
lack of scruple.
|
To the distress of friends who urged Him to make use of the prevailing
hostility toward the Persian government and of the sympathy which His own
sufferings had aroused, Bahá’u’lláh made it clear that He had no requests to
make. Although several government ministers made social calls at the residence
assigned to Him, he did not take advantage of these openings. He was in
Constantinople, He said, as the guest of the Sultan, at his invitation, and
His interest lay in spiritual and moral concerns.
|
Many years later, the Persian ambassador, Mírzá Ḥusayn Khán, reflecting
on his tour of duty in the Ottoman capital, and complaining about the damage
which the greed and untrustworthiness of his countrymen had done to Persia’s
reputation in Constantinople, paid a surprisingly candid tribute to the example
which Bahá’u’lláh’s conduct had been able briefly to set.
3
At the time,
however, he and his colleagues made use of the situation to represent it as an
astute way on the exile’s part of concealing secret conspiracies against public
security and the religion of the State. Under pressure of these influences, the
Ottoman authorities finally took the decision to transfer Bahá’u’lláh and His
family to the provincial city of Adrianople. The move was made hastily, in
the depth of an extremely severe winter. Housed there in inadequate buildings,
lacking suitable clothing and other provisions, the exiles endured a year of
great suffering. It was clear that, though charged with no crime and given
no opportunity to defend themselves, they had arbitrarily been made state
prisoners.
|
From the point of view of religious history, the successive banishments of
Bahá’u’lláh to Constantinople and Adrianople have a striking symbolism. For the
first time, a Manifestation of God, Founder of an independent religious system
which was soon to spread throughout the planet, had crossed the narrow neck of
water separating Asia from Europe, and had set foot in “the West.” All of the
other great religions had arisen in Asia and the ministries of their Founders
had been confined to that continent. Referring to the fact that the dispensations
of the past, and particularly those of Abraham, Christ, and Muḥammad,
had produced their most important effects on the development of civilization
19
during the course of their westward expansion, Bahá’u’lláh predicted that the
same thing would occur in this new age, but on a vastly larger scale: “In
the East the Light of His Revelation hath broken; in the West the signs of His
dominion have appeared. Ponder this in your hearts, O people…”
4
|
It is then perhaps not surprising that Bahá’u’lláh chose this moment to
make public the mission which had been slowly enlisting the allegiance of the
followers of the Báb throughout the Middle East. His announcement took the
form of a series of statements which are among the most remarkable documents in
religious history. In them, the Manifestation of God addresses the “Kings and
Rulers of the world,” announcing to them the dawning of the Day of God, alluding
to the as yet inconceivable changes which were gathering momentum throughout
the world, and calling on them as the trustees of God and of their fellow human
beings to arise and serve the process of the unification of the human race.
Because of the veneration in which they were held by the mass of their subjects,
and because of the absolute nature of the rule which most of them exercised, it
lay in their power, He said, to assist in bringing about what He called the
“Most Great Peace,” a world order characterized by unity and animated by Divine
justice.
|
Only with the greatest difficulty can the modern reader envision the moral
and intellectual world in which these monarchs of a century ago lived. From
their biographies and private correspondence, it is apparent that, with few
exceptions, they were personally devout, taking a leading part in the spiritual
life of their respective nations, often as the heads of the state religions,
and convinced of the unerring truths of the Bible or the Qur’án. The power
which most of them wielded they attributed directly to the divine authority of
passages in these same Scriptures, an authority about which they were vigorously
articulate. They were the anointed of God. Prophecies of “the Latter Days”
and “the Kingdom of God” were not for them myth or allegory, but certainties
upon which all moral order rested and in which they would themselves be called
on by God to give an account of their stewardship.
|
Take heed lest pride deter you from recognizing the Source of Revelation,
lest the things of this world shut you out as by a veil from Him Who is
the Creator of heaven…. By the righteousness of God! It is not Our
wish to lay hands on your kingdoms. Our mission is to seize and possess
the hearts of men….
5
|
Know ye that the poor are the trust of God in your midst. Watch that
ye betray not His trust, that ye deal not unjustly with them and that ye
walk not in the ways of the treacherous. Ye will most certainly be called
upon to answer for His trust on the day when the Balance of Justice shall
be set, the day when unto every one shall be rendered his due, when the
doings of all men, be they rich or poor, shall be weighed.
|
…
20
|
Examine Our Cause, inquire into the things that have befallen Us,
and decide justly between Us and Our enemies, and be ye of them that
act equitably towards their neighbor. If ye stay not the hand of the
oppressor, if ye fail to safeguard the rights of the downtrodden, what
right have ye then to vaunt yourselves among men?
6
|
If ye pay no heed unto the counsels which … We have revealed in
this Tablet, Divine chastisement shall assail you from every direction,
and the sentence of His justice shall be pronounced against you. On that
day ye shall have no power to resist Him, and shall recognize your own
impotence….
7
|
The vision of the “Most Great Peace” evoked no response from the rulers
of the nineteenth century. Nationalistic aggrandizement and imperial expansion
recruited not only kings but parliamentarians, academics, artists, newspapers,
and the major religious establishments as eager propagandists of Western triumphalism.
Proposals for social change, however disinterested and idealistic,
quickly fell captive to a swarm of new ideologies thrown up by the rising tide
of dogmatic materialism. In the Orient, mesmerized by its own claims to represent
all that humanity ever could or would know of God and truth, the Islamic
world sank steadily deeper into ignorance, lethargy, and a sullen hostility to
a human race which failed to acknowledge this spiritual preeminence.
|
1. | A combination of unusual circumstances had made the central authorities in Constantinople especially sympathetic to Bahá’u’lláh, and resistant to pressure from the Persian government. The governor of Baghdad, Námiq Páshá, had written enthusiastically to the capital about both the character and influence of the distinguished Persian exile. Sulṭán Abdu’l-’Aziz found the reports intriguing because, although he was Caliph of Sunni Islam, he considered himself a mystical seeker. Equally important, in another way, was the reaction of his chief minister, ‘Alí Páshá. To the latter, who was an accomplished student of Persian language and literature as well as a would-be modernizer of the Turkish administration, Bahá’u’lláh seemed a highly sympathetic figure. It was no doubt this combination of sympathy and interest which led the Ottoman government to invite Bahá’u’lláh to the capital rather than send Him to a more remote center or deliver Him to the Persian authorities, as the latter were urging. [ Back To Reference] |
2. | For the full text of the report of the Austrian ambassador, Count von Prokesch-Osten, in a letter to the Comte de Gobineau, January 10, 1886, see Bábí and Bahá’í Religions, pp. 186–87. [ Back To Reference] |
3. | Revelation, Vol. 2, p. 399. [ Back To Reference] |
4. | Tablets, p. 13. [ Back To Reference] |
5. | Gleanings, pp. 210–12. [ Back To Reference] |
6. | Gleanings, pp. 251–52. [ Back To Reference] |
7. | Gleanings, p. 252. [ Back To Reference] |