Occasional Papers in Shaykhi, Babi and Baha'i Studies, Vol. 6, No. 1 (March, 2002) Special Monograph Edition

Essays and Notes on Babi and Baha’i History

by

John Walbridge

A publication of the H-Bahai Digital Library

an official site of the H-Net Consortium

Michigan State University

East Lansing, Michigan

2002

© John Walbridge, 2002

To my Baha’i friends,

from whom I received more than I gave

Table of Contents

(Find headings in html version by entering them into your browser search program)

Preface

1. An Introduction to the History and Culture of Iran

2. Some Babi Martyrs

3. The Babi Uprising in Zanjan

4. The Baha’i Faith in Turkey

5. The Baha’i Faith in Iran

Appendices

Abbreviations

Bibliography

Preface

The Babi and Baha’i religions are historical religions, born in the full light of history, situating themselves in history, and drawing justification and inspiration from their own histories, the histories of the religions that came before them, and the great historical events of their own times. Moreover, Baha’is share a sense that the stories of their three great leaders—the Bab and Bahaullah, their two prophets, and ‘Abd al-Baha, who began the process of making the Baha’i Faith into a world community—provide much of the meaning of the Baha’i Faith. The teachings of the Baha’i Faith, admirable though they are in themselves, find their context and power for the believers in the epic story of the religion and its founders. Shoghi Effendi, the great-grandson of Bahaullah and the leader of the Baha’i Faith from 1921 to 1957 four times attempted to express the historical spirit of the Baha’i Faith: first in his translation of Nabil’s Dawn-Breakers, by which he hoped to expose the Western Baha’is to the spirit of the Babis; second in The Promised Day Is Come, a sort of theodicy in which he correlated the events of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries with the emergence of the Baha’i Faith; and finally in his two centennial histories of the Baha’i Faith, the English God Passes By and the Persian Lawh-i Qarn (“centennial tablet”). In recent years, the debates about methodology and authority that have riven the Baha’i academic community have almost always involved issues of historiography.

Baha’is and Babis have felt an obligation to preserve their history, in particular the stories of their martyrs, of the companions of their leaders, and of the early believers in each place. This, of course, has Islamic roots, since for cultural reasons of their own Muslims alone among the great civilizations have made the biographical dictionary a major literary and religious genre. The Western Baha’is brought a new direction to Baha’i historiography, the search for context. Unlike their Middle Eastern coreligionists, the Western Baha’is typically knew nothing about the cultural environment assumed in traditional Persian Baha’i historiography. They needed to understand the strange Arabic and Persian words and names, the Islamic practices referred to, and the places in which these events happened. This interest resulted at first in such things as glossaries and elementary introductions to Islam, written either by Middle Eastern Baha’is living in the West or by autodidact Western Baha’i scholars, then later in more ambitious interpretations of the Persian Baha’i scholarly tradition, such as the works of Adib Taherzadeh and especially Hasan Balyuzi. In the last generation, it has produced a school of genuine academic scholarship on the Baha’i Faith and a number of major works.

The present work belongs to a more modest school of Baha’i historiography than the works of Balyuzi and Shoghi Effendi: the historical miscellany. The following chapters collect a series of investigations, mostly biographical, of Babi and Baha’i history. Like the articles that comprise my Sacred Acts, Sacred Time, Sacred Space (Oxford: George Ronald, 1996), most were originally written for an encyclopedia on the Baha’i Faith that has not appeared. In some cases, as in the chapters on Zanjan and Turkey, they form a collected whole. In others, there is a looser connection. In some cases, despite my best efforts, the encyclopedic origin of the articles is painfully apparent, although I trust the information they contain will be useful to some readers and interesting or diverting to a few more. Some sections, like the account of Iranian history and culture with which this volume begins and a later section on Ottoman Turkey, really are not about the Baha’i Faith at all, but are intended to provide intermediate background for readers familiar with Baha’i history but unfamiliar with the history and culture of the Middle East. As in my earlier work, my central operating principle is the belief that cultural context and detail illuminates Baha’i history. In general, I have written for an intelligent reader who is well read in the English literature of the Baha’i Faith but who does not have special knowledge of Iran, the Middle East, or Islam—for example, the reader who wishes to know more about the people mentioned in Bahaullah’s last major work, The Epistle to the Son of the Wolf. I have not tried to make the book or its constituent parts relevant to readers unfamiliar with the Baha’i Faith. Nonetheless, I think there is a fair amount here that will be of use to scholars who happen to want to know something about the history and thought of the Babis and Baha’is. The reaction to Sacred Acts encourages me to hope that the present work will be useful to some readers.

The transliteration system is, with slight modifications, the Library of Congress customarily used by scholars of Islam writing in English. It should be transparent enough to readers familiar with the slightly different system customarily used by Baha’is.

In sections on general topics, such as the chapter on Iranian history and culture with which this work begins, references are minimal and confined to documenting direct quotes and making suggestions for further reading. In sections representing specific research, I have given full documentation, although usually at the end of sections.

For the most part, the original articles were written between 1987 and 1991 and have not been revised. It would, of course, have been better to update them in the light of a considerable amount of primary and secondary material on the Babis and Baha’is that has appeared since, but that would have delayed their appearance further. I hope that in their present form they will spur others to new research.

Most of the articles that comprise the present work were written while I was an employee of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is of the United States, and I wish to gratefully acknowledge the commitment of that body to the development of Baha’i scholarship. I also would like to acknowledge the assistance of the Baha’i World Centre, which supplied some of the source materials used in this work. I would also like to acknowledge the editors of the journal Iranian Studies, with whose permission I have used the article on Zanjan originally published there. I owe a great deal to my former colleagues on the Editorial Board of the Baha’i Encyclopedia, with whom I worked for eleven years, especially to Will. C. van den Hoonaard and B. Todd Lawson. Juan R. I. Cole has been a constant friend and source of information for many years, and I am particularly indebted to him for his assistance on the chapter relating to the Baha’i Faith in Turkey. It was also he who encouraged me to publish this material as a book through the H-Bahai web site. H-Bahai in turn is part of the H-Net family of listservs and is underwritten by the National Endowment for the Humanities, who thus have underwritten the electronic publication of this work. Finally, I would like to thank my family, whose patience has been long tried by my scholarly interests, and particularly my wife Linda.

John Walbridge

Lahore

February 2001

Chapter One

An Introduction to the History and Culture of Iran

“In the Middle East,” I tell my students, “history is not something that goes away after it happens; it piles up in heaps and gets in everybody’s way.” When I first encountered Baha’is, I heard the story of the Bab and Bahaullah, but I only came to understand the story when I knew a great deal more about the history and culture of Iran and the Islamic Middle East. Islam is tolerably familiar to well-read Western Baha’is, who have taken to heart Shoghi Effendi’s dictum that it is necessary for Baha’is to know the basics of Islam and its history. Iranian culture, except in the most superficial aspects of food and etiquette, is less well known to them. This is a pity, since the Bab, Bahaullah, ‘Abd al-Baha, and Shoghi Effendi were all profoundly Iranian figures, though each in different ways, and can really only be fully understood in their Iranian contexts. The Iranian contexts in question, moreover, go back several thousand years. For example, the fact that the Bab traced his discent to the Prophet Muhammad, while Bahaullah traced his to the last Zoroastrian emperor of Iran tells something quite important about their characters and religious projects, and thus about the differences between the Babi and Baha’i religions. In the chapter that follows, I attempt to give a sketch of the main features of Iranian history and culture that have shaped the Iran of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and thus provided the cultural and historical context of the rise of the Babi and Baha’i Faiths in Iran.

1. Geography. The modern state of Iran is centered on the Iranian Plateau, a high arid plain surrounded on most sides by mountains. The center of the plateau contains several regions of almost impassable desert. Most of the population of the plateau lives in oases near the mountains where water is available, often conveyed to the irrigation works by long tunnels called qanats, an irrigation system that has been in use for several millennia. The bulk of the population of the plateau is Persian-speaking. In the past large parts of the population have been nomadic, with most of the rest of the population living in agricultural villages. In the twentieth century most of the nomadic population has become sedentary, and the proportion of the population living in cities has greatly increased.

The modern state of Iran also includes several adjacent geographical areas. In the northwest, Azerbaijan is a region of mountains and high plains. With more rainfall than in most areas of the country, it has traditionally been Iran’s most important source of grain and meat. Its population, though Shi‘ite in religion and Iranian in culture, is Turkish-speaking and thus is closely tied by language and experience to Turkey in the west and to the Republic of Azerbaijan to the north, the latter a province of Iran until the early nineteenth century. North of the plateau are Mazandaran and Gilan along the south and southwestern shores of the Caspian. These areas, below sea-level, contain rainforests. Though the predominant language is Persian, these areas remain somewhat distinct from the rest of Iran. South and west of Adharbajan is Iranian Kurdistan, an area inhabited by the semi-nomadic Kurds and closely related by culture to the Kurdish areas of Iraq, Turkey, and Syria. Separatist movements have flourished in this area. The corner formed by the Iraqi border and the Persian Gulf is an ethnically Arab lowland, geographically contiguous with Iraq, of which it has often been a part. Though Arabic remains the predominant language, there are large Persian settlements there and the region has become much more culturally integrated with the rest of Iran since the discovery of oil at the turn of the century. The extreme southeast of Iran is inhabited by the Baloch, a nomadic people also living in neighboring areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Finally, northeastern Iran is a continuation of the plains of Central Asia.

It should be noted that just as all Iranians are not Persian speakers, not all speakers of Persian live in Iran. Persian is one of the two main languages of Afghanistan, and Tajik, a closely related dialect, is spoken in Tajikistan and parts of Uzbekistan. Persian was also the lingua franca of Islamic India and survived in India and Pakistan as a literary language into the twentieth century.

A large country, the climate of Iran varies from region to region. On the Iranian Plateau, summers are hot and dry. In the northern areas and in the mountains winters can be quite severe. Even in Tehran, snow is common in the winter.

2. History

Pre-Islamic Iran

The Aryans and their religion. The Iranians are an Indo-European people. Sometime, probably in the early second millenium B.C.E., a people calling themselves Aryans migrated from north of the Black Sea southwest towards Iran and Afghanistan. These people worshipped a pantheon of gods preserved both in Hindu and Zoroastrian mythology. Their economy seems to have been based on cattle-raising. One group, the Indo-Aryans, went southeast into northwestern India, where they apparently conquered the native population. Their religion formed the nucleus of modern Hinduism. Another group, the Iranians, moved southwest into Iran, eventually settling a region including much of Afghanistan, Iran, and the area east of the Caspian. There is no direct evidence of the movements of the Aryans, but something can be deduced from comparing the languages and mythology of the Aryans of India and Iran. The Indo-Aryans, for example, used a word for “god” that the Iranians use to mean “devil,” thus indicating a religious split between the two groups early in their histories. Likewise, the oldest myths of both peoples preserve something of their early culture. By the early first millenium B.C.E. various Iranian groups were dominant on the Iranian plateau and neighboring areas to the east and north.

At some time before or during the migrations of the Iranians, a prophet named Zarathushtra (“Zoroaster,” the usual English form, derives from the Greek rendering of his name) arose among them. He was a priest of the traditional religion. On the basis of visions of the supreme god Ahura Mazda (probably meaning “Lord Wisdom”), he denounced abuses and taught a religion in which believers were to carry out various rituals, particularly concerning purity, in order to aid Ahura Mazda in his battle against the devil, Ahriman. Zoroaster formulated his teachings in the form of a series of hymns known as the Gathas. These were committed to memory by his followers and passed down by them until they were finally written down, together with much additional traditional material, sometime around the fifth century C.E. This body of literature is the Avesta, the holy book of Zoroaster’s religion. For his teachings Zoroaster was persecuted until he finally found refuge with King Vishtaspa, who established Zoroastrianism as the state religion of his kingdom and fought the enemies of the new faith.

Though there is no direct evidence about Zoroaster until much later, there cannot be much doubt that he lived and preached. There is great controversy about where and when he lived, the traditional date and place—258 years before Alexander (570 B.C.E.) in Adharbayjan—being clearly too late and too far west. Various modern authorities place him in Sistan (on the border between modern Iran and Afghanistan), Choresmia (south of the Aral Sea), and Kazakhstan. Dates range from the early second millenium to the early first millenium.

The Medes and the Persians. The Iranians come into written history with the rise of the Median empire, an Iranian dynasty, in western Iran in the ninth century B.C.E. In the seventh century one of the Iranian vassals of the Medes, Cyrus II the Great of Persis in southwestern Iran, overthrew his master and went on to conquer a vast empire, which eventually stretched from Libya to the gates of India and from the Bosphorus to the Indian Ocean. The Persian or Achaemenid Empire, as it is known, was the greatest state the world had yet seen, and its efficient administration set the pattern used throughout the Middle East for centuries to come. The Persian Empire plays a conspicuous role both in the Bible—it is the Persian king who restores the temple in Jerusalem—and in classical Greek history—Xerxes’ famous and unsuccessful effort to conquer Greece. It was by means of the Persian Empire that Iranian culture and religious ideas were conveyed to the Mediterranean world.

The Persian Empire was unexpectedly and suddenly destroyed by Alexander the Great’s invasion in 334. Alexander himself died before he could establish his dynasty, and the empire was divided by his generals, Iran falling to the descendants of Seleucus, who also ruled Iraq, Syria, and the Holy Land. Though the Greek culture brought by Alexander influenced the Iranians, there was only a thin Greek veneer on what was still an Iranian nation. By the second century B.C.E. the Seleucids had been supplanted by an Iranian dynasty originating near the southeastern corner of the Caspian. This dynasty, known to the West as the Parthians and to themselves as the Arsacids, ruled a loose confedation controlling a territory from Iraq and the borders of Syria to Afghanistan and the Aral Sea. Their famous mounted archers were the most formidable opponents of the Roman legions. Though more Iranian than the Seleucids, they were still much under the influence of Greek culture.

In the third century C.E. the Sasanians, a local dynasty of Fars (the same region that was the homeland of the Achaemenids) overthrew the Parthians and formed the Sasanian empire. Occupying much the same territory as the Parthians, the Sasanians were militantly Zoroastrian in religion and continued the Parthian tradition of opposition to the Romans. The Sasanian empire was well-organized and centralized. At their high point in the early seventh century, the Sasanians were able to occupy much of the Byzantine Empire and besieged Constantinople itself. Whereas the Persians nearly forgot the Achaemenids and Parthians, the Sasanian kings have remained well-known figures in many aspects of Iranian culture: literature, statecraft, art, and folklore.

The Arab Invasion and Empires. In the years when Muhammad was preaching his new religion and establishing a Muslim state in Medina and northwestern Arabia, the Sasanians faced military defeat and civil unrest. Thus when the Arabs invaded Sasanian Iraq, resistence was ineffective. The provincial nobility failed to unite to support the central government against the invader. Thus, the Arabs were soon able to occupy both Iraq and Iran. Yazdegerd III, the fugitive Sasanian emperor, was killed in Marv, in the far northeastern corner of his empire. Thereafter, Iran was ruled first from Medina and then until 750 from Damascus.

Persians quickly came to play a key role in the Islamic state. The first Arab occupiers were dependent on Persians to administer the old Sasanian provinces: Persian was the official language of administrative records in the eastern part of the Islamic world through the seventh century, and Persian officials carried on the routine of tax collection and administration under the eyes of their new Arab rulers. By the end of the century considerable numbers of Persians had become Muslims. In 750 a Shi‘ite revolution in eastern Iran led to the overthrow of the Umayyad caliphs of Damascus. The Abbasids, the new caliphs, were descendants of an uncle of the Prophet. They moved the capital to Iraq, building the new city of Baghdad. Their chief power base was the eastern empire—Iraq and Iran, the Sasanian lands—and Persians played an ever-greater role in administration and cultural life. The administrative system and court rituals of the Sasanian empire were to a considerable extent resurrected by the Abbasids. During this period Iran gradually became overwhelmingly Muslim, mainly Sunni in this period, although there were always pockets of Shi‘ite sympathy.

The Military Successor States. By the end of the ninth century the Abbasid caliphs in Baghdad could no longer exercise full control over their dominions. Governors of distant provinces became independent while still acknowledging the nominal authority of the prestigious but powerless caliphs in Baghdad. The example of independent provincial governors was soon followed by military adventurers who carved out ephemeral empires for themselves. Frequently drawing their strength from nomadic Turkic or Mongol tribes, such states characterize Iranian history into modern times. Often these rulers were little more than adventurous gangsters whose states prospered so long as the founder lived and fell apart under less ruthless heirs. Under such rulers life continued unchanged in the Persian cities, for a change of ruler usually meant nothing more than a change of tax collector. Such cultural achievements as these military rulers could boast of tended to consist of monumental architecture or the books written by the poets and scholars they subsidized—both intended to legitimize the sovereign’s rule. Only in a few cases did these states have lasting effects on Iranian life.

Iran as a political entity can scarcely said to have existed in this period. Political boundaries bore little relation to ethnic boundaries. Religious identities were often stronger than identies based on language or nation.

The Safavids. The modern state of Iran came into existence in 1500 through the conquests of Shah Isma‘il Safavi, the hereditary head of an order of militant Shi‘ite Sufis. Isma‘il was a Turk from Ardabil in Azerbaijan, in the northwest of modern Iran. His state occupied the territory of modern Iran and some parts of Iraq, the Caucasus, and Afghanistan. Until this time Iran had been largely Sunni, though there was a long tradition of sympathy for radical Shi‘ite groups. Isma‘il forcibly converted his territories to Twelver Shi‘ism, to the great irritation of neighboring Sunni regimes such as the Ottomans and the Uzbeks. Though under continual military pressure, particularly from the Ottomans, Isma‘il and his successors were able to consolidate a regime that lasted for over two hundred years. The cultural achievements of the Safavids were considerable. The Safavid kings and their courtiers were often lavish patrons of art, literature, and scholarship. Safavid architecture represents the highest achievement of Islamic architecture in Iran, notably Shah Abbas the Great’s magnificent capital, Isfahan. Islamic philosophy reached its highest level of sophistication under the Safavids.

After a series of weak rulers the Safavid state collapsed in the early eighteenth century in the face of an invasion from Afghanistan. This event triggered a half-century of instability in Iran. Two rulers in this period managed to gain control of the bulk of the old Safavid territories. The first, Nadir Shah, was a Sunni soldier from Khorasan, who in the classic pattern of military rulers in Iran, rose through his bravery, charisma, and luck to become a conqueror. His greatest achievement was his invasion of India in 1739, in which he sacked Delhi and brought back to Iran a fabulous treasure, including the famous Peacock Throne. He was eventually assassinated by his own soldiers and his empire fell apart. The second strong ruler was Karim Khan Zand (r. 1751-79), who ruled much of Iran from Shiraz. Less ambitious than Nadir, he ruled under the unpretentious title of “regent” (vakil). Though typical of military adventurers in Iran throughout history, he won the affection of the Persians through his wise and moderate rule, his concern for commercial prosperity, and the magnificent buildings he erected in his beloved Shiraz.

The Qajars. Karim Khan’s successor was immediately challenged by Aqa Muhammad Khan (d. 1797), a eunuch of the Turkish Qajar tribe. He had been variously a rival and advisor of Karim Khan. After the latter’s death he established himself as ruler of most of the old Safavid territories, first uniting the various branches of the Qajar tribe under his rule, then defeating and killing Karim Khan’s son Lutf-‘Ali, and finally recapturing the lost territories of Georgia and Khorasan. After Aqa Mohammad’s murder in 1797, his nephew Fath-‘Ali became the ruler. Fath-‘Ali Shah was distinguished less for his statecraft than for his uxoriousness: his wives, concubines, and resulting children numbered in the hundreds. During his reign Iran faced its first serious challenge from Europeans. Blundering into two disastrous wars with Russia, Iran lost the northern half of the key province of Azerbaijan. Fath-‘Ali Shah’s heir apparent was his son ‘Abbas Mirza, who ruled Azerbaijan for more than thirty years and conducted Iran’s foreign policy. ‘Abbas Mirza was an intelligent and forward-looking man, who sought to adopt European-style reforms in such areas as the military and fiscal administration, much as the Ottomans were doing at the same time. His European advisors hoped that under ‘Abbas, Iran would develop into a strong and stable modern state. Unfortunately, he shared his family’s tendency towards dissipation, and he died shortly before his father. The throne thus passed to ‘Abbas Mirza’s son, Muhammad (r. 1834-48). Muhammad Shah showed little interest in continuing the reforms that his father had undertaken, and relied on an incompetent prime minister, the ignorant and superstitious Sufi Haji Mirza Aqasi.

Muhammad Shah’s son and heir, Nasir al-Din (b. 1831, r. 1848-96), came to the throne as a teenager and ruled nearly half a century. Nasir al-Din Shah had been governor of Azerbaijan (the traditional post for the heir-apparent) under the supervision of Mirza Taqi Khan Amir Kabir, who then became prime minister. Amir Kabir was an ardent reformer, who sought to institute European-style reforms under an absolutist monarchy. For example, he established the first modern institution of higher learning in Iran, the Dar al-Funun (“Polytechnic”). It was he who ordered the execution of the Bab, apparently because he saw a charismatic and revolutionary religious movement as a threat to the stability of the state. However, Nasir al-Din Shah soon tired of his brilliant and overbearing prime minister, removed him from office, and had him killed in 1852. For the remainder of Nasir al-Din Shah’s reign, Iran came under increasing pressure from the European powers—political, military, and economic. The Shah was himself interested in Western technology and methods, traveled in Europe, and periodically attempted to carry out reforms. However, he lacked the intelligence and will to follow through on these measures, not all of which were well-thought-out in any case. His major achievement was simply preserving the independence of Iran through the period when European imperialist rapacity was at its height. By the time of his assassination in 1896 at the hands of a supporter of the Pan-Islamist Jamal al-Din Afghani, Iran was entering a crisis.

The Constitutional Period. Both Nasir al-Din Shah and his successor Muzaffar al-Din Shah were perennially short of foreign currency to pay for imports of foreign goods and travel in Europe. They developed the practice of selling concessions—monopolies on some part of the economy—to raise funds. These concessions caused great resentment in the Iranian public, for not only did the resulting monopolies force Iranians to pay unnecessarily high prices, but they often led to the ruin of sectors of the traditional economy. In 1890, the Shah sold a monopoly on the sale of tobacco to a British businessman. An outcry resulted, the clergy banned the use of tobacco, and the Shah was forced to withdraw the concession. A few years later the discontent crystallized in the form of a demand for a constitution. An alliance of modernist intellectuals (some of whom were secretly Azali Babis), bazaar merchants, and reformist clergy forced the dying Muzaffar al-Din Shah to agree to a constitution and a parliament, the Majlis. When Muhammad-‘Ali, the new Shah, tried to dissolve the Majlis, a civil war resulted in which the Constitutionalist forces eventually triumphed. Though the next decade was marked by unstable government and economic depression caused by World War I, the ideal of constitutional parliamentary government became firmly rooted in Iran.

The Pahlavi Dynasty. In 1921 Reza Khan, the head of a Russian-trained cavalry regiment that was the most effective military force in the country, seized power in Tehran and was proclaimed prime minister. He was a resolutely secular and absolutist reformer who sought to modernize Iran from above on the model of Atatürk in Turkey and Mussolini in Italy. Though measures such as the forced unveiling of women and the curtailing of the authority of the clergy caused resentment, under his rule Iran rapidly developed a modern state apparatus and economy. He proclaimed himself Shah in 1925, deposing the powerless Ahmad Shah Qajar. The symbol of his achievements was a railroad he built from the Persian Gulf through Tehran to the Russian border. It was this railroad, together with his fascist sympathies, that proved his undoing. When Germany invaded Russia, the Allies occupied Iran in order to be able to send supplies to Russia. Reza Shah was deposed and died in exile on the island of Mauritius.

His son, Muhammad-Reza came to the throne as a teen-ager and for some years was virtually powerless. During the 1940s political life flourished in Iran as the Majlis was freed from the heavy hand of Reza Shah. By the early 1950s the Shah was attempting to consolidate power. When Muhammad Mosaddeq, a nationalist politician, became prime minister and nationalized the Bristish-owned oil fields, the American Central Intelligence Agency engineered a coup that overthrew Mosaddeq and brought the Shah to power. Like his father, Muhammad-Reza Shah attempted to modernize Iran from above. Paid for by steadily increasing oil revenues, vast changes occurred in Iranian life. Education became widely available, the country became firmly integrated into the world economy, and a large middle-class grew up. The clergy grew increasingly marginalized, particularly after 1963 when they were unable to prevent a land-reform program from stripping them of the lands that supported the religious institutions.

The Islamic Republic. Under the Pahlavis political reform failed to keep pace with economic and social change. When uncontrolled inflation created havoc in the economy in the mid-1970s, the Shah began to lose his popularity. In 1978 an alliance of Islamic, leftist, and bazaar groups, united by the prestige of the Ayatollah Khomeini, forced the Shah into exile. Khomeini’s own Islamic supporters, the best organized of the revolutionary groups, seized power. Despite a bitter campaign of terrorism by leftist groups and a long war with Iraq, the Islamic regime was able to consolidate its power, uniting the country in hostility towards the Western powers, especially the United States. Despite a dismal human rights record and near economic collapse caused by war and mismanagement, the regime continued to enjoy wide support due to the reforms it was able to carry out and its genuine independence from foreign influence. Moreover, the fact that a modicum of democracy was maintained allowed the Islamic Republic to lay claim to both the nationalist and the consistituionalist political legacies. After the end of the Iran-Iraq war and the death of Khomeini, the regime gradually became more democratic.

3. Culture

The best way to make sense of the complicated history of Iran is to see it as the interplay of a set of cultural patterns and tensions, some of them going back to ancient times.

Iran and Islam

A continuing theme in Persian culture is whether Iran should be primarily Iranian or primarily Islamic. As early as the eighth century Persian Muslims had begun to reassert their identity as Iranians against the prevailing Arab chauvinism of their Arab Muslim rulers. The greatest expression of this attitude is Firdawsi’s Shah-Nama, the “Book of Kings,” an eleventh-century poetic adaptation of a pre-Islamic national history written in Sasanian times. Thus, Iranian rulers and officials through the last thousand years have tended to identify with the heritage of pre-Islamic Iran, an identity reinforced by the Persian language. This Iranian identity was closely linked with a cult of monarchy, in which pre-Islamic ideas about the divine right of kings, elaborate court ceremonials, and administrative traditions were resurrected. It was the administrative classes, the most permanent element of the government, who clung most tenaciously to the pre-Islamic Iranian heritage. Thus, Bahaullah’s family, which had a tradition of government service, proudly asserted their pure Iranian descent from the last Sasanian king.

On the other hand, pre-modern Iranian Muslims also saw themselves as citizens of the Islamic or the Shi‘ite nation. Thus a Persian Shi‘ite would be quite willing for his daughter to marry an Arab Shi‘ite but would on no account allow her to wed a Zoroastrian Persian. In most cases the Iranian and Islamic identities co-existed. Sometimes they were fused, as when the mother of the Imam Husayn was identified as the daughter of Yazdegerd III, the last Sasanian emperor. The fact that Iran was the only Muslim state with Shi‘ism as the state religion tended to smooth over potential conflicts between Iranian and Islamic identities, since it set Iran apart from other Islamic countries.

In modern times the conflict between these two identities has sharpened. The Pahlavi Shahs, seeing Islam and the Shi‘ite clergy as barriers to the modernization of Iran and the consolidation of state power, appealed to a specifically Iranian nationalism. Outward symbols of Islamic allegiance such as traditional headgear were outlawed, and symbols of the glories of ancient Iran were brought forward to replace them. Thus, the Zoroastrian calendar replaced the Islamic calendar in official use. A campaign was launched to rid Persian of loan-words from Arabic—a nearly hopeless task, since Arabic words are as prominent in Persian as French, Greek, and Latin loan-words are in English. Parents were encouraged to give their children names from the Shah-Nama. Postage stamps portrayed the royal family, the monuments of ancient Iran, and symbols of modernization, like trains and telegraph offices, but they almost never portrayed the Islamic side of Iran. This program of Iranization reached absurdity in 1971 when Muhammad-Reza Shah held a lavish celebration (thirty-five years late) at Persepolis, the old Achaemenid capital, of the 2500th anniversary of the foundation of the Persian monarchy. At the same time he revised the calendar to date from that event. The year 1355 was followed by 2536. (The change proved extremely unpopular and was reversed two years later.)

The clergy naturally resisted such measures. Khomeini, for example, insisted on signing his name “al-Khomeini,” a small act of rebellion that converted his name from Persian to Arabic. After the Islamic Revolution the new Islamic rulers appealed once again to symbols of pan-Islamic identity, replacing, for example, the Persian national symbol of the Lion-and-Sun with the Arabic name of God, Allah, on the Iranian flag. The study of Arabic, the language of Islam, was once again made mandatory in Iranian schools. However, soon the country was locked in a desperate war with Iraq, and the Islamic leadership was forced to once again invoke the symbols of Iranian national unity to rally the nation to the fight. Nowadays, visiting foreign delegations are once again taken to see the monuments of the ancient kings at Persepolis, where they are treated to a thoroughly Iranian and monarchical sound-and-light show.

Shi‘ism and Islam.

Somewhat comparable to the conflict between Iranian and Islamic identity is the conflict between Shi‘ite and Islamic identity. Shi‘ites see themselves as both part of and separate from the larger Sunni Islamic world. Ancient resentments born of the persecution of the Imams separate Shi‘ites from other Muslims, but both parties see the Shi‘ites as part of the larger Islamic nation. On the whole, the experience of Iran, often at war with neighboring Sunni states, has predisposed its people to see themselves primarily as a distinct community surrounded by nations hostile to their faith. Thus, Shi‘ism can be invoked to rally the Iranian nation against enemies, real or imagined. The propaganda of the Iran-Iraq war drew on ancient memories of the persecution of the Imams in Iraq, especially of the Imam Husayn. On the other hand, the official policy of the Islamic Republic has been to stress the commonalities between Shi‘ite and Sunni Islam. In practice attitudes vary considerably among individuals. In the Shaykhi school, for example, and also in the writings of the Bab, Shi‘ite particularism is predominant. On the other hand, Bahaullah had little interest in Shi‘ite/Sunni differences.

Class structure of Iranian society.

The fundamental class structure of Iranian society has its roots in pre-Islamic times, when Zoroastrian clergy tried, not very successfully, to enforce a caste system something like that of Hinduism. Although class lines have never been rigid in Islamic Iran, there are distinct class patterns characteristic of medieval and even modern Iranian society.

Peasants: The largest portion of the Iranian population until very recent times consisted of peasants living in small agricultural villages. Their situations could vary considerably, depending mainly on whether or not they owned their own land. Typically villages and their agricultural land were the property of absentee landlords, usually civil or military officials. Villages sometimes belonged to charitable foundations—in effect to the clergy—or to wealthier merchants. The rent was paid in kind, and the crop was divided according to traditional formulae among the landlord, the cultivator, and the individuals who supplied irrigation water, animals for cultivation, and seed. As in other pre-modern agrarian societies, the whole of Iranian goverment and urban culture was dependent on the surplus extracted from the peasants. Due to a number of factors the economic situation of the peasants became steadily worse in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, leading many peasants to migrate to the towns and cities.

Nomads: Most of the area of Iran is mountainous, arid, or both, and agriculture is usually only possible in oases at the feet of mountain ranges. Thus, at one time nomadic tribes constituted nearly half the population of Iran. The nomadic peoples, or at least the chiefs of the major tribes, enjoyed considerable wealth and political power. Nomad soldiers were the backbone of the traditional Iranian army, and many of the Iranian dynasties of Islamic times, notably the Qajars, were of nomadic origin. The tribes were often not Persian-speaking or even Iranian. Turkish tribes were important in the north, Kurds in the west, and Baloch in the southeast. Under the Pahlavis the power of the tribes was broken, and most were forced to accept a sedentary life. Since the Islamic Revolution, some of the tribes have been able to resume a nomadic life.

The Bazaar: Traditional urban economic life in Iran is based on the bazaar, an amorphous physical, social, and economic entity that is at the heart of Iranian cities. The bazaar as a social class included shopkeepers, apprentices, craftsmen, wealthy wholesale merchants, moneychangers, peddlers, porters, and other participants in the market, great and small. The bazaar tended to be allied to the clergy against the government, whose taxes, exactions, and interference was usually the bazaar’s chief problem. The pious bazaar merchants supplied the money and the bazaar’s gangsters and mobs supplied the power in the streets that maintained the worldly influence of the clergy. In the twentieth century new sorts of economic activity based on Western models destroyed the bazaar’s monopoly on economic life, but the bazaar still remains important, both economically and politically. It was critically important in the outcome of the Islamic Revolution. Socially, the Bab’s family belonged to the bazaar.

The “Men of the Sword”: Ruling was normally the prerogative of soldiers, who were often non-Persian invaders or tribesmen. The highest posts in government were normally occupied by members of this military ruling class.

The “Men of the Pen”: The continuing administration of government was the prerogative of an educated bureaucratic class, mainly Persian in origin. The bureaucratic families maintained specialized skills in such areas as accounting, tax collection, official correspondence, and record-keeping. Thus, while a provincial governor in Qajar times would most likely be a Qajar prince whose place was owed to his family connections and his tribe’s Turkish military traditions, his secretary and his chief accountant would most likely be Persians whose families had monopolized these skills for generations. Bahaullah was from such a family and would thus have been expected to assume his father’s administrative position. The cultural and administrative traditions of these bureaucratic families went back far into Sasanian times, and this class was the most loyal supporter of pre-Islamic Persian traditions of nationalism and culture. Paradoxically, as an educated class they also tended in recent times to become Westernized, so they also played critical roles in the emergence of modern Iran.

The Clergy: The Shi‘ite clergy constituted a small but important social class. To some extent, the profession of cleric was hereditary like most other occupations and crafts in pre-modern times. However, the class and professional boundaries were not rigid, and there was a steady flow of talented young men of other backgrounds entering the clergy, while the sons of clerics often took up other professions, usually as merchants. The clergy had very close links with the bazaar, and clerical families were and are often linked by marriage to bazaar families of comparable social station. For example, the Bab came from a merchant family, but he himself spent some time in the seminaries of Iraq, a cousin of his father became a leading cleric, and the family maintained close links with some of the Shaykhi clerics.

Few religious positions were directly controlled by the government, so the clergy frequently played roles as intermediaries between the government and other classes. The allegiances of the clergy varied considerably depending on their positions. Some—for example, the Friday Prayer leaders, who were appointed by the government—were closely linked to the authorities.. Clerics supported by endowments and contributions were more likely to be aligned with the merchants, the main source of such revenues, whereas village mullas would be likely to occupy a position between the landlord and the peasants.

The New Middle Class: The rise of Western-style education in the early twentieth century created a new middle class without strong links to traditional Iranian culture. The possessors of the new education rose rapidly in influence and wealth as the Pahlavi reforms created a demand for officials, technicians, and businessmen. The new class represented a discontinuity in Iranian society since their experiences and outlook were in many ways fundamentally different from those of the traditional classes. Their rise was bitterly resented by more traditional groups like the clergy and the bazaar. Most urban Baha’i families belonged to this new class, which is one of the factors explaining the hatred directed at them by more traditional groups in Iranian society.

Monarchy. In traditional Iranian political thought the monarch did not belong to any class. Ideally, the king’s social independence and his absolute power allowed him to identify himself with the state and thus administer justice equally to all groups. One ancient king is said to have had a bell at the door of his palace that anyone who had been wronged could ring to gain access to the king and justice. Conversely, if the king was unjust, society would suffer and even the fertility of the land would decline. The worst offense for a king was to rule arbitrarily. The Iranian and the Islamic strains in Iranian political thought approached the question of the legitimacy of the king slightly differently. In Islamic thought kingship is a “collective” rather than a “personal obligation,” which is to say, someone has to be king, and a person who happens to be king, however he may have gained power, has certain responsibilities by virtue of his de facto power—to rule justly, above all. On the other hand, in the Iranian tradition a certain light of God, the farr, comes to a man and brings him kingship. If he rules well, that light will stay with him, but if he rules unjustly, the light will desert him and he will lose power. The Iranian tradition has some conception of hereditary monarchy, but not so strictly as in European ideas of succession. In general, the Iranian king is much more of supernatural figure, surrounded by extraordinary pomp, than was the case for Arab rulers.

Revolutions. Counterbalancing its tradition of monarchy, Iran has a strong tradition of revolution. Alone in the Islamic world Iran has had at least two major revolutions in modern times. (The Babi movement may perhaps be seen as an abortive third revolution.) The archetype of Iranian revolution is the story of the overthrow of the tyrant Dahhak by Kava the blacksmith, as told in Firdawsi’s Book of Kings. Dahhak was a tyrant who had ruled for a thousand years. Snakes grew out of his shoulders, and they had to be fed on the brains of children. When the tyrant called for the last of his children, Kava put his leather blacksmith’s apron on a staff and marched towards the palace, rallying the people as he went, and together they overthrew the rule of the tyrant in favor of the rightful prince. Popular revolutions, usually nominally religious, have been a recurrent feature of Iranian political life since ancient times. In the twentieth century the Constitutional Revolution of 1905–11, the unsuccessful popular movement of Mossadeq in the early 1950s, and the Islamic Revolution of 1978–79 have shaped Iranian political life—overthrowing two dynasties and establishing parliamentary government as a permanent feature of Iranian government. Perhaps more important, Iranians view revolution as a normal and legitimate, though perhaps traumatic, feature of political life.

Persian Language and Literature

Persian is an Indo-European language and is thus related by structure to most European languages, but its alphabet and much of its vocabulary are Arabic. The language underwent vast changes in the millennium between the fall of the Achaemenid empire to Alexander in the fourth century B.C.E.and the reemergence of New Persian in the early Islamic period. Unlike other areas conquered by the Arabs, Iran never adopted Arabic except as a learned language. When independent states with Persian-speaking courts emerged in Iran around the 10th century, Persian reappeared as a literary language. The preeminent literary form in New (Islamic) Persian has always been poetry, and almost every educated Persian has at least dabbled in writing poetry. A knowledge of poetry is one of the basic attainments of an educated Persian, both in medieval and modern times. The first great classic of New Persian literature was Firdawsi’s Shah-nama, the “Book of Kings,” an adaptation of the Sasanian national history. This work served as a rallying point for the reviving Persian nationalism. The educated bureaucratic classes continued to cultivate such nationalistic literature, as well as Persian adaptations of Islamic scholarly works and dynastic histories glorifying their patrons.

The best known tradition in Persian literature is mystical poetry. The rise of New Persian coincided with the rise of organized mysticism in Islam. A huge and impressive literature of mystical poetry, both lyric and epic/didactic, soon arose in Persian. Mystical themes came to permeate even secular Persian poetry, so that it is usually almost impossible to distinguish a mystical poem from a secular love poem. Mystical poets like Rumi and ‘Attar developed Persian into a subtle and expressive medium for discussing spiritual matters.

There was also prose literature in Persian. As a scholarly medium, Persian was until recently subordinate to Arabic, so Persian works on scholarly and scientific topics tended to be popular adaptations of more serious Arabic works. Notable genres in Persian include literary letter-writing, history, and manuals of statecraft. In Baha’i literature these genres are represented by such works as Bahaullah’s and ‘Abd al-Baha’s tablets, Dawn-Breakers, and Secret of Divine Civilization respectively.

It should be noted that Persian was the language of polite society throughout the eastern Islamic world—in Iran itself, much of Central Asia, Islamic India, and to some extent in Ottoman Turkey. Iranian literary models were the basis of the literatures of such vernacular Islamic languages as Ottoman Turkish, Urdu, Sindhi, Pashtu, and Bengali. As late as the early nineteenth century the British governed India in Persian.

The Arts

Apart from literature, three arts in which Persians excelled may be mentioned: calligraphy, decoration, and miniature painting. Because Islam discouraged figurative art and stressed the importance of the sacred text, calligraphy became an important art in Islam. Calligraphy was highly cultivated in Iran, so that any educated Persian was expected to have a reasonable command of one or more calligraphic styles. The Bab’s calligraphy was seen as a miracle by his followers, and the production of display calligraphs and fine manuscripts was one of the ways in which the Babis and early Baha’is propagated and legitimized their religion.

Persian artists excelled at decorative arts of all sorts. Even architecture was often subordinated to the surface of the wall or ceiling with its elaborate tile or carved plaster ornamentation. Decoration with elaborate calligraphy and floral or geometrical elements is heavily used in all kinds of Persian arts and crafts.

Miniatures—paintings illustrating books—were a particular Persian specialty. The place filled in Western art by great oil paintings is in Iran occupied by the magnificent decorated books produced for discerning royal patrons.

Etiquette

A portrait of Iran would be incomplete without some reference to the role played by etiquette, in many ways the most distinctive feature of Persian life. Iran is a very old society, for much of its history ruled by outsiders and subject to unexpected upheavals. Thus, it seems that Persian society turned inward and lavished much of its creativity on private life. Thus, Persian society has developed an elaborate system of etiquette. Two features are particularly noteworthy. First is a stong emphasis on hospitality, sometimes referred to pejoratively by Persians as ta‘aruf, “polite hypocrisy.” The underlying assumption is that the guest honors the host by his presence, so that the host is obliged to reciprocate by unquestioning and unstinting hospitality and generosity. Second is an elaborate set of rules governing interactions among individuals with finely graduated nuances to reflect personal, social, professional, and class distinctions. Titles, style of speech and diction, and even pronouns reflect the relative status of the two parties. Though this system of etiquette gives Iranian society its characteristic graciousness, it is sometimes criticized by Iranians themselves as providing a mask for hypocrisy.

A good introduction to many aspects of Iranian society, particularly in the twentieth century, is R. Mottahedeh, The Mantle of the Prophet. Two well-informed European views from the nineteenth century are G. Curzon, Persia and the Persian Problem, a detailed and profoundly well-informed study of Iran from a political standpoint, and James Morier, Hajji Baba of Isfahan, a charming but unflattering novel about Persian life. The most thorough survey of all aspects of Iranian life and history is Cambridge History of Iran, 8 vols. In many respects the finest general account of Iranian culture is still E. G. Browne, The Literary History of the Persians.

Chapter Two

Some Babi Martyrs

The Babi religion may be understood as a transitional phase between Shi‘ism and the Baha’i Faith, and a theme that unites them is martyrdom. Whereas for Sunni Muslims the formative events of their religion were the triumphant conquests of early Islam, the formative event in Shi‘ism was the martyrdom of the Imam Husayn. Husayn perished with a small band of followers in the plain of Karbala in 680. His dignity in defeat and his dauntless faith have provided the model for Shi‘ite piety ever since. The figure of Husayn also provides a link connecting Shi‘ism, the Babi religion, and the Baha’i Faith. In a dream the Bab drank seven handfuls of blood from the severed head of the Imam Husayn, and in the Baha’i symbolic universe, it is Bahaullah who is the return of the Imam Husayn. No Babi of Shi‘ite background, as they all were, could fail to foresee the possibility of joining the returned Imam on some new plain of Karbala. And in the end some three thousand Babis did. We know the names of a few hundred of them and something about the lives of a few score.

Shaykh Salih Karimi the Arab

The first Babi martyr in Iran was a learned Arab cleric living in Karbala who had been converted by Mulla ‘Ali Bastami. An older man and a close disciple of Tahira, he was one of those who accompanied her to Baghdad and Iran after her expulsion from Karbala. He supported her in her disputations with her husband Mulla Muhammad Baraghani in Qazvin.

When Tahira’s maternal uncle and father-in-law, Haji Mulla Taqi Baraghani, was murdered, his heirs—particularly Tahira’s husband Mulla Muhammad—accused her of instigating the crime. Seventy Babis were arrested in Qazvin, and Shaykh Salih was among those accused of the actual murder. While imprisoned in the governorate in Qazvin, he was severely bastinadoed. Since the governor did not have the authority to order executions, the government was persuaded to have the five prisoners still suspected of the crime sent in chains to Tehran. One prisoner died in route and another, who had confessed to the crime, escaped soon after arriving. The remaining three were imprisoned in Tehran. They were interrogated individually by Mulla Muhammad, a mujtahid with Babi sympathies, who exonerated them. Nonetheless, Mulla Muhammad-i Baraqani was able to persuade the Shah to order the execution of Shaykh Salih. He faced his death steadfastly, reciting prayers and composing a couplet at the place of execution. He was blown from the mouth of a cannon in the Sabza-Maydan in Tehran. The pieces of his body were collected and buried in the courtyard of the Imamzada Zayd.

Shaykh Salih Karimi was the first Babi to be executed for his faith in Iran, though the elderly Haji Asadu’llah Farhadi, another of the Babis suspected in the murder, had earlier died of ill-treatment and exposure on the road to Tehran. (Malik-Khusravi, Tarikh 3:77-81.)

Mulla ‘Abd al-Karim Qazvini, a secretary of the Bab.

Also called Mirza Ahmad Katib ("the Scribe") or Mirza Ahmad Qazvini, he was a secretary of the Bab, the teacher of the historian Nabil Zarandi, and a friend of Bahaullah. Though of a merchant family, he studied law and theology in his home city of Qazvin with Mulla ‘Abd al-Karim Èravani. When his teacher proclaimed him a mujtahid, authorized to interpret Islamic law independently, he doubted his worthiness. After a dream which the Shaykhi merchant Haji Allah-vardi Farhadi explained as being of the Shaykhi leader Sayyid Kazim Rashti, he went immediately to Karbala with his brother ‘Abd al-Hamid and spent the winter in Sayyid Kazim’s classes. After Naw-Ruz Sayyid Kazim sent him back to Qazvin where he worked as a merchant for a number of years. He was apparently married and had children.

Hearing of the Bab’s proclamation, he set out for Shiraz—immediately and on foot, according to one report. Learning in Tehran that the Bab had instructed his followers to meet him in Karbala, he went there, only to find that the Bab had changed his plans and gone to Bushihr and Shiraz. He joined a party of Shaykhis seeking the Bab, waited for a time in Isfahan, and finally met the Bab with the first group of believers allowed to enter Shiraz. There he became a confirmed believer.

When his followers caused disturbances in the city, the Bab sent most of them away but ordered Mulla ‘Abd al-Karim to stay and make fair copies of his writings as they were written, a task he shared with Shaykh Hasan Zunuzi and Sayyid Husayn Yazdi. Just before the Bab was sent to Isfahan, he sent these three ahead where they continued to act as his secretaries, receiving letters from believers and transcribing the replies. Later when the Bab was living secretly in the house of Manuchihr Khan, they continued this task and were the only believers allowed to see him. After the governor’s death in 1847, Mulla ‘Abd al-Karim followed the Bab to Kashan, Qum, and Kulayn, where he probably remained for the two to three weeks until the Bab left. He did not see the Bab again.

Mirza Lutf-‘Ali reports that Mulla ‘Abd al-Karim tried to go to the fort of Shaykh Tabarsi with Aqa Muhammad-Ja‘far Tabrizi but that the two were detained in Shir-Gah. Hearing this, Mulla Husayn sent out a party under Mirza Muhammad-Baqir Hirati that brought them to the fort. A few days later Mulla Husayn sent him to Sari to attend Quddus who was detained there. Quddus in turn sent him away with instruction to personally serve the Bab. (Malik-Khusravi, Tarikh 2:232-33.) Another report states that he took part in the disturbances in Khurasan but did not reach the fort. (Mazandarani, Zuhur.) Both versions are open to doubt since they are not mentioned in Nabil, who otherwise has full particulars on Mulla ‘Abd al-Karim’s activities.

Soon after, he settled in Tehran where he lived under the protection of Bahaullah and worked as a scribe, spending his evenings making copies of the works of the Bab, which he gave as gifts. In late 1848 a young Babi, Nabil Zarandi, arrived in Tehran and settled at the Madrasiy-i Dar al-Shifay-i Masjid-i Shah where Mulla ‘Abd al-Karim was then living. He befriended Nabil and introduced him to the leading Babis of Tehran, including Bahaullah and his family.

It was through Mulla ‘Abd al-Karim that Bahaullah corresponded with the Bab after his return from Mazandaran. It is reported that he and Bahaullah originated the plan to proclaim Mirza Yahya as the Bab’s successor while keeping him in hiding—this in order to deflect attention from Bahaullah, who was well known to the authorities and the people. (‘Abd al-Baha, Traveller’s 37/67-68. Bahaullah, Majmu‘ah 174. Taherzadeh 1:53-54, 2:247-48.)

During the persecutions of February 1850, Mulla ‘Abd al-Karim took refuge in the Masjid-i Shah, the royal mosque adjacent to the madrasa in which he was living. Warned by Bahaullah that the prime minister, Amir-Kabir, had ordered the Imam-Jum‘a to arrest him in the sanctuary, he escaped in disguise to Qum. From about this time he was generally known as Mirza Ahmad Katib “the scribe”—a name given him by Bahaullah, probably as an alias rather than as an honorific. In Qum, shortly before the Bab’s execution, he received a coffer from the Bab containing the last of his writings and his pen-case, seals, rings, and the famous pentacle tablet containing 350 derivatives of the word Baha’. He left the same day for Tehran, explaining that the Bab’s accompanying letter ordered him to deliver it to Bahaullah.

After the Bab’s martyrdom he and Bahaullah brother, Mirza Musa Kalim, received the remains of the Bab and his disciple. These they hid first in the shrine of Imam-Zada Hasan, then in the house of Haji Sulayman Khan in Tehran, and finally in the Imamzada Ma‘sum, where they remained hidden until 1284/1867-68. (Nabil, 521, Taherzadeh 3:424-25.) In spring of 1851 Nabil found him living incognito in Kirmanshah. During Ramadan in the summer of 1851 Bahaullah visited them and sent them both back to Tehran. Mulla ‘Abd al-Karim passed the winter of 1851-52 living in a caravansary outside the New Gate of Tehran where he spent his time copying the Bab’s works.

When he and Nabil fell under suspicion once more, he fled to Qum. By summer he was back in Tehran and was arrested at the time of the Babi attempt on the life of the Shah. His brother ‘Abd al-Hamid, who had come to urge him to return to Qazvin, was arrested with him. The two brothers were imprisoned in the Siyah-Chal with Bahaullah until sometime between Aug. 22-26, when both were hacked to pieces with swords by the artillerymen of the royal bodyguard, probably in the present Maydan-i Arg, adjacent to the artillerymen’s camp and the passage to the Siyah-Chal.

Mirza Ahmad was important as an authority on the writings of the Bab. Several manuscripts in his hand of the Arabic and Persian Bayans survive. He handled the private correspondence of the Bab, Bahaullah, and Mirza Yahya with discretion. He was also one of Nabil’s principal informants for the inner history of the early Babi period. Modern Baha’is know him best as the source through which Mulla Husayn’s famous account of the Bab’s declaration reached Nabil.

The sincerity of his spiritual search is apparent from his own account preserved in Nabil, from the trust placed in him by the Bab and Bahaullah, and from his own actions: his contentment with the modest stations of merchant and scribe when his learning and piety would have given him an honored place among the ‘ulama, his abrupt departures in search of Sayyid Kazim and the Bab, and his refusal to rejoin his family in Qazvin. He enjoyed the respect and affection of Bahaullah and his family and the obvious devotion of Nabil.

Nabil, xxxvii, lxiii, 52, 159-69, 176, 189, 192, 212, 214, 227-28, 331, 439, 504-6, 587-88, 592, 654. Malik-Khusravi, Tarikh 2:232-33, 3:295-309. Momen, Babi 142.

Two Babi Youths

Mirza ‘Abd al-Wahhab Shirazi

In the summer of 1844, the Bab began dispatching his first believers, the Letters of the Living, on various missions, assigning Mulla ‘Ali Bastami to announce the advent of the Bab to the leading clerics in Najaf, the most prestigious center of Shi‘ite learning. A young merchant, Mirza ‘Abd al-Wahhab, had had a dream in which the Imam ‘Ali was distributing indulgences in the market. When he went to his shop in the Wakil Bazaar in Shiraz the next morning, he saw Mulla ‘Ali reenacting the scene he had dreamed. He followed Mulla ‘Ali, who was leaving that day for ‘Iraq, and with some difficulty persuaded him to allow him to come. They had only gone a short distance when Haji ‘Abd al-Majid, Mirza ‘Abd al-Wahhab’s father, caught up with them. He severely beat Mulla ‘Ali, left him lying at the roadside, and took his son back to Shiraz. Nabil reports this story in the words of Haji ‘Abd al-Majid who was later a prominent Baha’i in ‘Iraq and told the story often. (Nabil, 87-90.)

Haji ‘Abd al-Majid some time later moved his family to Baghdad and then to Kazimayn where Mirza ‘Abd al-Wahhab established a business. Apparently he had no further contact with Babis until 1267/1851 when Bahaullah visited Baghdad and persuaded both him and his father to become Babis. When Bahaullah returned to Tehran, he refused to allow Mirza ‘Abd al-Wahhab to accompany him since he was the only child of his parents and even gave him some money to expand his business.

Nevertheless, ‘Abd al-Wahhab soon received his parents’ permission to go to Tehran. He arrived at the time of the assassination attempt on the Shah. When he asked the way to the house of Bahaullah, he was arrested, placed in the Siyah-Chal, and chained with four others to Bahaullah. Soon afterwards he was executed—wearing Bahaullah’s shoes because he had none of his own. He was hacked to pieces by the brother and sons of the Grand Vizier and their servants. The executioner later returned to the dungeon and praised the spirit with which he had faced death. Bahaullah often told the story of his execution and the dream that foretold it. (Nabil, 633-34.) ‘Abd al-Baha praised him in a Tablet and one of his American talks. His death date is fixed between August 22 and 26, 1852, by two dispatches of Sheil and the report of the government newpaper.

On his death date see Momen, Babi 134-36, 141. On his life in general see ‘Abd al-Baha, Makatib 3:407-8. Nabil, 594. Malik-Khusravi, Tarikh 3:284-94. Balyuzi, Baha’u’llah 68, 79, 94-98, 108. *** DJT 319-21. Cf. Balyuzi, ‘Abdu’l-Baha 221-22).

The reader may have noticed the precision of the reports of the executions of the Babis condemned after the attempt on the life of the Shah in 1852. The Shah, terrified of an imagined widespread Babi conspiracy, had involved as much of his entourage as possible in the executions, handing out prisoners to various government offices. The officials, in turn, had competed in the zeal and imagination with which they put their victims to death. The details were reported in exact detail in the recently established government newspaper.

Haydar Big Zanjani

Din-Muhammad Wazir, an unsung hero of the Babi revolts, was Hujjat’s military commander at the siege of Zanjan. His son Haydar Big was apparently in his late teens at the time of the siege and seems to have acted as a sort of aide-de-camp to his father. As the siege progressed, he took a more active role in the fighting. For example, he claims to have been the one who captured Farrukh Khan, an army officer who infiltrated the Babi lines in an ill-starred attempt to capture Hujjat.

When the Babis surrendered, Haydar Big was spared execution, apparently so he could be tortured to reveal the location of a treasure the Babis were thought to have hidden. No treasure was forthcoming, but he missed the intitial executions of the surviving Babi men and was sent to Tehran where he was spared execution at the last minute because of his youth. He was imprisoned for nearly two years. He spent some years in the service of an unnamed believer who was later martyred. He was reported to have been living in Tehran in the 1880s.

His lively first-person account of the siege of Zanjan is preserved in the London manuscript of the New History and was included in Browne’s translation of that book.

Hamadani, New History 151-68 passim (in an interpolation added to the London MS by Haji Mirza Isma‘il Kashani). ‘Abd al-Ahad, “Pers. Narr.” 769 in which Browne quotes Shaykh ‘Ali-Bakhsh Zanjani as confirming several important particulars of Haydar Big’s account of his adventures. Husayn Zanjani, Waqayi‘ 74.

The Farhadis of Qazvin

Several members of this family are notable in Shaykhi and Babi history. They were a typical example of the merchant families drawn first to the Shaykhi movement and later to the Babi religion. The patriarch of the family was Haji Allah-vardi-(or virdi)-yi-Farhadi (ca. 1770–ca. 1830), a Shaykhi merchant of Qazvin. He was survived by his three sons Aqa Muhammad-Hadi, Muhammad-Mahdi, and Muhammad-Javad Farhadi, and one other child. His younger brother, Haji Asadu’llah Farhadi (ca. 1775–1263/1847–48, had three daughters, Khatun Jan, Hajiyyih Khanum, and Shirin Khanum, who were married to his nephews Hadi, Mahdi, and Javad respectively. Marriage to a cousin is quite respectable in the Islamic world, and marriage to a paternal cousin is often considered ideal since it strengthens the family, both socially and economically, while minimizing the inconveniences caused by prohibitions on association between men and women not related by blood.

A respected merchant, Haji Asadu’llah’s house was a meeting place for Shaykhis, including Shaykh Ahmad Ahsa’i himself when he visited Qazvin. When the Letter of the Living Mulla Jalil Urumiyya came to Qazvin, Haji Asadu’llah became a Babi, paid Mulla Jalil’s expenses, and gave him lodging in his house and one of his own wives to marry. The Farhadi house became a Babi meeting place and was visited by Quddus, Mulla Husayn, Tahira, and others.

Mulla Jalil’s classes attracted the jealousy of Tahira’s uncle Haji Mulla Taqi Baraghani, a leading anti-Shaykhi and anti-Babi cleric, who ordered the Farhadi house attacked and Mulla Jalil kidnapped. After Mulla Taqi’s murder by a man variously said to be a Shaykhi or a Babi, the house was again attacked and looted. Haji Asadu’llah was taken from his sickbed to prison and sent chained and on foot in midwinter to Tehran with four others to answer for the murder. Soon after his arrival he died, either because of the hardships of the journey or because he was secretly murdered by Mulla Taqi’s family. After he was denied burial at the shrine of Shah ‘Abd al-‘Azim, he was buried at the nearby shrine of Bibi Zubayda.

Aqa Hadi Farhadi was the eldest son of Allah-vardi and the nephew and son-in-law of Asadu’llah. With his younger brother Javad, he led the Babi rescue of Mulla Jalil from the madrasa where he was being held and tortured. He made swords in the cellars of the Farhadi house intended for use at Shaykh Tabarsi. Suspected in the murder of Mulla Taqi, he fled to Tehran, and his wife and sisters-in-law and their children had to live in hiding in a ruined shrine in great hardship. Bahaullah sent him back to Qazvin to rescue Tahira, which he did. (Malik-Khusravi, Tarikh 3:82-88, Nabil:281-82.)

Husayn Milani, who helped rescue the body of the Bab.

One of the followers of the heretic Usku, among whom he was known as Imam Humam Aba-‘Abdi’llah al-Husayn, Husayn Milani was living in Tabriz at the time of the Bab’s execution and played a role in the rescue of the Bab’s remains. It is reported that he removed the Bab’s remains from the moat and conveyed them to the shop of Haji Muhammad-Taqi Milani or, according to another account, his own shop. It is said that he was one of those who claimed to be Him Whom God will make manifest after the Bab’s death and that he acquired a following.

In August1852 he was living in Tehran and was arrested after the attempted assassination of the Shah. Fadil Mazandarani states he was executed in Niyavaran the same day as Haji Sulayman Khan, which would have made him one of the earlier martyrs of that month and thus presumably one of the better known Babi’s of Tehran. A platoon of soldiers stripped him and killed him with bayonets. (Malik-Khusravi, Tarikh 3:259. Momen, Babi:142.)

The Seven Martyrs of Tehran

In February 1850 a number of prominent Babis were arrested in Tehran. Seven of those who were condemned refused to recant and were publicly executed. The incident was significant on several grounds in the moral history of the conflict between the Babis and the secular and religious authorities of Iran. Browne later wrote:

They were men representing all the more important classes in Persia—divines, dervishes, merchants, shop-keepers, and government officials; they were men who had enjoyed the respect and consideration of all; they died fearlessly, willingly, almost eagerly, declining to purchase life by that mere lip-denial, which, under the name of ketman or takiya, is recognized by the Shi’ites as a perfectly justifiable subterfuge in case of peril; they were not driven to despair of mercy as were those who died at Sheykh Tabarsi and Zanjan; and they sealed their faith with their blood in the public square of the Persian capital wherein is the abode of the foreign ambassadors accredited to the court of the Shah. (‘Abd al-Baha, Traveller’s, p. 216, quoted in Momen, Babi 100.)

The first of the Seven Martyrs of Tehran, and the most important, was Haji Mirza Sayyid ‘Ali, the maternal uncle and guardian of the Bab, known to the Iranian Baha’is as “Khal-i A‘zam,” “the Greater Maternal Uncle.” He was a well-travelled merchant, prominent among the Shiraz merchants, known for his piety, and a Shaykhi. He and his two brothers traded with India. He was married to a maternal half-sister of the wife of the Bab and had one son, who had died the previous year in Jedda while on pilgrimage. The Bab’s father having died while the Bab was still a child, Haji Mirza Sayyid ‘Ali became his and his mother’s guardian. He raised the Bab in his own house, supervised his education, and set him up in business in the nearby port of Bushihr.

In 1845 he became a Babi through the efforts of Quddus. He was the only male member of the Bab’s family to become a Babi during his lifetime. When the Bab returned from pilgrimage and was arrested, this uncle posted bail. The Bab lived in his house for much of the time until his departure for Isfahan the following year. When the Bab was arrested and expelled from Shiraz in October 1846, his uncle was so severely beaten that he was bedridden for three months. During the following two years he sheltered the wife and mother of the Bab while keeping the news of the Bab’s imprisonments and sufferings from them. When the Bab was moved to Chihriq, he settled his affairs and went there to see him. He stayed a short time before he was forced to leave. Failing to reach Shaykh Tabarsi before the Babi defeat, he went to Tehran.

There he lived in the house of Muhammad Big Chaparchi, the commander of the Bab’s escort to Adharbayjan, by then a Babi. Despite warnings from Bahaullah’s brother Musa that he was identified as a Babi and should leave the capital, he remained and was one of those arrested in February 1850. He was interrogated by the prime minister Amir-Kabir himself, but refused to recant. Like others among the Seven Martyrs, he could easily have escaped execution had he chosen to conceal his faith, something perfectly acceptable by Shi‘ite law. Before his execution he took God as his witness that he was to die only because of his religion, not for any transgression.

His house in Shiraz belonged to the Baha’is until the Islamic Revolution of 1979, when it was confiscated with other Baha’i properties. (Malik-Khusravi, Tarikh 3:91–97. Faydi, Khandan 131–39. Amanat 149–50, 355, 384. Mazandarani, Zuhur 3:221–25. Nabil, 75–76, 143, 151–54, 192, 195–98, 442, 446–49.)

Mirza Qurban-‘Ali Barfurushi was a well-known mystical leader and the second of the Seven Martyrs of Tehran. Originally from Barfurush in Mazandaran or Astarabad in Gurgan, he was a widely travelled Sufi master, a shaykh of the Ni‘matu’llahi order. He also had associations with the other mystical orders of the time. His followers and admirers were to be found in many parts of Iran—in Tehran, Khurasan, Hamadan, Kirmanshah, Mandalij, Mazandaran, and Astrarabad—and included members of the royal family, notably the Shah’s mother. He was respected for his personal, moral, and spiritual qualities. He lived simply and always wore the simple garb and woolen cloak of the dervish.

Mirza Qurban-‘Ali became a Babi in 1845 after a chance meeting with Mulla Husayn Bushru’i while travelling from Karbala to Iran. In Tehran he studied with Wahid Darabi, who later led the Babi revolt in Nayriz, and was closely associated with Tehran Babi community. When the Bab was at Kulayn near Tehran, Mirza Qurban-‘Ali and some other believers were able to visit him there.

According to Nabil and Fadil Mazandarani, he was prevented by severe illness from going to join the Babis at Shaykh Tabarsi. However, Mirza Lutf-‘Ali, a survivor of the siege, reports that he reached the government camp and, not being known as a Babi, was asked to serve as Mahdi-Quli Mirza’s emissary to the Babis. At the fort he told Quddus of the situation in the government camp and then returned to Mahdi-Quli Mirza with samples of the writings of the Bab. Later, when Wahid went to Yazd and Nayriz, Mirza Qurban-‘Ali intended to join him but was arrested before he left.

Having taught his faith openly, he was one of the prominent Babis arrested in February 1850. Since he firmly maintained his faith even under the interrogation of the prime minister himself, intervention on his behalf by many friends, including even the Shah’s mother, was unable to save him. To the prime minister he said that his name, which means “sacrifice to ‘Ali,” proved that he was destined to be a martyr for ‘Ali-Muhammad, the Bab. He spent his last night chanting poems of mystical love in the prison.

He was brought to the Sabza-Maydan after the execution of the Bab’s uncle. After the executioner’s first blow merely knocked off his turban, he recited the famous verse:

Happy he whom love’s intoxication

So hath overcome that scarce he knows

Whether at the feet of the Beloved

It be head or turban he throws!

The second blow struck off his head. (Malik-Khusravi, Tarikh 3:98-104.)

Haji Mulla Isma‘il Qumi (or Farahani) was a Babi cleric, the third of the Seven Martyrs of Tehran. He was born and raised in Farahan in ‘Iraq-i ‘Ajam but studied and lived in Qum for many years. Later he studied in Najaf and Karbala, where he became a distinguished and learned Shaykhi, greatly respected for his character. He became a Babi when Mulla ‘Ali Bastami came to Karbala. After participating in the disputes there with the ‘ulama, he went to Shiraz to meet the Bab. He then went to Khurasan and was involved in the disturbances there. He was present at Badasht where he received the title “Sirr al-Wujud” (Mystery of Being). He accompanied Bahaullah, Tahira, and Quddus as far as Niyala, where the party was dispersed, and then went to Tehran. He bitterly regretted the illness that prevented him from going to Shaykh Tabarsi. At this time he lived in the in the Madrasiy-i Dar al-Shifa where several other Babis also lived, notably Nabil Zarandi and Mulla ‘Abd al-Karim Qazvini. Nabil praises his eloquence in expounding the Qur’an and traditions. He actively taught the Babi Faith, always carrying an indexed Qur’an in his pocket in case he met a receptive person.

When in February 1850 orders were issued to arrest the known Babis in the capital, he happened to be at the house of Mirza Shafi‘, the vazir of Tehran, who warned him that his name was on the list and that those arrested would be tortured and killed. He went into hiding but was arrested when he was recognized in a public bath and was chained and imprisoned with the others. When brought to the Sabza-Maydan, he was stoned and cursed by the spectators but replied with cheerful words. When he reached the execution site, he gave some money to the executioner to buy candy which he then shared with him. He then offered prayers and was executed. (Malik-Khusravi, Tarikh 3:104-7.)

Aqa Sayyid Husayn Turshizi was Babi mujtahid, the fourth of the Seven Martyrs of Tehran. A native of Turshiz (Kashmar) in Khurasan, he did his initial studies in Khurasan then went to Najaf for advanced study. After he was accepted as a mujtahid there, it was decided that he would return to his native Khurasan to teach. On this journey he met a Babi acquaintance, the merchant Haji Muhammad-Taqi Kirmani, who was returning from Karbala to Tehran to wait permission to visit the Bab. On the journey the merchant was able to convince his friend of the truth of the new religion. In Tehran he met the Bab’s uncle and other Babis and became a confirmed member of the Babi community of the capital.

He and Haji Muhammad-Taqi were arrested in February 1850. Under interrogation he defended the validity of the proofs given by the Bab. Asserting that his knowledge and competence to judge such matters had been certified by the mujtahids of Najaf and Karbala, he demanded to be allowed to debate the ‘ulama of Tehran. He had, however, already been sentenced to death as an unbeliever by seven eminent mujtahids of the city in judgments solicited by the prime minister.

He was the fourth of the seven martyrs brought to the Sabza-Maydan for execution. Haji ‘Ali Khan, the Hajib al-Dawla, who was there at the orders of the Shah, later reported that at the last moment, he was very struck by the youth, beauty, and demeanor of Sayyid Husayn and on impulse offered him a high post in the government and his daughter’s hand if he would renounce his faith. Aqa Sayyid Husayn refused, saying he preferred to leve the world and its wealth to those who cared for it. Angered, Haji ‘Ali Khan struck him in the mouth and ordered his immediate execution. He died after Mulla Isma‘il Qumi and before his friend Haji Muhammad-Taqi Kirmani. (Malik-Khusravi, Tarikh 3:108-12.)

Haji Muhammad-Taqi Kirmani, the fifth of the Seven Martyrs of Tehran, was a well-known Babi merchant. In 1264/1847-48 he had set out from Kirman to make a pilgrimage to Karbala. In Shiraz he became a Babi through Haji Mirza Sayyid ‘Ali, the maternal uncle of the Bab. As the latter was about to visit the Bab in Chihriq, Haji Muhammad-Taqi asked permission to accompany him. Haji Mirza Sayyid ‘Ali told him to fulfill his original intention of making pilgrimage to Karbala and to wait there for the Bab’s instructions. As it happened, the Bab considered conditions too dangerous, so Haji Mirza Sayyid ‘Ali wrote him to come to Tehran where they would wait together until conditions allowed them to go to Chihriq.

Haji Muhammad-Taqi set out for Tehran in the autumn of 1849. In Baghdad he fell in with a friend, Aqa Sayyid Husayn Turshizi, who had become a mujtahid in ‘Iraq. During the journey to Iran Sayyid Husayn also became a Babi. All three were among those arrested and executed in Tehran in February 1850. (Malik-Khusravi, Tarikh 3:108-12.)

Aqa Sayyid Murtada Zanjani was the sixth of the Seven Martyrs of Tehran. He was a merchant of Zanjan and brother of the Sayyid Kazim Zanjani who died at Shaykh Tabarsi. When brought to the execution place, he threw himself on the body of Haji Muhammad-Taqi Kirmani and insisted that being a Sayyid, his death would be more meritorious than that of his friend. (Nabil, 457-58. Malik-Khusravi, Tarikh 3:112. cf. Hamadani, New History 252, 216. The New History and Nuqtat al-Kaf do not mention him.)

The last of the seven martyrs, Aqa Muhammad-Husayn Maraghi’i (or Tabrizi), was a servant. A native of Aharbayjan, he became a Babi in Tehran through Haji Mulla Isma‘il Qumi, for whom he had a deep affection. He was a servant of ‘Azim, a prominent Tehran Babi, and was severely tortured to induce him to implicate others. He would neither speak nor cry out, and the guards thought he was dumb until Mulla Isma‘il Qumi told them otherwise. When he would not recant, he was condemned to death with the others. When he was brought to the Sabza-Maydan and saw the body of his teacher, he hugged it and announced his unwillingness to be separated from his friend. He and the other two remaining prisoners each claimed the right to be executed first. Finally, all three were killed at the same moment. (Malik-Khusravi, Tarikh 3:113-14.)

Chapter Three

The Babi Uprising in Zanjan*

On 5 May 1850 the Babis of Zanjan rose in arms against the Qajar governor of the town. Led by a charismatic cleric known as Hujjat-i Zanjani, two thousand Babi fighters with their families held part of the town against a much larger government army. Nine months later, when the army captured the last ruined houses held by the Babis, fewer than a hundred Babi fighters survived to face execution.

There is never a neat answer to the question of why a historical event occurred, and the question is that much harder to answer when the information is in fundamental ways incomplete and when the participants themselves differed deeply about the meaning of the event. There were two other major Babi revolts—Mazandaran in 1848-49 and Nayriz in 1850—and at least four other instances where Babi uprisings might have been expected: Shiraz, Qazvin, and Isfahan in 1846, and Tehran in 1852. There were, of course, many urban disturbances of various sizes in Iran in this general period that did not involve Babis. For the question of causation to be usefully answered, we must ask why there were Babi revolts at all, why they happened in some places and not in others, and why they differed in the different places. What chain of events could lead to such violence in a small town? How were the Babis able to coalesce into a fighting force effective enough to hold off regular troops far superior to them in numbers and equipment? What was there in the pre-existing social, economic, and political structure that allowed the town to divide so suddenly and totally? What were the ideas that shaped the actions of the various parties—for there were at least five major groups playing active roles in the siege: the Babis, the Zanjan clerical establishment, the government, the regular army, and the local levies. The actions of each group were shaped by its political interests, by its religious opinions and conceptual structures, and by the events as they unfolded. Finally, what were the effects of the battle—on the Babis, in Zanjan and elsewhere, on the town, on the government, and on the Shi‘ite religious establishment?

I use the term “revolt” for convenience, though it does not exactly fit; see MacEoin, “Holy War,” 94. The reader can in the end judge for himself what term fits best.

The Babis and Zanjan

Founded in 1844 by a young merchant of Shiraz, the Babi movement spread rapidly in Iran and the Shi‘ite shrine cities of Iraq. Its founder, Sayyid ‘Ali-Muhammad, more generally known as the Bab (“Gate”), claimed divine authority within the Shi‘ite belief system. His claims aroused opposition first from Shi‘ite religious leaders and later from the Iranian government. Usually the converts were isolated individuals, drawn for the most part from among the Shaykhis, an esoteric school of Twelver Shi‘ism. In a few places, however, the conversion of a local leader led to the wholesale conversion of his followers. One such place was Zanjan, where a charismatic preacher became a Babi, followed by several thousand of his supporters. The Bab himself was imprisoned in Azerbaijan in 1847. Open fighting occurred for the first time in 1848, when several hundred Babis traveling west from Khorasan were besieged in an improvised fort in Mazandaran. Three more sieges followed—in Zanjan and twice in Nayriz in Fars. The Bab was executed in 1850, and in 1852 most of the remaining leaders of the movement were killed, following an attempt by a group of Babis to assassinate the Shah. By the end of his life the Bab had openly claimed prophethood, had abrogated Islamic law and promulgated a system of Babi law, and thus had established a separate religion distinct from Islam. The Babi religion was a dramatic instance of the revolutionary tradition in Iranian religion and the last major religious movement in Iran not shaped by the challenge of the West. (Amanat, Resurrection.)

Zanjan is a little town halfway between Tehran and Tabriz in the north of Iran, the capital of the small province formerly known as Khamsa and now called Zanjan. It is important only for the roads that meet there: the Tehran-Tabriz highway and lesser tracks leading across the mountains to the north and south. The population of Zanjan province is mixed, the largest part being from the Turkic Afshar tribe. In the middle of the nineteenth century Zanjan was a walled city of perhaps 8,000 people.

There exists a considerable amount of information about the siege of Zanjan. It was by far the largest of the battles between the Babis and government troops, involving about two thousand Babi fighters and twenty thousand government troops and irregulars. Moreover, the highway between Tehran and Tabriz, one of the most important roads of the kingdom, passed through the Babi positions, so the affair could scarcely be ignored. There are seven or eight Babi and Baha’i accounts, chapters in the official histories of the time, and references in contemporary sources. The chronology and government views can be discerned from the official histories, especially Sipihr, while the Babis’ tactics and many anecdotes are preserved in the Babi and Baha'i chronicles. Thus the information is rather good for an event of this sort in nineteenth century Iran.

Of the Babi primary sources, two stand out: Tarikh-i Waqayi‘-i Zanjan by Mirza Husayn-i Zanjani, a Baha’i commissioned by the Baha’i leader Bahaullah in about 1880 to write an objective report on the siege, and the interpolation in the London manuscript of the New History of the Bab (Hamadani, New History, 139–68), containing an account of the fighting based on information from a certain Haydar Big, son of Din-Muhammad, Hujjat’s military commander. The other notable Babi and Baha’i accounts are Nabil, a bowdlerized version of Zanjani, Waqayi‘, with added information obtained from Zanjan Baha’is in the 1860s; ‘Abd al-Ahad, “Personal Reminiscences, the memoir of an Azali who had been a child during the siege; the narrative of ‘Abd al-Ahad’s brother, Aqa Naqd-‘Ali, quoted in Nicolas, Ali Mohammed, 332, 338–40, which seems now to be lost. Mazandarani, Zuhur al-Haqq, 3:175–85, contains biographies of the leading Babis of Zanjan, especially Hujjat, with information not available elsewhere.

The account in Sipihr, Nasikh, the official history, seems to have been written from military dispatches. Hidayat, Rawdat al-Safa, is unreliable. Accounts by Gobineau, I‘tidad al-Saltana, and most later Muslim writers are based on Sipihr. Contemporary diplomatic dispatches are quoted or summarized in Momen, Babi, 114–27. A petition against Hujjat is reproduced and edited in Ittila‘at.

Two additional important sources exist to which I was refused access. The first are the papers of Sayyid Mirza Ab al-Qasim Zanjani, known as “Sayyid-i Mujtahid,” a leader of the Zanjan clergy during this period, including several refutations of the Babis. They are in the hands of one of his descendants. The second is the chronicle of the siege in the second volume of Mazanadarani’s Zuhur al-Haqq, held at the Baha’i World Center.

Untangling the religious issues poses special problems. The religious views of the Babis, who had little access to the Bab’s writings, were disparate and in rapid flux during this period. In the case of Zanjan the situation is made more difficult by the fact that almost nothing written by Hujjat during his Babi period survives. By the time the Babi and Baha’i chronicles were written a generation later, the religious situation had changed profoundly and the writers often no longer understood what the Babis of Zanjan had believed. The Muslim chroniclers, of course, had little accurate information about the religious views of the Babis.

Pre-Babi religious disputes in Zanjan

Among the respected ‘ulama of Zanjan in the early nineteenth century was Akhund Mulla ‘Abd al-Rahim. He was in charge of a mosque and was esteemed among the people for his piety, asceticism, and learning. Some went so far as to attribute miracles to him. He had a son named Muhammad-‘Ali, born about 1812. The boy showed promise, so his father sent him to the shrine-cities of Najaf and Karbala in Iraq, where he studied with Sharif al-‘Ulama Mazandarani, a prominent teacher of the time. His studies were cut short by the death of his teacher and the closing of the seminaries in the epidemic of 1831, so he returned to Iran and settled in Hamadan. When his father died, a delegation from Zanjan came to the young man and asked him to assume his father’s position. He went home and began preaching in his father’s old mosque.

Babi and non-Babi sources agree about his character and position. See Zanjani, Waqayi‘, 3-4; Nabil, 529; ‘Abd al-Ahad, “Reminiscences,” 770; Ittila‘at. On his return see Nabil 529. Hidayat, Rawdat, 10:447-48. Sipihr, Nasikh, 3:89. Only Zanjani, Waqayi‘, 3–4, and Nabil, 529–30, mention the interlude in Hamadan, which Nabil attributes to his father’s warning of enemies in Zanjan. If the latter is the case, it must be due to them both being Akhbaris (see below).

After his return Mulla Muhammad-‘Ali was given the title Hujjat al-Islam—"Proof of Islam," a common title for distinguished ‘ulama of the time—and was known as Hujjat-i Zanjani. He seems to have immediately come into conflict with the established ‘ulama of the town. Jealousy was certainly part of it. He was an eloquent, fiery, and attractive speaker and quickly acquired a large following. “The bazaar of the other ‘ulama emptied of customers.” (Zanjani, Waqayi‘, 4–5.) Beneath the familiar rivalries of the ‘ulama, there was a religious issue, for Hujjat was, as his father had been, an Akhbari. (Hamadani, New History, 135. Nabil, 178. Zanjani, Waqayi‘, 3.) The Akhbaris had opposed the increasing dominance of a rationalism in jurisprudence. They took their name from their greater reliance on the traditions (akhbar) of the imams. Their rivals were known as Usulis, from their reliance on rational principles (usul). The Usulis held that in the absence of the imam, those sufficiently learned in the Law could decide some legal questions on the basis of their own judgment (ijtihad) when there was no other adequate basis for decision. Such individuals were known as mujtahids. Those not possessing such knowledge were required to follow the judgment of a mujtahid and were called muqallid, "obedient." This was the basis of the authority of the Usuli hierarchy. The Akhbaris denied that anyone apart from the imam was authorized to exercise such independent judgment. The controversy had preoccupied the Shi‘ite ‘ulama for much of the eighteenth century and by the beginning of the nineteenth had ended with the complete defeat of the Akhbaris. From that time the claims of the ‘ulama to worldly authority rose steadily. (For a general discussion, see Momen, Introduction, 117–18, 222–25.) Hujjat challenged those claims.

He was a man of independent mind, noted for extreme originality and freedom from all forms of traditional restraint. He denounced the whole hierarchy of the ecclesiastical leaders of his country, from the Abvab-i Arba‘a [Literally, the Four Gates—the four men who for nearly seventy years after the disappearance of the last imam in 874 had claimed to be in communication with him.] down to the humblest mulla among his contemporaries. He despised their character, deplored their degeneracy, and expatiated upon their vices. (Nabil, 178.)

His conflict with the other ‘ulama of the town during these years as an Akhbari preacher may be summarized—from the Babi point of view—as follows:

1. He denied the authority of the mujtahids and by extension that of the conventional Shi’ite hierarchy.

2. He denounced the character of the other ‘ulama.

3. He stopped certain abuses tolerated by the ‘ulama, which they had excused with legal hairsplitting.

4. He issued legal rulings of his own sharply at variance with convention.

5. He imposed extra observances on his own followers.

6. He aroused the jealousy of the other ‘ulama because of his ready argument, his eloquence, and his large personal following.

That he challenged the basis of the legitimacy of the clergy is shown by a contemporary document, a petition denouncing Hujjat written in 1847. Though written after he became a Babi, the accusations reflect his earlier preaching. One of those signing the petition wrote:

Akhund Mulla Muhammad-‘Ali [Hujjat]. . . went up onto the pulpit. . . and in the course of the sermon cursed the whole body of Twelver ‘ulama and denied ijtihad and taqlid. As evidence for his denial of mujtahids—may God multiply their peers!—he cited the holy verse, "Indeed your master is God and His Messenger and those possessing authority among you.". . . [He continued,] “Look! In which sura, in which verse does the Most Holy mention the mujtahid? ‘There is nothing moist or wet but is in an evident book.’ If the mujtahids were the guides in religion, God would surely have mentioned it.”

Others writing in this petition also mention his denial of the authority of the mujtahids and his habit of denouncing the ‘ulama from the pulpit. The Baha’i sources do not mention his denial of ijtihad and taqlid, probably because they did not know the theological point at issue.

The Babi and Baha’i historians particularly mention how he acted against violations of morality excused through recourse to legal loopholes. There was, for example, an old caravansary that had become a house of temporary marriage (a form of legalized prostitution peculiar to Shi‘ism). A mulla legalized the temporary marriages, thus preventing the brief dalliances from being adultery, and the local clergy shared in the profits. Hujjat closed this institution. He also closed the local wine shops, which others considered licit because they were nominally owned by Christians. He is also said to have criticized the ‘ulama for taking bribes. (Zanjani, Waqayi’, p 4-5. ‘Abd al-Ahad, “Reminiscences,” 770, 786.)

Hujjat was notorious for his habit of issuing legal rulings sharply at variance with established practice. The most famous had to do with the determination of the month of fasting, Ramadan. Muslim months begin on the first sunset after the new moon has been seen. Since the new moon is very close to the sun, the new moon may not be seen on the expected day, and thus a given month may have twenty-nine or thirty days. Hujjat evidently had unorthodox views on the subject. Relying on a tradition that "The month of Ramadan is always full [i.e. thirty days]" his followers were sometimes seen to be fasting on the ‘Id al-Fitr, the holiday marking the end of Ramadan, when fasting is prohibited. On Ramadan of 1262/1846 the outraged ‘ulama of Zanjan saw that his followers had stopped fasting three days before the end of Ramadan. (Sipihr, Nasikh, 3:89.)

A second area of dispute concerned ritual purity. Over the centuries the ‘ulama had hedged the simple act of washing before prayers with innumerable restrictions to guarantee that the prayer was not unwittingly invalidated. Hujjat seems to have denied some of the details of the laws of purity while insisting on a strict observance of the spirit. Though he required his followers to wash daily with fresh water, the deposition filed against him in 1847 mentions that “he considers encountering a Jew or an Armenian when it is raining to be pure, considers urine to be pure once it has dried, and holds that the feces of a mouse do not make [certain classes of] water impure.” (Ittila‘at. Zanjani, Waqayi‘, 8.) The Shi‘ites believed that Jews and Christians were impure and that touching their clothing when it was raining transmitted this impurity to a Muslim. Another signer of the deposition said that he considered it allowable to eat with Christians and Jews—interesting in light of the later development of Babi and Baha’i thought on the matter.

There also was a dispute about the nature of the Imam’s body. A very interesting debate is recorded between Hujjat and a leading mujtahid of the town.

One day the late Sayyid-i Mujtahid was with Hujjat in a gathering. He saw the respect enjoyed by Hujjat and decided to dispute with him. He said something of this sort: “What is the condition of a person who begins in menstrual blood and who ends as a corpse?” Hujjat replied with tactful words: “First, the infant in the womb does not drink blood, but rather the essence of blood. Were it to drink blood, it would die. It must have urine and excrement as well. The blood becomes the placenta, and the essence of blood little by little becomes the baby.” Sayyid-i Mujtahid said, “Then what is the state of the Prophets and Imams?” He replied, “With respect to the flesh, they are like us, but with respect to spiritual stations, they are pure in spirit and give new life to men.” The argument continued in this manner and grew bitter. They began to tell lies about him, claiming that Hujjat-i Zanjani said, “The imam is like me.” (Zanjani, Waqayi‘, 5-6; cf. Ittila‘at.)

The question at issue is how the Imam can be perpetually ritually pure if he is nurtured in the womb on blood, which is impure, and becomes impure at death. Hujjat replies that the substance of the infant is not defiled because he is not nourished on the blood as such but on the essence of the blood. The mujtahid then asks how the prophets can be born in a state of impurity, reflecting a Shi‘ite tendency to attribute to the prophets and imams supernatural qualities, both spiritual and physical. Hujjat denies that the physical bodies of the prophets and imams are in any way miraculous. Certainly, this indicates a predisposition to accept a worldly eschatology like that of the Bab.

His reforms made him extremely popular. Even after his supporters built him a new mosque connected to his father’s old mosque, the crowds were such that people still had to pray outside in the courtyard. (Zanjani, Waqayi‘, 8. ‘Abd al-Ahad, 779. Nabil, 530-31.) His enemies claimed that in 1846 half the district followed his example in breaking the fast on the 27th of Ramadan.

On at least one occasion the complaints of his enemies led to his being summoned to Tehran. Apparently, however, his outspoken criticism of the ‘ulama amused Muhammad Shah, and he was released with honors.

Zanjani, Waqayi‘, 6–7. His book, Rayhanat al-Sudur, on the question of the duration of Ramadan was written for Muhammad Shah in 1843, presumably during this stay in Tehran.. Two MSS exist—Tehran Milli 898 and Tehran Sipahsalar 2536, the latter an autograph.

The conversion of Hujjat and the development of Babism in Zanjan

When news of the claims of the Bab began circulating in Iran, Hujjat sent one of his followers to investigate. The man eventually returned with a letter from the Bab. He found Hujjat preparing to begin the class he taught in his mosque every day after congregational prayers. On reading the letter Hujjat became visibly agitated. He abruptly ended the class, took off his turban, and asked for the lambskin cap of a layman to wear. He had become a Babi. There are evidently two points being made here. First, by trading his turban for the lambskin hat (kulah) of a layman, he renounced any claims to religious leadership in the face of the Bab’s overwhelming authority and knowledge. Second, the hat was a symbol of a Persian’s dignity. In Persian poetry, the lover is pictured as distracted and disheveled in his longing for his beloved. His disgrace in outward matters—like losing his hat—merely confirms the sincerity of his love and is thus no disgrace.

The Babi accounts of Hujjat’s conversion differ on details, but all mention the dramatic reception of the letter and his renunciation of the mulla’s turban. See ‘Abd al-Ahad, “Memoir,” 771–73; Zanjani, Waqayi‘, 9–10; Nabil, 178–79; Hamadani, New History, 136–37. Non-Babi accounts agree that his conversion was effected through correspondence with the Bab but place it as late as 1848. See I‘tidad al-Saltana, Fitna, 61; Sipihr, Nasikh, 3:89; Hidayat, Rawdat, 10:448; Diya’i, “Sanadi,” 163.

Despite the likelihood that a large portion of the population of Zanjan—or at least of Hujjat’s personal following—was converted to the faith of the Bab immediately, understanding of the implications of the claims of the Bab came only gradually and not all aspects of the new faith were discussed publicly. (‘Abd al-Ahad, 775–76; cf. Hamadani, New History, 137.) After the first incident in the mosque,

he invited the people <to embrace the new doctrine>, such of them as he deemed capable of receiving it, in secret; and sometimes he would say openly, “The author of these verses claims to be the Bab, as <in the tradition> ‘I am the City of Knowledge, and ‘Ali is its Gate.’” (Hamadani, New History , 136–37.)

Another source explains:

Each person had a different idea about the Sayyid-i Bab’s cause: some understood Him to be the Gate of wilayat; some imagined Him to be the Gate of the Promised Qa’im; some souls thought Him to be the Qa’im of the House of Muhammad; a very few believed Him to be the Gate of the Most Great Manifestation—but as to His truth, they were in agreement, not dispute. (Zanjani, Waqayi‘, 11.)

Hujjat began corresponding with the Bab. (‘Abd al-Ahad, 775. cf. Sipihr, Nasikh 3:389, Hidayat, Rawdat 10:448, I‘tidad al-Saltana, Fitna 61.) Nabil, says that in an early letter the Bab conferred on him the title Hujjat, “the proof,” a title of the Bab himself, and urged him to preach the Babi teachings publicly. (Nabil, 532–33. As he progressively claimed higher stations, the Bab sometimes gave his earlier titles to his prominent followers.) A sermon attributed to Hujjat perhaps captures the religious excitement of the moment:

O people! Today the Desire of the Worlds has appeared unveiled. The Sun of Reality is dawning; the lamps of imagination and blind imitation are extinguished. Turn your faces toward His Cause, not to me, who is but one of His servants. Before His knowledge my knowledge is but a dead lamp before the Sun. Know God by God, the Sun by its light. Today the Lord of the Age is manifest, and the King of Possibilities is in existence. Today both the seeker of mystic truth and his master [muridi wa-murshidi] are engaged in the worship of idols, not worship of God. Now the people are seized by another tumult, a new madness. (Zanjani, Waqayi‘, 11–13. This and some of the other sermons attributed to Hujjat may be from the lost compilation of his writings entitled Sa‘iqa (“the thunderbolt”). See Ittila‘at and ‘Abd al-Ahad, “Memoir,” 825–26.)

In Zanjan, as elsewhere, the prohibition of smoking became the most visible characteristic of the Babis:

In the meeting [when he received the Bab’s letter and became a Babi] he took the chubuq in his hand and broke it. Afterwards the people imitating him smashed their chubuqs and qalyans, burned their tobacco, and ceased to sell it. . . . Hujjat informed the people of some of the commands and prohibitions of the Sayyid-i Bab. (Zanjani, Waqayi‘, 11.)

There were also public recitations of the writings of the Bab. (‘Abd al-Ahad, “Memoir,” 775.)

Several Babi and Baha’i sources allude to a dispute concerning congregational prayer. It is considered praiseworthy in Islam to pray in congregation when possible, but it is only obligatory in the case of the Friday noon prayer. One large mosque in a town is designated as the "Friday mosque" (jami‘). In many places, including nineteenth century Iran, the imam-jum‘a, the cleric who led the Friday noon prayers and preached the sermon, was appointed and paid by the government and was one of the most important ecclesiastical officials in the city. It was the custom to mention the ruler in this Friday sermon, and the omission of his name in the sermon was a symbol of rebellion. There was an additional significance in Shi‘ism. The right to lead prayers and preach the Friday sermons was originally the Prophet’s. When he did not lead prayers, he would appoint another in his place. After him this right belonged to the imam—imam actually means a leader of prayers. In the prolonged absence of the imam other arrangements had to be made, but should he return, the responsibility would once more devolve upon him personally.

On becoming a Babi, Hujjat discontinued leading congregational prayer because he had heard that the Bab had made it unlawful for anyone else to lead prayers without his express permission. When the Bab wrote to him telling him to lead Friday prayers, the Babis went to the Friday mosque. A scuffle ensued between the Babis and the followers of the imam-jum‘a. In the end the Babis triumphed and Hujjat led prayers and delivered the sermon.

Hamadani, New History, 371–72. Nabil, 533. Nicolas, Ali Mohammad, 335, following Zanjani, Waqayi‘, 11, says that what happened was that Hujjat began leading the Friday form of prayer in place of the everyday prayer, following the law that the Friday prayer should supersede the daily prayer when the imam returned.

The incident indicates how threatening the Babis must have appeared to the established authorities. Existing political authority in the Shi‘ite world was legitimate only in the absence of the Imam. With an Imam—how the Bab’s claim was generally understood by non-believers, and in large part by believers—once more in the world, all existing institutions existed only at the sufferance of the Bab. When his orders happened to conflict with the existing order, the Babis had no hesitation in asserting his authority against king and ‘ulama. The authorities recognized the revolutionary implications of the claims of the Bab and acted accordingly.

Hujjat’s conversion probably occurred in 1846; all the Babi sources agree that a follower of Hujjat met the Bab in Shiraz—thus between early July 1845 and September 1846. Early the following summer the Bab himself was to come to Zanjan. On 23 September 1846 the Bab had left Shiraz, expelled by the authorities. After some months in Isfahan, where he had been protected by the governor, he was summoned to Tehran. The Shah was curious to see him, and important prisoners were dealt with in the capital. Haji Mirza Aqasi, the prime minister, was a Rasputin figure—an old dervish who owed his position to his religious dominance over the Shah. It seems that he feared that the Shah might fall under the influence of the Bab, and in the end the Bab was dispatched to Aqasi’s home in Maku, in the farthest northwestern corner of the country. The halt of several weeks so near the capital had allowed news of the Bab’s presence and destination to spread among his followers. Though his escort was under orders to go around the main towns on their route, many Babis came out to meet the Bab. In Zanjan there was known to be a large Babi community, well organized with a resolute and capable leader who had not hesitated to cause trouble in the past. At the least public demonstrations were to be expected.

When word of the Bab’s approach reached Hujjat, he sent his courier to meet the Bab in Sultaniyya, one stage east of Zanjan, offering to arrange a rescue. The man approached the camp carrying a basket of cucumbers, one of which had a message from Hujjat concealed inside. The Bab wrote in reply: "Your project accords not with expediency, for today strife is not approved. Moreover they have summoned you to Teheran, and the governor has already dispatched horsemen to set you on the road."

Hamadani, New History , 137–38, 219–20, based on the account of the journey given by the chief of the escort, Muhammad Big-i Chaparchi, who became a Babi soon after. ‘Abd al-Ahad, “Reminiscences,” 775–76.

Whatever orders the Bab may have issued, the town was in a state of high excitement when he arrived. The governor sent a note to Muhammad Big Chaparchi, the chief of the escort, saying that he wished to meet the Bab. By now crowds were coming to the caravansary The guards were doing a brisk business taking bribes to admit people to meet him. The governor became alarmed and sent two messengers in quick succession urging Muhammad Big to leave Zanjan immediately. The officer had no choice but to go farther that night.

That same night Hujjat was arrested. Two factors lay behind his arrest. The first, of course, was concern about the possibility of the rescue of the Bab and Babi disturbances in Zanjan. It must be remembered that in May 1847 this would not have had the importance for the central authorities that Babi matters were to assume in the next three years. So far disturbances involving Babis had mostly involved the arguments of the ‘ulama—noisy and irritating but not of major concern to the authorities. Even at Zanjan, there is little evidence that the secular authorities were particularly concerned about the Babis. From their point of view, sending Hujjat to Tehran was a logical precaution against local disturbances. That they were also concerned about the possibility of the rescue of the Bab is shown by the timing of Hujjat’s arrest. (Another factor is that the Zanjanis expelled their governor at about this time; see below. The relationship between the two incidents is not clear.)

The second factor, the indignation of the ‘ulama, was a more serious concern. Whereas the Babi and Baha’i historians emphasize the concern of the secular authorities about the possibility of the Bab escaping, the Muslim historians emphasize Hujjat’s religious disputes with the local ‘ulama. (I‘tidad al-Saltana, Fitna, 61. Hidayat, Rawdat, 10:447. Sipihr, Nasikh, 3:89.) This interpretation is supported by a contemporary document, the petition quoted above. It was prepared by one of the ‘ulama and contained specific complaints of eighteen individuals, mostly Zanjan ‘ulama, about Hujjat’s heterodoxies. It was written in Jumada I, 1263/17 April-16 May 1847, the month of the Bab’s visit to Zanjan and of Hujjat’s arrest. Whether this is one of the letters sent by the ‘ulama that resulted in Hujjat’s arrest or whether it was prepared immediately afterwards and sent to Tehran to help make the case against him, we cannot tell for certain. What is remarkable is that there is no specific reference to Hujjat’s being a Babi, though there are references to his being an "innovator and inventor in religion" and to his having "devised a false sect." Almost all the accusations have to do with his denial of the authority of the Shi‘ite ‘ulama and his unorthodox legal rulings. There are a number of explicit references to acts and words from before he became a Babi. Clearly, the ‘ulama of Zanjan did not yet understand the implications of the Bab’s claims, nor did they distinguish between Hujjat’s Babi and Akhbari heterodoxies. Perhaps Hujjat was still teaching the Babi doctrines with caution or semi-secretly. (Nabil, 533–34.)

It should be noted that there is a different explanation of Hujjat’s exile to Tehran. On 11 Sha‘ban 1263/25 July 1847 a riot broke out in Zanjan, occasioned by the governor’s kidnapping and rape of a local woman (Sipihr, Nasikh, 2:206–7). According to Ittila‘at, which evidently uses an additional source unknown to me, the governor was taken out of the city by a mob—face blackened, wearing a paper hat, and riding bareback and backwards on a donkey. Hujjat and his chief clerical rival both issued fatwas justifying the mob, and so both were brought to Tehran. There are chronological difficulties in associating Hujjat with this incident—although it is certainly his style.

In Tehran Hujjat was received by the Shah, who chided him for his willingness to follow this ignorant Shirazi Sayyid. (Sipihr, Nasikh, and other Muslim sources, certainly wrongly, date Hujjat’s conversion to this exile in Tehran.) Hujjat maintained his convictions and was held for about a year under a loose house arrest. During this time he corresponded with the Bab and occasionally met with some of the Tehran Babis and debated with the ‘ulama at court.

When Hujjat was arrested and taken to Tehran, the Babis were a minor concern of the authorities—the source of local disturbances in the south and a possible threat to the prime minister’s spiritual dominance of the Shah. A year and a half later, the situation was very different. The Bab had been moved from Maku to Chihriq at the urging of the Russian minister, who was concerned about the possible influence of the Bab in Russian Transcaucasia. (Momen, Babi, 72.) The Bab had been tried in Tabriz before the Crown-Prince and had maintained His claims against important ‘ulama of Tabriz. The summer of 1848 brought Babi disturbances in Mashhad. That fall there was open fighting as an armed body of Babis, bearing the black banners of Shi‘ite apocalyptic rebellion, traveled west across Mazandaran. Rumors flew among the Babis of Tehran that they should all join this party for the final battle against ungodliness predicted by Shi‘ite tradition. The Babis were stopped near Babol and built defenses at the little shrine of Shaykh Tabarsi. It was late the next spring before government troops were finally able to dislodge them. As this drama began to unfold, the old Shah died. Nasir al-Din Mirza, now the Shah, came from Tabriz, accompanied by his ruthless and efficient minister Amir-Kabir. Hujjat, hearing rumors that the new prime minister intended to have him killed, escaped from the city disguised as a soldier and returned to Zanjan. His followers received him with rapturous demonstrations. The new governor did not dare to act against Hujjat, but confined himself to torturing the two men who had announced Hujjat’s return. Civil war was eighteen months away.

The division in the town between Babi and Muslim followed preexisting fault lines. Hujjat, before his conversion, was the leader of an Akhbari community to some extent distinct from the rest of the town. They lived in their own neighborhood, which became the Babi stronghold when fighting broke out. When he became a Babi these people followed his example. The lines were not sharp, though. Families divided when the fighting came. Many, especially those with property to protect, deserted when fighting became imminent.

It is also clear that the Babis were in most respects not much different than they had been as Muslims. Their views on theological issues were thoroughly Shi‘ite; they simply accepted the Bab as the Imam. Their practices were also largely Shi‘ite and Islamic. Evidently, they continued the Akhbari reforms that Hujjat had earlier instituted, with the addition of a few distinctively Babi practices derived from rather early writings of the Bab—the prohibition of tobacco and recitations from the writings of the Bab, for example. There is no evidence of practices from the Bayan, the Bab’s major doctrinal and legal work composed about 1848.

The degree to which Babi laws were applied in this period is difficult to determine. It was probably only a year or less between Hujjat’s initial conversion and his arrest and imprisonment in Tehran, so it is likely that the process of applying Babi law was incomplete when he was taken to Tehran in the early summer of 1847. The Zanjan Babis evidently sent a deputation to Hujjat in Tehran to ask for instructions about their obligations under Babi religious law. (Nabil, 538-39.) The Muslim historians allude to Hujjat’s having imposed novel commands and prohibitions. One source refers to his contradicting Islamic law and then goes on to repeat the common accusation of apocalyptic antinomianism and of the practice of community of property and wives. More plausibly, he adds that they replaced the Muslim greeting of “Salam” with the Babi greeting “Allahu Akbar.’ (Sipihr, Nasikh 3:89-90. Hidayat, Rawdat 10:448. I‘tidad al-Saltana, Fitna, 61.)

There were also Shaykhi Babis in Zanjan, originally followers of the esoteric Shi‘ite sect that furnished the bulk of the Babi converts elsewhere. During the fighting they were organized as a separate unit and may not have felt the same personal allegiance to Hujjat that the other Babis did. They were sufficiently distinct that the Muslim authorities tried to induce them to betray the other Babis. Shaykhis were followers of Shaykh Ahmad Ahsa’i. The Bab himself had been a student of Ahsa’i successor. Their esoteric interpretations of Shi‘ite tradition and their expectation of the imminent return of the Hidden Imam had made them receptive to the Bab’s message. Prior to his conversion Hujjat had been opposed to the Shaykhis. (Zanjani, Waqayi‘, 42–43, 45–46. Nabil, 178.)

The outbreak of fighting and its causes

The Babis of Zanjan now began to attract attention. Prince Dolgorukov, the Russian minister in Tehran, reported on 7 March 1849, “In truth, there are rumors that in Zanjan they have appeared 800 strong, and that by their presence, they threaten to disrupt the public order.” A year later on 14 March 1850 he reported that “their number reaches 2,000 people, and the ideas spread by them among the people incite common discontent.” (Momen, Babi, 114.) The Muslim historians, who date Hujjat’s conversion to his 1847–48 confinement in Tehran, date the beginning of the Zanjan Babi community to this period and say that the number of Babis in the district reached 15,000 by the spring of 1850.

As their numbers increased, the Babis behaved with greater boldness. Even before Hujjat’s return, a number of Zanjan Babis had joined the fight at Shaykh Tabarsi; ten Zanjan Babis are said in one source or another to have died there. (Malik-Khusravi, Ta’rikh.) Others, believing there would be fighting in Zanjan, had secretly begun to prepare weapons and train for war. (Zanjani, Waqayi’, 17–18. Hamadani, New History, 142. Nabil, 539. Hidayat, Rawdat, 10:448.) When Hujjat went out to his mosque to lead Friday prayers, three or four hundred followers escorted him. The crowds attending prayers overflowed the room reserved for prayer into the outer court of the mosque. (‘Abd al-Ahad, “Reminiscences,” 779–80.)

This Babi activity in as strategic a place as Zanjan alarmed the authorities. A new governor—Amir Aslan Khan, a maternal uncle of the Shah—was appointed and ordered to arrest Hujjat and return him to Tehran. Hujjat learned of this and no longer went out of his house except with a large armed escort. Despite the concern engendered by the fighting with the Babis in Mazandaran, the governor could do little. The government had stripped the kingdom of troops to suppress a major revolt against the new Shah in Khorasan in the extreme northeast of the country. The potential Babi threat in Zanjan had to wait until more serious matters were dealt with. Oddly enough, Muslim sources, though they accuse Hujjat of political ambitions, say that the government, specifically the prime minister, Amir-Kabir, had already decided to arrest Hujjat before the first clash between the Babis and the authorities. The Babi and Baha’i sources assume the decision to arrest Hujjat was due to these clashes. (Sipihr, Nasikh, 3:90. Hidayat, Rawdat, 10:448.)

In the meantime tensions between the Babis and Muslims of Zanjan rose. The clergy began complaining to Tehran again. The governor, unable to deal with the situation by force, invited Hujjat to the governorate for negotiations. Hujjat came, accompanied by two hundred armed supporters who waited respectfully but pointedly outside the audience hall. Hujjat and the governor agreed that Hujjat would cease preaching and leading prayers in the mosque and that the Babis would pay triple taxes. In return, the governor’s men would leave the Babis alone and any Babis who committed offenses would be dealt with by Hujjat. The governor was able to inform Tehran that a reconciliation had been effected. Hujjat for a time prayed and preached in his own house. However, when a Babi was attacked in his home after having been overheard criticizing the clergy, the Babis came to Hujjat and complained that his inactivity was encouraging their enemies. Hujjat returned to leading prayers and preaching in his mosque. This agreement is reported only by the well-informed Haydar Big, but it makes sense of the events that followed. Its absence from the official Muslim accounts is probably explained by the fact that the governor would have kept the extra taxes for himself. (Hamadani, New History, 140–42.)

The incident that led to open fighting was a street fight between a Babi youth and a Muslim in which the Muslim was wounded. The Babi escaped, but another Babi who had been with him was imprisoned. Hujjat intervened on his behalf and offered the governor a bribe, but the governor would not release the man. Hujjat, aggrieved at the violation of the agreement, sent an armed party to release the prisoner by force. (Nicolas, Ali Mohammad, 338–40, contains an eyewitness account by the Babi youth who escaped. Zanjani, Waqayi‘, 18–19. Sipihr, Nasikh, 3:90. ‘Abd al-Ahad, “Reminiscences,” pp. 781–83. Nabil, 540–41. Hidayat, Rawdat, 10:448.) The next day the governor responded by sending a party of lutis, street toughs, to kidnap Hujjat while he led prayers. The Babi guards repulsed the attack and wounded the leader. One Babi guard was wounded and captured. He was dragged before the governor, where two leading anti-Babi ‘ulama promptly issued a death warrant. Amir Aslan Khan, the governor, spoke abusively to him and then said, “If thou wilt curse the Founder of thy religion and Mulla Muhammad-‘Ali, I will not slay thee.” The Babi replied, “Curses be upon thine own foul nature, even unto seventy generations of thy forebears, for that they have been instrumental in producing a bastard like thee, who has brought about such great mischief and trouble!” Amir Aslan Khan, a man of temper, drew his sword and struck the Babi prisoner in the mouth, laying open his face from ear to ear. He then ordered the people to attack him. One mujtahid was so angry that he stabbed him in the stomach with a penknife, shouting to the onlookers, “O Muslims, this is holy war!” Others hurried to follow, each striking with whatever he had at hand. When the Babi was dead, his naked body was thrown out into the public square outside the governorate. He was the first Babi to be killed in Zanjan. The son of one of the ‘ulama was shot to death in the fighting that day and some forty others were wounded. It was Friday, 5 Rajab 1267/17 May 1850. The next day fighting started in earnest.

The Babi and Baha’i sources for the events of this day differ in many details, but agree on the general course of events. Nabil, 541–43. ‘Abd al-Ahad, “Reminiscences,” 783–84, 791–95. The casualty figures are from Sipihr, Nasikh, 3:90. Zanjani, Waqayi‘, 22–23.

It is clear that larger causes than these trivial incidents lay behind the fighting. The governor, Amir Aslan Khan Majd al-Dawla, had been one of those present at the trial of the Bab in Tabriz. He was a cruel man, tactless and given to rages. He was under orders from Amir Kabir to return Hujjat to Tehran. The governor, in short, had been waiting for a year for the opportunity to arrest Hujjat and suppress the Babis of Zanjan. The war aims of the government, then, are clear enough. They wished to ensure that there would be no more disturbances of the sort that had been so difficult to put down in Mazandaran. (Sipihr, Nasikh, 3:90. Hamadani, New History, 141. Diya’i, “Sanadi,” 163–64.) The clergy had been agitating against Hujjat for a number of years and considered the suppression of the Babis to be necessary for the protection of Islam and their own authority.

The Babi historians attribute the outbreak of fighting to the incidents that occasioned it and to the jealousy, anger, and incompetence of the governor and the ‘ulama. The Babi war aims were correspondingly vague. They expected that they would have to fight but did not think they should initiate it. (Hamadani, New History, 142. Zanjani, Waqayi‘, 17–18.) The reason is theological. The Babis, in accordance with Shi‘ite law, held that when an Imam is in the world, only he is allowed to declare holy war. War might be undertaken in self-defense, but attack was unacceptable without an explicit order from the Imam—i.e., the Bab himself. From the earliest days of the movement the Babis expected that such an order would come. The Hidden Imam was to wage war against his enemies and defeat them, and the Babis expected to join this crusade to purge the world of evil and unbelief. The Babis of Zanjan were ready, but the order had not come—indeed, the Bab is said to have prohibited Hujjat from ordering the use of force when he passed through Zanjan three years earlier. This battle was not part of that apocalyptic war, although it could become so if instructions came from the Bab. During the fighting, Hujjat subjected the Babis to considerable tactical disadvantages in obedience to this principle.

See MacEoin, “Holy War,” especially 98–101, 118–20, though his account of Zanjan is misleading. There is no evidence for the declaration of a “defensive jihad” at Zanjan. The Babi accounts agree that the Zanjan Babis did not declare holy war but considered themselves to be acting simply in self-defense: Zanjani, Waqayi‘, 28, 36–37; Nabil, 546, 553; Hamadani, New History, 137–38, 145; ‘Abd al-Ahad, “Reminiscences,” 791, 810–11. Throughout most of Shi‘ite history scholars had considered the obligation of holy war to be in abeyance in the absence of the Imam, though in the first half of the nineteenth century the ‘ulama had declared holy war several times, Zanjan being one of the occasions; see Diya’i, “Sanadi,” 163–64, and Zanjani, Waqayi‘, 28. Hujjat, an Akhbari, evidently considered this to be an innovation.

Two months after the outbreak of fighting, news arrived that the Bab was dead, executed by public firing squad in Tabriz at the order of the prime minister. There would be no holy war with the Bab at its head. There are indications that in Zanjan the Babi policy on holy war changed after the death of the Bab. Thus, in the later stages of the siege the Babis conducted various sorties, though it was too late for these to have any real effect. (Zanjani, Waqayi‘, 60–62. ‘Abd al-Ahad, “Reminiscences,” 800, 812.)

On the other hand, the Babis could hope for an agreement to restore peace to Zanjan. In that case the Babis could simply go home and resume their ordinary lives. There were, in fact, intermittent negotiations, but nothing came of them. On the government side, key officials and officers were unable to deal with the Babis except as damnable heretics and rebels. Moreover, the Babis held that the authority of the Bab was superior to that of the government. Not surprisingly, the officers and officials in the government camp viewed this as arrogance, heresy, and rebellious ambition. There was also doubt about the good faith of the representatives of the government. The Zanjan Babis were well aware that in Mazandaran fighting had ended with a truce treacherously broken by the army. When in Zanjan a Babi delegation consisting of boys and old men was seized and mistreated, any chance of the Babis accepting one of the government peace offers was ended. Thus, the final Babi war aim had to be the emulation of the Imam Husayn and his band of doomed heroes. The Babis had no choice but to fight for their honor before God. There was no other option, neither hope of victory nor of honorable surrender.

Hidayat, Rawdat, 10:449–54. Sipihr, Nasikh, 3:93. Momen, Babi, 116–19. Zanjani, Waqayi‘, 57–58. ‘Abd al-Ahad, “Reminiscences,” 809–11. Hamadani, New History, 372–73. Nabil, 554–55.

The course of fighting

Soon after the freeing of the imprisoned Babi, the governor ordered the division of the town into Babi and Muslim quarters preparatory to the destruction of the Babis. (Zanjani, Waqayi‘, 23–24. Hamadani, New History, 143–44. ‘Abd al-Ahad, “Reminiscences,” 787. Nabil, 543–44. Sipihr, Nasikh, 3:90. Hidayat, Rawdat, 10:449.) Zanjan in those days was surrounded by a crenellated mud brick wall about six meters high. The highway ran through the town parallel to the river. The town was thus longer from east to west than north to south. The Babis were mostly in the eastern half of the town.

The day after the first fighting Hujjat, at the urging of his lieutenants, ordered the capture of the fort of ‘Ali-Mardan Khan, a substantial stronghold that overlooked the boundary between the Muslim and Babi quarters. A large stock of ammunition and weapons was captured with the fort. (Hamadani, New History, 145–46. Zanjani, Waqayi‘, 36–37. Sipihr, Nasikh, 3:91.) According to the official chronicle, the next day, Sunday, 19 May 1850, the Babis attacked the house of the governor, but were driven off. (Sipihr, Nasikh, 3:91.) A lull of some days followed as both sides prepared for further fighting. The Babis controlled the entire eastern half of the town and barricaded all the streets leading into their quarter. Officers were appointed for each barricade, forty or more in all, and men were apportioned to each. Each barricade had a watchword, usually a name of God, with which to alert others if their position was threatened. Fallback positions were prepared in case a barricade was overrun. Supplies were stockpiled in the fort. In the course of the siege the Babis made their own gunpowder and even several cannon. At the beginning of the siege there were probably about 1,800 fighting men in the Babi quarter with somewhat more women and children.

Zanjani, Waqayi‘, 30–32, 38–39, 51–52, 62, 66. Hamadani, New History, 143–44. Sipihr, Nasikh, 3:90–91, 93. Hidayat, Rawdat, 10:449. Nicolas, Ali Mohammad, 343. ‘Abd al-Ahad, “Reminiscences,” 774, 809, 818–19. I‘tidad al-Saltana, Fitna, 264–65. Momen, Babi, 117–18.

On the Muslim side appeals for troops were sent to the authorities, and the militia was raised in the surrounding villages. The central government responded immediately. The British ambassador wrote, “Five hours after receipt of [news of fighting at Zanjan] a Battalion of Infantry 400 horse and three guns marched toward Zenjan. This is an instance unexampled in Persia of military celerity, which perhaps would not be surpassed in many countries of Europe.” (Sheil to Palmerston No. 64, 25 May 1850: FO 60 151, in Momen, Babi, 115). The authorities were deeply alarmed. The first regular troops reached the town on 1 June, with other large contingents arriving on 13 and 16 June. At this time there were perhaps 6,000 government troops at the town, in addition to the irregulars raised locally. (Momen, Babi, 115–16.)

Though there had been fighting earlier, the first general attack by government troops against the Babis came on 1 July 1850, preceded by an attempt to blow up a Babi barricade with a mine. The attack failed and was succeeded by a lull. (Sipihr, Nasikh, 3:91–92.) According to Baha’i sources, Sayyid ‘Ali Khan Firuzkuhi, the first officer in general command of the government troops, was sympathetic to the Babis and was thus replaced and disgraced. (Hamadani, New History, 140–43, 157, 372. Nabil, 556–57. Hidayat, Rawdat, 10:449–50. Sipihr, Nasikh, 3:93–94.). A pattern soon developed: a new unit and commander would arrive, make a determined attack with the half-hearted support of the previous troops, and make, if anything, only indecisive gains. The new unit would then camp sullenly outside the town with the others and matters would lapse into an informal truce until new troops and a higher-ranking officer arrived.

The government attacks achieved so little because the Babis were in carefully prepared positions and defended themselves desperately. The town was a warren of narrow streets and houses, all interconnected and prepared for defense, and could hardly be taken by infantry without heavy losses. Though the government troops had artillery, the guns were mostly light field pieces more suitable for use against troops in the open. When a ball hit the mud brick walls and dirt barricades of the Babi defenses, there would be a puff of dust and the surface of the wall would crumble, but it would be easy enough for the Babi to reinforce the walls from behind. Mortars caused casualties among the women and children, but there is no evidence they were effective against the Babi defenses themselves. It was probably not practical to carry enough ammunition from the arsenals of Tehran and Tabriz to make a decisive difference. Eventually, heavier guns were brought in, and these did gradually drive back the Babis.

In addition, the Babis had sympathizers among the besieging troops, even among the officers. Many of the officers resented being made to fight against civilians in a battle they blamed on the ‘ulama. Babi sources report that certain units, notably the two ‘Aliyu’llahi (Ahl-i Haqq) regiments, sympathized with the Babis and for that reason held back from the fighting. (Hamadani, New History, 141–42, 157, 372.) Moreover, the individual soldiers had grown up with the stories of the heroism of the outnumbered defenders of the Imam Husayn and the brutality of his Syrian enemies and with the prophecies of the army of the Imam at the end of time. Many, while not Babis themselves, must have entertained secret doubts about the justice of their actions.

Women played a role in the fighting, to the fascination of the nineteenth century Iranian historians. There were three thousand or more Babi women and children within the defenses. The Babis were well organized, and women sewed, baked, nursed the wounded, built and repaired barricades, and gathered spent bullets and cannonballs for reuse. Children helped as well. Occasionally, women extinguished the fuses on shells fired into the Babi positions, using wet blankets kept ready for this task. (Zanjani, Waqayi‘, 49–50. Nabil, 563. ‘Abd al-Ahad, “Reminiscences,” 769.) The women did not normally fight, and most seemed to have survived the siege, but there was a famous exception.

The government officials and the ‘ulama together wrote to the Shah in this wise [giving a list of excuses for their failure to defeat the Babis]: “Fourth, there is a regiment of Babi virgin girls. The Babis fight for love of them.” They wrote a great deal in this vein and sent it to the king.

This story became very well known among the people, but the truth of the matter of the virgin girl is this: There was an old man, one of the followers of Hujjat, who had died. Two daughters survived him, one named Zaynab and the other Shah-Sanam. When the barricades were being built and the fighting had begun, Zaynab went to Hujjat and said, “I have no father or brother to fight the holy war in the path of God. Permit me to go and fight.” He replied, “The holy war is prohibited for women.” She said, “In this dispensation the illusions and veils of the past are torn asunder. Issue your judgment accordingly!” He gave that girl the name of Rustam-‘Ali. She was in one of the barricades, dressed in man’s clothing, with the other pure souls. One day the soldiers attacked the barricade. That lioness recited these verses of Jawhari:

Name me a sect free of disgrace.

Tell me the tale of Islam’s unbelief!

Thus is the Muslim an infidel.

Shouting these verses, Rustam-‘Ali threw herself from the barricade and charged the enemy soldiers. Thinking that a large group was following her, they fled. The people at the barricade called her back, but as she returned, one of the townspeople shot and killed her.

Zanjani, Waqayi‘, 55–56. See also ‘Abd al-Ahad, “Reminiscences,” 802–3; Nabil, 549–52; Sipihr, Nasikh, 3:94. One of the local mujtahids also ruled that the jihad in Zanjan was a fard ‘ayn—an obligation binding on the individual—that applied even to women. He held that a woman could participate in the fighting without permission of her husband; see Diya’i, “Sanadi.”

Throughout the summer and fall the Babis steadily lost men and were slowly driven back upon their strong points, but months went by without the government troops achieving anything decisive. By late fall Babi resistance began to fail. The Babis had been driven a good way back from the city wall. The fort of ‘Ali-Mardan Khan, where most of the Babi supplies and munitions were stored, was for a time cut off. A Babi counterattack reopened a route to the fort, but it finally fell to the Garrus Regiment during a general assault in early December. With its fall the Babi position became untenable. (Zanjani, Waqayi‘, 49–51, 60. Hamadani, New History, 158–59. Sipihr, Nasikh, 3:95–96.)

At this point Hujjat told his people that they might leave if they could. A number did so but were immediately captured. The remaining Babis regrouped around the house of Hujjat, which they stubbornly defended against government attacks and an artillery barrage. There was talk among some of the younger Babis of killing the women to prevent them falling into enemy hands, but cooler heads prevailed. (Zanjani, Waqayi‘, 62–64.) Soon after, Hujjat was wounded in the right forearm while inspecting the defenses. He was taken to his house where he languished for some days. His wound was kept secret from the enemy and even from most of the Babis. He died about 30 December 1850, counseling his people to try to hold out three more days. This may be explained by a reference a plan by the government troops to break off the siege for the winter. He was buried in great secrecy in his house—fully dressed with his sword by his side as befitted a martyr—and the walls were knocked over on top of the grave to conceal it.

At this point Babi morale collapsed. When an offer of safe conduct arrived from the government commander, the Babis surrendered. Only about a hundred Babi fighters had survived the siege.

Zanjani, Waqayi‘, 60–62, 64–6571–73. Hamadani, New History, 161–68, 291–92, 373.. Nabil, 573, 577–78. ‘Abd al-Ahad, “Reminiscences,” 768–69, 812–13, 818–21. Sipihr, Nasikh, 3:96–97. Diya’i, “Sanadi,” 164. Momen, Babi, 122.

The aftermath

After the Babi surrender the troops immediately looted the remnants of the Babi quarter. The men were seized and the women and children were taken to the house of Sayyid Abu al-Qasim, the leading mujtahid of the town. They were held in the stables there for forty days before being robbed and released. (Zanjani, Waqayi‘, 66–73. Nabil, 569–70.) It is not absolutely clear whether the women were imprisoned there, had taken sanctuary there to escape the vengeance of the troops, or some combination of the two. There had been a scuffle between the townspeople and the troops over who should have custody of the Babi women. The townspeople were evidently unwilling to turn over to the soldiers women of the town, even if they were Babis. Nonetheless, the women were treated harshly, on the whole, and some of the children died.

In the meantime, after three days sixty-six male prisoners were taken to the square in front of the governor’s house and bayoneted to death by the troops. Hujjat’s young son was tricked into revealing the site of his father’s grave. The body was dug up and dragged around the town. Forty-four Babis were sent in chains to Tehran with the returning army, and four were executed there on 2 March 1851. The rest were dispersed to various places in Iran. The remaining prisoners in Zanjan, people of no great importance, were released into the custody of family and friends. (Zanjani, Waqayi‘, 73–76. Sipihr, Nasikh, 3:96–97. Momen, Babi, 123–24. Hamadani, New History, 165–68. ‘Abd al-Ahad, “Reminiscences,” 813, 817, 819.)

The Babi disaster at Zanjan was total. No Babi leader survived, and only a handful of the fighters. The survivors were almost all women and children. Most of these were sent back to their families, who in many or most cases were Muslim. Babis continued to live in Zanjan, but it was not until the 1860’s, when the children of those killed were young adults, that there was again a real Babi community there—though it was divided between Azalis and Baha’is. Further persecutions in 1867 killed three young Baha’i leaders, and little more is heard until the 1890s. Even then it seems to have been a dangerous place to be a Baha’i. Today the Baha’i community of Zanjan probably has not reached the numbers of the Babi community of 1850.

Causes and Effects

Social factors.

Given the turbulent history of pre-modern Iranian cities, the observer might be more puzzled by an urban revolt that did not happen. Nineteenth century Iranian towns were riven by the Haydari-Ni‘mati rivalry that pitted rival quarters against each other. The cause of this widespread feud, which apparently goes back to Safavid times, seems to have unknown even the Iranians themselves—a manifestation of human perversity like the enmity of the Green and Blue chariot-racing factions that troubled the peace of Byzantium. (Mirjafari, “Haydari.”) Small disturbances were common enough. In 1847 Zanjan itself had expelled its governor when he abducted and raped a woman, a disturbance in which Hujjat was probably involved. On a larger scale, in 1843 the largely Iranian population of Karbala revolted against the Ottoman authorities and in the end was slaughtered even in the sacred shrines themselves. (Cole and Momen, “Mafia.”) It was an incident not unlike the Babi revolts. And, of course, the role of urban disturbances in the two great Iranian revolutions of the twentieth century is well known.

Not enough is known about the makeup of the Babi community of Zanjan, or about the population of Zanjan in 1850, to do any very deep analysis of the social and economic context of the battle. The Haydari-Ni‘mati feud is not mentioned, though perhaps it was there. Neither the Babi nor the Muslim sources tell us much about the economic status of the participants, for these writers did not think it was relevant. The most conspicuous sociological fact about the Zanjan Babis was that they were a pre-existing group, the followers of Hujjat, who became Babis more or less en masse. It seems likely, though it is not proven, that they were an Akhbari community and that they had been the followers of Hujjat’s father. They mostly lived in the eastern part of town, where they were evidently the bulk of the population. They were distinct from the Shaykhi Babis of Zanjan. Some also came from neighboring villages, although most likely the villagers had close links of kinship with the Akhbari Babis of the town. The Babis were thus not an economic class but a cross-section of the town defined by quarter and by allegiance to a particular religious leader. There is no evidence of the tribal or ethnic identity of this group or whether it differed from the ethnic identity of the rest of the town and district.

The Babi and Baha’i historians do note, however, that when open fighting broke out, it was the wealthier members of the community who were most likely to desert the cause. The individuals who distinguished themselves in the fighting and rose to leadership tended not to come from the traditional leading classes. One gets the impression of small craftsmen, retired sergeants, and the like, finding in the crisis a chance to express their talents. (Zanjani, Waqayi‘, 24–25, 40–43. ‘Abd al-Ahad, “Reminiscences,” 779. Amanat, Resurrection, 358.) It is known that Hujjat and his followers, even before their conversion to Babism, were sharply critical of the religious and political leadership. It thus seems very probable that the Babis’ willingness to fight had something to do with resentment at the incompetence and corruption of the leadership of the existing order. Given that not much specific is known about individual Babis in Zanjan and that even less is known about those who opposed the Babis or stayed neutral, little more can be said with certainty about the social and economic foundations of the Zanjan Babi community or about the social and economic factors that predisposed them to desperate armed resistance to the forces of the government.

Conceptual structures.

There is much more of interest to say about the conceptual structures that shaped the actions of the various participants. Four points of reference seem to have been important: the return of the Twelfth Imam, the paradigm of Karbala, the inviolability of Islamic law, and the autocratic model of governmental reform.

Shi‘ites believe that Muhammad entrusted his temporal and spiritual authority to the line of his successors, the Imams. This authority is thought to still belong to the twelfth of these successors, who lives in the fabulous underground cities of Jabulqa and Jabarsa. Since the Imam is not present to exercise his authority, it has for the time being passed into the hands of Muslim rulers and clergy, but when the Imam returns, he will reclaim his authority in this world. The Babis believed that—in one sense or another—the Bab was the return of the Hidden Imam. This simple fact was a permanent bar to any real coexistence of the Babis and the state. The Bab might have chosen not to delegitimize the structures of secular society, but he might do so at any time. The Babis of Zanjan and elsewhere admitted the legitimacy of the existing order only insofar as the Bab did not reject it. Conflict resulted when the Bab’s instructions conflicted with those of established authority. This conflict was equally well understood by the authorities. Once the nature of the Babi movement was understood, the government moved systematically and implacably to destroy it.

Moreover, the prophecies of Shi‘ite tradition told of a great war in which the Imam and his chosen companions would destroy the forces of evil. The Babis expected to be summoned to participate in this campaign; arguably, the fighting in Mazandaran was conceived as being the start of that campaign. The Bab certainly discussed holy war in his writings. Though he seems never to have called for the launching of the final war against evil, neither Babis nor state officials doubted that eventually he would. On that score too, both sides saw war as inevitable.

The second conceptual framework was the paradigm of Karbala, the battle in which the Imam Husayn, betrayed by the bulk of his followers, with a tiny band of companions fought until all were killed by the forces of a wicked and irreligious government. Though in a sense Karbala and the holy war of the Hidden Imam are opposites—the one utter defeat and the other inevitable triumph—when war began in Zanjan, the two seemed to fuse in the Babis’ minds. When the news arrived of the Bab’s execution, the Karbala motif became uppermost. The example of the martyrs of Karbala would have shaped the Babis’ attitudes towards the fighting, giving it a deeply symbolic quality, and steeled them for death and inevitable but holy defeat. The women, imprisoned in the stables of a mujtahid were like the women brought captive to unholy Damascus. The Babis’ opponents would also have noticed the parallels. The campaign dragged on for so long because of the lack of enthusiasm of the government troops. They too had grown up with the story of Karbala, and though they might not have been Babis themselves, they could scarcely have avoided wondering if they themselves were not reenacting a part in the Karbala tragedy as troops of a new godless Yazid.

The actions of the clergy were shaped by another conceptual framework, that of Islamic law, changeless and inviolable. The Bab’s claims of divine guidance were not wholly heretical in Shi‘ism, a religion in which the Hidden Imam may at any time choose to reassert his authority through whatever channels he wishes. The true source of the righteous indignation animating the anti-Babi clergy was Babi innovation in matters of law. This is very clear in the petition filed against Hujjat, in which petty changes in accepted Islamic law are presented as grave dangers to the security of religion and state. The clergy and their followers might tolerate claims of charismatic authority, but they could not tolerate the abrogation of any part of Islamic law.

A fourth set of ideas molded the thinking of the government officials who made the decision to suppress the Babis and execute the Bab, particularly Amir Kabir and his pupil, the young Nasir al-Din Shah. Like many thoughtful Iranians of the governing class, Amir Kabir realized that the country was in a desperate state and that drastic reforms were needed to modernize state and society before the country was swallowed up by the Europeans. Only a strong and autocratic ruler could impose the necessary reforms. Religion might be tolerated or encouraged in its sphere, but the king must exercise full authority in his. The Bab’s movement, no matter how sincere its followers might be or how legitimate their complaints, was a distraction that must be disposed of in order to allow the state to focus on more urgent problems. The words that the Baha’i historian Nabil attributes to Amir Kabir as he prepared to order the execution of the Bab can scarcely be authentic, but they do express the situation as he must have seen it:

[The innocence of the Bab is] wholly irrelevant to the issue with which we are faced. The interests of the State are in jeopardy, and we can in no wise tolerate these periodic upheavals. Was not the Imam Husayn, in view of the paramount necessity for safeguarding the unity of the State, executed by those same persons who had seen him more than once receive marks of exceptional affection from Muhammad, his Grandfather? Did they not in such circumstances refuse to consider the rights which his lineage had conferred upon him? Nothing short of the remedy I advocate can uproot this evil and bring us the peace for which we long. (Nabil, 502.)

Why Zanjan?

Why then did open fighting not break out in other places where there were actually smaller Babi disturbances? We may look, for example, at Shiraz following the Bab’s return from pilgrimage in 1845–46, Isfahan during the Bab’s visit, Qazvin during Tahira’s visit, and Tehran in 1852, when certain Babis attempted to assassinate the Shah. The first answer would seem to be that the Babis in these places did not form a large and cohesive unit that could react by banding together to fight. In Zanjan and Nayriz the Babis were a pre-existing community. At Shaykh Tabarsi they were a small army on the move. In the other cities there was no large and cohesive community but rather groups of loosely associated individuals drawn mainly from Shaykhi networks. In Tehran the Babis often were emigrants or refugees from elsewhere, forming groups that could not yet have been very closely knit. Second, except in Tehran the aborted disturbances took place early in the Babi period, before either side had concluded that violence was inevitable. A third factor was that all these cities, and especially Tehran, were strategic points and were much more carefully policed than country towns like Zanjan and Nayriz. In Tehran the authorities watched the Babi networks closely, imprisoning, exiling, or executing Babi leaders from time to time. Thus, when some Babis did actually plot to overthrow the government, the crackdown was ruthless and efficient. A final factor was that the Babis had no clear instructions from their leader to organize sedition, so except for the incident at Shaykh Tabarsi, open fighting occurred more or less by accident. In places like Shiraz and Tehran where the Babi leaders were inclined to accommodation, it was less likely that there would be trouble.

The events in Zanjan resemble most closely those in Nayriz. In Nayriz too there was mass conversion of a pre-existing social unit under the influence of a Babi cleric whose family already enjoyed great prestige in the town. The Babis already lived in the same quarters and had established leadership and group solidarity. When challenged, they easily slipped into the mode of armed resistance. The fact that neither town was an important place carefully controlled by the central government probably meant that there was more of a tradition of successful resistance to the authorities. Nayriz and Zanjan are to be contrasted in fundamental respects with Shaykh Tabarsi, the earliest and best known battle between the Babis and the government. The Babis at Shaykh Tabarsi were not a pre-existent group but were an ad hoc band of religious enthusiasts gathered around the charismatic leadership of Mulla Husayn Bushru’i and Quddus. They were united only by religion, and their fighting had a much more symbolic character.

In short, the explanation for the pattern of Babi uprisings is this: The logic of the positions of the two parties made conflict inevitable. Where the Babis were organized and in sufficient numbers, they fought back. Where they were not, they hid, fled, or were killed.

Goals and consequences.

Finally, we must consider the purpose for which the Zanjan Babis and their opponents fought and the actual long-term consequences of their actions. In the absence of an order for jihad from the Bab, the war-aims of the Babis were simply to defend themselves, and if they were unable to do so successfully, to emulate the example of the Imam Husayn and his followers, dying honestly in defense of the truth of their faith. The war-aims of the government were more practical: to eliminate the Babi military threat on the essential Tehran-Tabriz road. Each in its way was successful. Unable to make honorable terms with the government commanders, the Babis fought until only about a hundred of their fighters remained to surrender. Some others probably escaped in the closing weeks of the siege, but in general they were true to the example of Husayn. As for the government, they succeeded in nearly exterminating the Zanjan Babi community. It was not until the surviving children became adults that anything like an active Babi community reemerged in Zanjan. The Babis never again made trouble there.

Zanjan played only a small role in the historical memory of the later followers of the Bab. Though it was by far the largest of the Babi uprisings and though those killed there probably constitute nearly half of all the Babi and Baha’i martyrs to date, it was an event isolated from the mainstream of Babi life. Hujjat and his lieutenants were not part of the Shaykhi network from which most of the Babi leaders were drawn. Few of the other Babi leaders knew him. Hujjat was in contact with Bahaullah while he was in Tehran, and he corresponded with the Bab, but the Zanjan community was nonetheless isolated. Thus, Zanjan never assumed the symbolic importance of Shaykh Tabarsi in later Baha’i imagination. The greatest effect on the Babis was indirect: most likely, the outbreak of fighting in Zanjan determined Amir Kabir to order the execution of the Bab.

As for the clergy, the Zanjan uprising, at least as part of the general challenge of Babism, forced them into a more rigid stand against religious unorthodoxy and innovation. They tightened their own organization, rallying around the leading maraji‘ taqlid and becoming both more effective and less open to internal innovation.

The effects of the battle were also felt by the townspeople and by the state. First, large portions of the city were left in ruin. Thirty years later when Browne passed through, the city still had not entirely recovered. Second, the event was profoundly frightening. Zanjan was not a remote spot like Shaykh Tabarsi or Nayriz; any Iranian who had traveled between Tehran and Tabriz would have spent at least a night in Zanjan. For decades, travelers and officials passing through heard tales of the supernatural valor and cunning of Hujjat and the Zanjan Babis. The success of the Babi resistance pointed out the inadequacies of the Persian army and the vulnerability of the state to popular uprising. The result was a hardening of state resolve against the Babis and probably as well against other sorts of popular movements.

The last word belongs to the Baha’i historian Nabil:

I was privileged, nine years after the termination of that memorable struggle, to visit Zanjan and witness the scene of those terrible butcheries. I beheld with grief and horror the ruins of the fort of ‘Ali-Mardan Khan, and trod the ground that had been saturated with the blood of its immortal defenders. I could discern on its gates and walls traces of the carnage that marked its surrender to the enemy, and could discover upon the very stones that had served as barricades, stains of the blood that had been so profusely shed in that neighborhood. (Nabil, 579.)

*This paper was originally published in Iranian Studies 29/3–4 (Fall/Winter 1996), pp. 339–62.

Chapter Four

The Baha’i Faith in Turkey

Turkey is an Islamic state occupying the Anatolian peninsula and a small area of the southeastern part of the Balkan Peninsula. Modern Turkey is the successor state of the Ottoman Empire, which until the end of World War I also controlled parts of the Arab Near East and the Balkans. The Ottoman Empire played a major role in Baha’i history, for it was to Ottoman Iraq that Bahaullah went as an exile in 1853. Later he was exiled under Ottoman authority to Istanbul, Edirne, and ‘Akka. ‘Abd al-Baha also lived in the Ottoman Empire for most of his life, the greater part of the time as a prisoner.

Baha’is have lived in the territory of modern Turkey since the time of Bahaullah’s exile to Istanbul. The contemporary Baha’i community consists of several thousand believers with about a hundred local spiritual assemblies. The National Spiritual Assembly of Turkey was formed in 1959.

In addition to those living in modern Turkey itself, there are large numbers of Turks elsewhere, particularly in northwestern Iran and Soviet Central Asia. There are a considerable number of Turkish-speaking Baha’is in Iran and an increasing number of Turkic-speaking Baha’is in the new republics of Central Asia.

The Rise and Decline of the Ottoman Empire

The Turks are among the many peoples who have overflowed from the steppes of Central Asia into the settled areas of the Middle East, Europe, and China. First known as the nomadic founders of a sixth-century empire stretching across Central Asia to the Black Sea, by the tenth century C.E. they had drifted into the eastern Islamic lands, at first as mercenaries but soon as rulers. Their descendants today are scattered across Central and Southwest Asia. They are linked by history, language, and a common allegiance to Islam. The Ottoman Empire began in the thirteenth century as one of the petty Turkish principalities in the former Byzantine lands of western Anatolia. In a series of brilliant conquests over the next two centuries, the Ottomans built an empire covering most of Anatolia and the southern Balkans, capped in 1453 with the capture of Constantinople itself. The Ottomans triumphantly moved the government from their old capital of Edirne (Adrianople) to Constantinople. At its height in the sixteenth century the Ottoman Empire stretched from Iraq to Algeria and from the Crimea to Aden and was one of the most powerful and advanced states in the world.

By the beginning of the nineteenth century, however, it was clear that the Ottomans had failed to keep pace with the technological, economic, and military advances of the European states. Moreover, the administrative structure of the empire had become corrupt and the Sultan’s power diluted. A number of provinces had already been lost to European neighbors or insubordinate governors. Many observers expected the empire to collapse. Napoleon, for example, invaded Egypt and Syria as a way of striking at Britain’s Eastern interests.

However, the Ottomans proved more resilient than expected. A series of reforming Sultans attempted to reorder the state, army, and economy after European models. Salim (Selim) III (1789–1807) attempted to establish a “New Order” in which the old Janissary Corps would be replaced by a modern army, modern schools established, and the people given a say in local administration. In the end, however, the old army and government establishment united against him, and he was overthrown in a mutiny of the Janissaries.

His cousin, Mahmud II (1808–39), after consolidating his own power, carried on the reforms. In 1826 he tricked the Janissaries into mutinying and massacred them. He also tried to reform education, mostly without success, though he did establish a modern medical school and language academies for training diplomats. The result was a professional diplomatic corps that furnished most of the reforming statesman of the next decades.

‘Abd al-Majid I (Abdülmecid, 1839–61), though young and susceptible to influence, was sympathetic to the reforms and issued a series of decrees known as the Tanzimat, which, at least on paper, went far towards making Turkey a modern state. However, by about 1850 the impetus towards reform had largely petered out. It was during ‘Abd al-Majid’s reign that the Crimean War (1853–56) took place, in which the European powers united against Russia in defense of Turkey. Bahaullah alludes to the destruction of a Turkish fleet by the Russians in his Tablet to Napoleon III, an incident that Napoleon had used to justify his entrance into the war.

The Tanzimat reforms had failed to transform the state fundamentally, although many improvements had resulted. Their flaw was that for the sake of reform, power had been concentrated in the hands of the Sultan in order to allow him to make necessary changes. However, once power passed into the hands of an incapable Sultan, there were no institutions capable of restraining him.

For the history of the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey, see Stanford J. Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey (2 vol.; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976– ); Lord Kinross, The Ottoman Centuries; EB “Turkey and Ancient Anatolia.” For the religious situation in contemporary Turkey, see World Christian Encyclopedia, s.v. “Turkey.”

Ottoman attitudes towards the Babis

In the nineteenth century Ottoman Iraq was the temporary or permanent home to a large number of Iranians—pilgrims, clerics, students, refugees, merchants—most drawn by the Shi‘i shrines there. The Babi religion first came to the attention of the Turkish authorities at the end of 1844 when one of the Letters of the Living, Mulla ‘Ali Bastami, was arrested in Iraq on the charges of circulating a blasphemous imitation of the Qur’an and disturbing the peace. Najib Pasha, the governor of Iraq under whose authority Bastami was tried, seems to have sincerely considered Bastami’s Babi views objectionable. Nonetheless, the main concern of the Turkish authorities was apparently to avoid provoking disturbances between the Shi‘i and Sunni communities in Iraq and complicating already strained relations with Iran.

Two years later when similar disturbances arose around the person of Tahira, Najib Pasha, having learned from the commotions associated with the Bastami affair, simply took her quietly into custody and held her in the house of a leading Sunni cleric while he waited for instructions from Istanbul. A few months later she was deported to Iran.

By the 1850s there were many Babis among the Iranians in Iraq, most notably Bahaullah. The Turks had traditionally granted asylum to refugees of all sorts, and at that time were freely giving Ottoman nationality to Iranian refugees, much to the irritation of the Iranian government. They protected the Babis as well, giving them citizenship when the Persian authorities tried to have them extradited. Bahaullah kept the Babis under careful control, so the Turks had few reasons to be apprehensive about them.

The Iranian government, seeing the recovery of the Babi community under Bahaullah’s guidance, was anxious to have him removed from Baghdad. The Iranian ambassador in Istanbul steadily agitated for this end. Eventually, the Turks gave in and ordered Bahaullah to Istanbul as a guest of the government.

For the trial of Mulla ‘Ali Bastami, see Amanat 220–38, Momen, “Trial,” Momen, Babi 83–90.

Istanbul, the Great City

From 16 August through 1 December 1863 Bahaullah was an exile in Istanbul. In the nineteenth century Istanbul was the chief city of the Islamic world and the capital of the Ottoman Empire. Once it had been Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine empire.

The City’s Name

Istanbul was originally named Byzantium, perhaps after the legendary Byzas, supposed to be the leader of the first Greek colonists to settle the site. The emperor Constantine the Great renamed the city “New Rome” and “Constantinpolis” in 330 C.E. In English this became “Constantinople"—"Qustantiyya” in the Islamic languages. This name remained in use until the adoption of the Roman alphabet in Turkey after World War I.

The modern name “Istanbul"—or “Stamboul” or “Astana"—is an Arabic corruption of a Greek phrase meaning “in the City” and was in use as early as the tenth century C.E. A pun attributed to Sultan Muhammad II, the Ottoman conqueror of the city, made this “Islambul"—“where Islam abounds.” This became the preferred spelling of educated Ottomans.

Islamic cities, like Islamic people, had titles. Those of Istanbul reflect its importance and prestige: “Seat of the Sultanate,” “Home of the Caliphate,” “Home of Victories,” “Dome of Islam,” and the like. Western diplomats referred to Istanbul and the Ottoman government as “the Sublime Porte,” a French mistranslation of Bab-i ‘Ali, “High Gate"—the name of the part of the palace where several ministries were located.

To Bahaullah Istanbul was simply “the City” or “the Great City” (al-madina al-kabira), reflecting its preeminence in the Islamic world.

History and description

Istanbul is strategically situated on the European bank of the waterway separating Europe from Asia, on a triangular peninsula formed by the Bosphorus, the Sea of Marmara, and a deep inlet called the Golden Horn. By its situation it controls sea traffic between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea and land traffic between the Balkans and Asia. Moreover, the Golden Horn is a splendid natural harbor, and the peninsula lent itself to defense. Thus, the history of Byzantium/Constantinople/Istanbul may be read as a twenty-six-century-long struggle between those who would use the city to dominate the lands bordering the Black Sea and eastern Mediterranean and those who found their ambitions limited by the rulers of the city.

According to legend, ancient Byzantium was founded about 657 B.C.E. by colonists from Megara and Argos during the great age of Greek colonization. The early history of the town is a complicated series of struggles as various powers contended for the town with its control of the Black Sea grain trade, punctuated by sacks as irritated neighbors retaliated for the tolls the city placed on shipping. Byzantium eventually joined the Roman Empire as a free confederate city, but soon lost its privileges. It was destroyed in 196 and 268 C.E. during civil wars, but was rebuilt both times. Ancient Byzantium occupied a much smaller area than the modern city, and none of its monuments survive.

In 330 C.E. Constantine I, the Great, the first Christian Roman emperor, moved the capital to Byzantium. Now known as Constantinople, the city almost immediately became the leading city of the Western world and the capital of what was really a new eastern Greek Christian empire. Constantine tripled the size of the city. He and his successors filled the city with wonderful churches, palaces, and monuments, and girdled it with great walls that were to be breached only once in their history. Within a century and a half, the last remnants of the Western Roman Empire had vanished, but the fortunes of the Eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire continued to rise, and by the sixth century it had attained a power and magnificence nearly equal to that of Rome at its height. Constantinople was also the seat of the Patriarch of Constantinople, among Christian prelates second only to the Pope in Rome. After the split with Rome in the eleventh century, he became the titular head of the whole Orthodox Church, as he remains to this day. Thus, Constantinople became a sort of holy city to the Eastern Christians.

After the sixth century the empire slowly dwindled, but Constantinople remained one of the world’s great cities. At its height it had a population of half a million. An Arab traveler of the twelfth century could still remark, “This city is even greater than its repute.” By the fifteenth century, however, the Byzantine Empire had been reduced to some small, distant, and impoverished provinces and a few kilometers of land outside the city wall. The city was full of ruins and largely empty of people. The end came in 1453.

Muslims had besieged Constantinople for the first time in 669 C.E. During this campaign the elderly Abu-Ayyub al-Ansari, the standard-bearer of the Prophet Muhammad himself, died and was buried before the walls of Constantinople. The siege failed. Naval raids a few years later also failed. In 716–17 the caliph Sulayman b. ‘Abd al-Malik, encouraged by a tradition that Constantinople was to be conquered by a caliph bearing the name of a prophet, besieged the city, again without success. Seven centuries would pass before a Muslim army again stood before the Great City.

In 1355 the Ottoman Turks, having taken the last Byzantine territory in Asia Minor, crossed the Dardanelles and established themselves in Europe. For nine more decades the city maintained a fragile independence, protected mostly by the larger dangers and opportunities that preoccupied the Turks. A Turkish siege in 1422 failed to take the city, but in April 1453 a larger army equipped with the finest siege artillery in the world appeared before the walls. The desperate pleas of the last Byzantine emperor for aid from the West brought only two thousand Genoese soldiers. Cheered by the miraculous rediscovery of the tomb of Abu-Ayyub, the Turks stormed the city on 29 May. The last Roman emperor died fighting on the walls.

Sultan Muhammad II—now called “Fatih,” the “Conqueror”—made Constantinople his capital. Finding the city in ruins and depopulated, he filled it with people deported from other conquered areas. He ordered his nobles to build the mosques and other public buildings for the various quarters of the city. By the end of his reign the population was perhaps 70,000. Over the next century Istanbul rose steadily in wealth, population, and magnificence as the sultans strove to make their capital the greatest city in the world. In various ways the Sultans attempted to make Istanbul a sacred city of Islam. The Byzantines had left the ancient domed church of Hagia Sophia (“Holy Wisdom”). Taking this as their model, the Ottomans filled the city with great domed mosques. In the sixteenth century the great architect Sinan and his staff built more than three hundred public buildings, most in Istanbul. Though the highpoint of Ottoman architecture was the sixteenth century, the Sultans continued building right up to the end of the nineteenth century.

The Ottoman Empire was cosmopolitan, embracing dozens of nationalities—a diversity reflected in the capital. From the first the Sultans had brought Christians and Jews to live in Istanbul. Once the city was reestablished, people flocked in of their own accord: Arab, Turkish, and Persian Muslims; Greek and Armenian Christians; representatives of all the conquered Balkan provinces; Spanish Jews, refugees from the Inquisition seeking the relative freedom of Turkish rule; Western European traders, diplomats, and mercenaries. Typically, people of a particular ethnic group would settle in a quarter around a mosque, church, or synagogue. There they would be allowed to govern their own affairs and would be held collectively responsible for the taxes, good order, and public health of their neighborhood.

After the sixteenth century Istanbul began a slow decline, reflecting the decline of Ottoman power. The city had always been troubled by earthquakes, fires, plagues, and civil disorder. With the decline of the central authority, these grew worse. With the central authorities no longer able to strictly enforce building regulations, areas once burned over filled up with ramshackle wooden houses. Houses had long since encroached on the broad avenues of Byzantine Constantinople. The city had become a warren of narrow alleys. The rise of modern industrial Europe slowly ruined Istanbul’s traditional industries and trade. The government was no longer as rich or as efficient as it had been. Whereas the charitable endowments of wealthy noblemen had once built hospitals, hospices, public kitchens, and other such institutions requiring large annual expenses, they now built libraries and fountains.

Thus, when Bahaullah came to Istanbul in 1863, he found the Great City at perhaps its lowest point since the mid-fifteenth century, though still the greatest city of the Islamic world. It abounded with magnificent mosques and swarmed with people from many countries. It was the most European of Islamic cities, its harbors choked with shipping from all over the world and offering regular steamship service to Europe, Africa, and Asia. But Istanbul was run-down and ramshackle, like the empire it ruled, and none of the improvements in public services and facilities had yet been made that were later to transform Istanbul into a modern city.

There is a vast literature on Istanbul, its history, and its monuments—even excluding works in Turkish. Popular works include Bernard Lewis, Istanbul and the Civilization of the Ottoman Empire (Norman, Oklahoma: 1972); Constantinople: City on the Golden Horn (New York: Horizon Caravel Books, 1969); and Istanbul (Time-Life Books). See also EB “Istanbul.” Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire contains a classic account of Byzantine Constantinople. EI2 “Istanbul” contains detailed information with full bibliography on the development and workings of Turkish Istanbul. EI2 “Qustantiniyya” discusses the period before the conquest from the Islamic point of view. Guidebooks such as Hilary Sumner-Boyd and John Freely, Strolling through Istanbul (London: KPI, 1987) are a good source of information and monuments and the flavor of the city. Since modern tourism started about the time of Bahaullah, guidebooks exist from his time, such as Handbook for Travellers in Constantinople (London: John Murray, 1845, 1871).

Bahaullah in Istanbul

Bahaullah and his party reached Istanbul on Sunday, 16 August 1863/1 Rabi‘ I 1280 after a two-and-a-half day journey by steamship from Samsun on the northern coast of Asia Minor. Shamsi Big, an official responsible for guests of the government, met them and had them driven in carriages to a government guest house near the Mosque of Khirqiy-i Sharif. This was in the center of the city, not far from the huge Fatih Mosque built by Muhammad II. Shamsi Big assiduously attended to the needs of the exiles, though the large party—more than fifty people—overcrowded the house. He hired two servants to do errands and cooking. Various of Bahaullah’s companions helped as well.

The next day a representative of the Persian embassy called on Bahaullah bearing the compliments of Haji Mirza Husayn Khan Mushir al-Dawla, the Persian ambassador, and an apology for not being able to call in person. It was a courteous and carefully calibrated acknowledgement of Bahaullah’s high social rank and his status as a political exile. Many other visitors came as well, including high Turkish officials such as Yusuf Kamal Pasha, a former prime minister with whom Bahaullah discussed the possibility of an international language.

Bahaullah himself refused to return these visits or to make the customary calls on the Shaykh al-Islam, the foreign minister, and the prime minister to arrange an audience with the Sultan. Bahaullah turned aside the advice of friends with the words, “I have no wish to ask favors from them. I have come here at the Sultan’s command. Whatsoever additional commands he may issue, I am ready to obey.” Years later, the Persian ambassador, who had been shamed by the Persian princelings and schemers who swarmed in Istanbul looking for favors and pensions from the Sultan, confessed that he had felt pride in Bahaullah’s “dignified aloofness.” So it was left to Bahaullah’s brother Mirza Musa to do such visiting as was necessary, accompanied by Aqa ‘Abd al-Ghaffar Isfahani, the only one of Bahaullah’s companions who spoke Turkish well. Bahaullah himself never went anywhere except to his brother’s house and to the mosque and public baths. Nonetheless, Bahaullah did not live in seclusion. Visitors crowded into the house, and he regularly received his companions. Other Babis began to appear in Istanbul—though Bahaullah, foreseeing that they would occasion trouble, sent them away as fast as he could.

Baha’u’’llah composed several major tablets during this period, notably his Mathnavi, a mystical poem in Persian; the Lawh-i Naqus, known as Subhanaka ya Hu, revealed for the holy day of the Declaration of the Bab, which fell during Bahaullah’s stay in Istanbul; and the tablet to Sultan ‘Abd al-‘Aziz and his ministers.

It was also at Istanbul that Bahaullah’s eighteen-month-old daughter Sadhijiyya died. The child was buried outside the Edirne Gate. She was the daughter of Mahd-i ‘Ulya, Bahaullah’s second wife.

The original house having proved too small, the party moved after about a month to the house of Visi Pasha, a much larger and more comfortable house a short distance away near the Fatih Mosque.

The Persian ambassador soon realized he had made a major mistake in having Bahaullah brought to Istanbul. Though he was now much farther from Iran, Istanbul was not an isolated provincial town like Baghdad but the chief capital of the Islamic world. The ambassador now urged the Turkish government to transfer Bahaullah to somewhere less conspicuous, either Bursa in Anatolia or Edirne in European Turkey. The Sultan and his ministers, though not personally hostile to Bahaullah, saw that Babi doctrines had the potential to undermine the basis of Ottoman government, as well as to complicate relations with Iran. In any case, it had always been the intention of the Ottoman government to exile Bahaullah and his party to some place away from the capital. (Documents recently discovered by Juan Cole in the Ottoman archives show that this was the case.)

The news was first brought to Bahaullah by Shamsi Big. Bahaullah was furious. He had been brought to Istanbul as a guest and now was being made a prisoner. His first impulse was to refuse to go, sending the women and children to foreign embassies for safety and letting the Turkish government do what it could. At worst, the public martyrdom of the Babis in Istanbul would bring great glory to the Babi cause, but Bahaullah was confident the government would back down. However, Mirza Yahya, who had been living under an assumed name among the exiles, refused to take this risk. Faced with the possibility of a public rift among the Babi exiles, Bahaullah had to comply with the government’s instructions. The official order was brought by a brother-in-law of the prime minister. Bahaullah replied with the stinging Lawh-i ‘Abd al-‘Aziz va-Wukala’—the “Tablet to ‘Abd al-‘Aziz and His Ministers.”

After less than four months in Istanbul, the exiles were ordered to proceed immediately to Edirne. On 1 December 1863 they set out for their new place of exile.

For Bahaullah’s stay in Istanbul, see ‘Abd al-Baha, Makatib 145, 157–61; Balyuzi, Baha’u’llah, 154–55, ch. 26; Taherzadeh 2: 1–6, 55–61, 317–18, 325–32; Salmani 37–40, Phelps 42–47; ‘Abd al-Baha, Traveller’s 54–55, 65; Momen, Babi 34n, 199–200; ‘Abd al-Baha, Some 31; Blomfield, Chosen 59–60; Bahaullah, Epistle 68–69; Ishraq-Khavari, Ma’ida 8:27–28; ‘Abd al-Baha, Makatib 2:177.

A number of sites in Istanbul are associated with Bahaullah. The house of Shamsi Big, the first residence of Bahaullah and the Babi exiles in Istanbul, was evidently a government guest house, not the personal residence of Shamsi Big. It was a two-story house of some size, though too small for the fifty-five exiles. Bahaullah and his family lived in the apartments upstairs, while the other Babis lived in rooms in the lower story. A pleasant reception room on the first floor provided a meeting-place for the Babis. This house was near the Mosque of Khirqiy-i Sharif in the Sultan Muhammad Quarter in the center of Istanbul. The old house no longer exists.

Bahaullah moved to the house of Visi Pasha about a month after his arrival in Istanbul. This was a fine three-story house with its own bath and cistern, separate private apartments for the family (the famous “Turkish harem”), and a large walled garden in the visitors’ section of the house. The house was located in the same quarter as the house of Shamsi Beg near the Mosque of Sultan Muhammad II Fatih that gave the quarter its name. This house also no longer exists. In 1952 Baha’is purchased part of the siteand in 1955 built a national hazirat al-quds on the site. Conditions did not allow the building to be used for official Baha’i purposes so it was used as a residence.

The Fatih Mosque (Fatih Camii), built by Sultan Muhammad II Fatih “the Conqueror” as his contribution to the reconstruction of his new capital, is the largest mosque complex in Istanbul. Completed in 1471, in its original form it occupied a huge square, over 300 m. on a side. About half the area was an open court, in the midst of which sits the large domed structure of the mosque itself. Legend says that the Sultan cut off the architect’s hand because the dome was smaller than that of the Church of Hagia Sofia. The cemetery behind the mosque contains the tombs of the Sultan and his queen. Around the courtyard were arranged an elementary school, library, hospital, public bath, dervish monastery, eight seminaries, and a public kitchen that once fed the thousands who lived or worked in the mosque complex, as well as the poor of the neighborhood. It was a particularly magnificent example of the mosques with their complexes of charitable institutions that once were the centers of life in Islamic cities. The mosque and most of the other buildings were destroyed in an earthquake in 1766. They were immediately rebuilt according to a new plan in a style influenced by European baroque architecture. While he was in Istanbul, Bahaullah went to public noon prayers almost every day, usually in this mosque.

The Mosque of Khirqiy-i Sharif (Hirka-i Serif Camii), the mosque of the Holy Mantle, held one of the relics proving the legitimacy of the Ottoman Sultans’ claim to the caliphate. This was the possession of the mantle of the Prophet. As it happened, the Ottomans had two mantles, so in 1851 Sultan ‘Abd al-Majid built this charming mosque for the second, the first being kept in the treasury in the Topkapi Palace. The mosque is in the Neoclassical Empire style of the age of Napoleon I. It was very near the house of Shamsi Big, and Bahaullah came here for noon prayers. Both these mosques exist unchanged from Bahaullah’s time.

The Edirne Gate (Edirnekap’) was in Bahaullah’s time one of the two main gates to the city. The road to Adrianople started from this gate, so it is probably through it that Bahaullah left the city. Muhammad the Conqueror entered the city in triumph through the Edirne Gate. In ancient times there was a cemetery outside the gate. Perhaps it was still there in the nineteenth century, for it was outside this gate that Bahaullah buried his little daughter Sadhijiyya.

There are many references to Istanbul in Baha’i literature, usually either allusions to the Turkish government or to Bahaullah’s exile there. The most important is the apostrophe to the city in the Kitab-i Aqdas. (Bahaullah, Codification 21) Bahaullah addresses the city as the “Spot that art situate on the shores of the two seas” and says that “the throne of tyranny hath, verily, been established upon thee.” There, Bahaullah says, he beheld “the foolish ruling over the wise, and darkness vaunting itself against the light.” He prophesies that the “outward splendor” of the city would “soon perish, and thy daughters and thy widows and all the kindreds that dwell within thee shall lament.” The Great City thus symbolized the pride and corruption of the Ottoman Empire, and the literal abasement of the city becomes an example of the retribution of God. The Suriy-i Muluk addresses the Persian and French ambassadors in Istanbul and its clergy and wise men, criticizing the latter for their failure to investigate Bahaullah’s claim.

Shoghi Effendi in The Promised Day is Come makes the decline of Istanbul a symbol and sign, not just of divine retribution upon the Ottoman Empire, but of the decline in influence of Islam. He cites the fall of the caliphate and the flight of the last Ottoman Sultan, the decision to make Ankara the capital of the new Republic of Turkey, and the secularization of the city and of some of the great mosques.

References to Istanbul and its affairs in Baha’i writings include Bahaullah, Proclamation 50, 102–4; Bahaullah, Epistle 106; Bahaullah, Athar Muluk (Lawh-i Ra’is) 234; ‘Abd al-Baha, Makatib 1:381, 2:121–22, 299; Shoghi Effendi, World 173–74, Shoghi Effendi, Promised 38–39, 65–66, 100–1; Shoghi Effendi, Tawqi‘at 3:61; Balyuzi, Eminent 3.

Istanbul after Bahaullah

Though the great domed mosques still dominate the skyline of central Istanbul, the city has changed much in the century and a half since Bahaullah. In 1865 the Khwaja Pasha fire—said by Bahaullah in the Lawh-i Ra’is to have been a divine warning—burned a large part of the city. This allowed the building of the first modern wide streets in the old city. Over the next half century modern city services were gradually constructed. In recent decades modern apartment blocks have largely replaced the wooden houses of old Istanbul, though the old city also holds the shanties of poor immigrants from the countryside. Istanbul is now a modern city covering several hundred square kilometers on both sides of the Bosphorus. A suspension bridge now connects Asia and Europe. The population has expanded enormously, particularly since the 1970s and is now more than eleven million.

Politically, the last century has not been kind to the Great City. The Young Turks Revolution of 1908 humbled the Sultan. Five wars filled the city with Muslim refugees from the former Ottoman territories in Europe. After World War I the city was occupied for five years by the Allies. The Turkish Republic, idealizing the Turkish villages of Anatolia, spurned Istanbul and made its capital in Ankara, deep in Asia Minor. The Sultanate and Caliphate were abolished. The last Sultan fled to Europe, and the city lost its position as leading city of the Islamic world.

With the fall of the cosmopolitan Ottoman Empire and the rise of nationalistic Turkey and Greece, the Greek Christians who had lived in Istanbul for five centuries under Turkish rule began to leave. Istanbul has become steadily more Muslim and Turkish.

The Baha’i community of Istanbul

The first Babi to reach Istanbul was Mulla ‘Ali Bastami, the Letter of the Living who had gone to the Shi‘ite holy cities of Iraq to announce the coming of the Bab. He was arrested, condemned, sent as a prisoner to Istanbul, and set to hard labor in the naval dockyards where apparently he died, for he was never heard from again.

When Bahaullah left for Edirne, he left behind Aqa Muhammad-‘Ali Jilawdar (also known as Sabbagh-i Yazdi) as a sort of Babi agent to assist pilgrims passing through the city. About two years later he joined Bahaullah in Edirne. Others—both Baha’i and Azali—came to the city. Nine were arrested in 1868 at the time of Bahaullah’s exile to ‘Akka, interrogated, and either deported or sent along with the other exiles.

While Bahaullah and ‘Abd al-Baha were in ‘Akka, most Baha’i pilgrims passed through Istanbul, preferring the convenience of Russian railroads and steamships to the arduous overland journey through Iraq and Syria. Some stayed on in Istanbul. The Baha’i Qajar prince Abu al-Hasan Mirza Shaykh al-Ra’is spent several years there in the 1880s and 1890s, for example. See Juan Cole’s articles on this individual. In the early 1880s the Afnan family established a branch of their trading firm in Istanbul under the management of Nabil ibn Nabil, the brother of Samandar. Istanbul at this time was also a center of Azali activity, mainly directed against the Qajar regime but also against Bahaullah. The Azalis made a number of accusations against the honesty of the Afnans. The affair lasted ten years, drove Nabil ibn Nabil to suicide, and forced the Afnans to close their office in Istanbul.

For the complicated affair of Nabil ibn Nabil and the Azalis in Istanbul referred to in Bahaullah, Epistle 33, 108–9, 123–24, see Balyuzi, Baha’u’llah ch.40, Taherzadeh 3:172, 4:391–406; Ishraq-Khavari, Muhadirat 275–77, 417.

The modern Baha’i community of Istanbul was established around the turn of the century. After the establishment of the Republic of Turkey, the new government attempted to suppress all the old religious institutions. When Baha’is were arrested in Smyrna on suspicion of being a secret religious society, the Istanbul Spiritual Assembly intervened on their behalf and were themselves arrested. However, they were soon cleared, having had the opportunity to explain their beliefs publicly. Shoghi Effendi reported the event as a triumphant vindication of the Faith that resulted in publicity all over the Middle East. Baha’is were arrested again on similar charges in 1933 and were held for about two months. In 1951 a Baha’i delegation attended a United Nations conference for Middle Eastern non-governmental organizations in Istanbul. Shoghi Effendi told the Baha’i world of his pleasure at the degree of official recognition received by the Faith on this occasion. In 1952 Baha’is were able to purchase part of the site of the house of Visi Pasha. Since 1959 Istanbul has been the seat of the National Spiritual Assembly of Turkey. There is now a Baha’i center in Istanbul.

On the Baha’i community of Istanbul, see Balyuzi, Baha’u’llah 31n; Taherzadeh 1:286–89; ‘Abd al-Baha, Makatib 303; Baha’i World 3:222–23, 4:317 (a photo of the community, c. 1930), 8:692, 9:659, 12: 66, 602, 605–7, 14:602; Baha’i News 28 (Nov. 1928) 2, 72 (Ap. 1933) 4, 245 (July 1951) 7; Shoghi Effendi, Baha’i 152, 167–69; Garis, Root 295, 322–23, 326–27; Balyuzi, Eminent 147–48, 181–85, 259; Balyuzi, ‘Abdu’l-Baha 117, 399; Momen, Babi 89–90; Shoghi Effendi, Tawqi‘at 3:33; Rabbani, Priceless 316–18.

Edirne, the Land of Mystery

Bahaullah’s new place of exile was Edirne, the old capital of the Ottoman Empire, about 225 km. northwest of Istanbul on the main road from Istanbul to Central Europe.

Name, History, and description

Roman Edirne was called Hadrianopolis or Adrianople—the “city of Hadrian.” In Turkish this became Adirna—"Edirne” in modern Turkish spelling. Europeans—who learned classical Greek but not Turkish in their schools—continued to call the city “Adrianople” until Turkey adopted the Roman alphabet in the 1920s. Baha’i writers use “Edirne” in Persian and Arabic and generally use “Adrianople” in English. There are occasional references to “Rumelia,” the nineteenth-century name for the area around Edirne. Bahaullah, however, usually referred to Edirne as Ard-i Sirr, “the Land of Mystery"—Sirr, “mystery,” and Adirna both having the numerical value of 260 in Abjad reckoning. Bahaullah sometimes associates the epithet “remote” (ba‘id) with Edirne, as in the reference to “this remote prison” in the Arabic Tablet of Ahmad. He also calls it “the city We have made Our throne."

Edirne is strategically situated at the junction of several rivers in the gap between the Rhodope and Istranja mountain ranges and thus controls access from Europe to the Thracian plain and Istanbul itself. It is beautifully situated on a hill within a bend of the river Tunja.

The city was evidently founded by the Thracians who called it Uskadama. After its capture by the Macedonians in the fourth century B.C.E., it was renamed Oresteia. The Emperor Hadrian rebuilt the city in the second century C.E. Adrianople was an important Byzantine fortress town for more than a thousand years, guarding Constantinople against threats from the northwest. Major battles were fought there against Goths, Avars, Bulgars, Crusaders, Serbs, and Turks. In July 1362 the troops of the Ottoman Sultan Murad I defeated the last Byzantine governor of Adrianople. The Ottomans made it their capital for the next ninety years and the springboard for their conquests in the Balkans. After the fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453, Edirne was no longer the capital but remained a favored retreat for the Sultans of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The town prospered under the favor of Sultans who built fabulous palaces, mosques, and other buildings in the town.

In the eighteenth century Edirne began to decline with the general loss of Ottoman power in the Balkans. Several mutinies of the garrison, a catastrophic fire, and an earthquake all damaged the city. After an occupation by Russian troops in 1828–29, Muslims began moving from the city to be replaced by Christians coming from nearby villages. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the population of Edirne was very mixed, with Muslim Turks being a minority. The bulk of the population consisted of Christian Greeks and Bulgarians with a large Jewish minority, Gypsies, and the usual scattering of nationalities from all over the Balkans and Near East. The population was about 100,000.

Though many of the Ottoman monuments had already disappeared or were in ruins, a number of important buildings still stood, especially several great mosques. Madrasas, bazaars, and caravansaries served the needs of learning, commerce, and travellers. The city once contained many palaces and mansions, but these had suffered cruelly in the decline of the city.

For the history and description of Edrine, see EI2 and EB, s.v. “Edirne.”

Bahaullah in Edirne

Bahaullah’s exile to Edirne marks his transformation from a guest of the Ottoman government to a political prisoner. Edirne, wrote Bahaullah, was “the place which none entereth except such as have rebelled against the authority of the sovereign.” (‘Abd al-Baha, Makatib 161.) The journey there was made in the middle of winter without adequate preparations, and Bahaullah’s party suffered severely. On their arrival they were placed in a series of temporary accomodations, vacant summer houses too small and too poorly built to hold a large number of people in winter. Among the documents giving some details of life and events in Edirne is a very early letter of ‘Abd al-Baha written in 1864 complaining of their living conditions during this first winter. Eventually adequate housing was found, but Bahaullah nonetheless moved several more times during his stay in Edirne. The other Baha’is generally rented houses near Bahaullah’s. Most of the Baha’is not serving in Bahaullah’s household found work, usually keeping shops in the bazaar. This helped to ease the financial hardships that had afflicted them during the first months in Edirne.

Two of Bahaullah’s children were born in Edirne, Diya’u’llah in 1864 and Badi‘u’llah in 1867.

Bahaullah’s stay in Edirne marked a crucial stage in the development of the Baha’i Faith. Most important, it was from Edirne that Bahaullah first made public announcement of his claim to prophethood. Most of the Tablets to the Kings were written in Edirne. Many tablets also announced and defended his claim to the Babi community. Messengers such as the historian Nabil carried the news of this claim to the Babis and won the allegiance of most of the Babi community of Iran and Iraq. A steady flow of pilgrims came to Edirne and carried away the news of Bahaullah’s claim.

The second major development of the Edirne period was the open break with Mirza Yahya, the generally-recognized successor of the Bab. Mirza Yahya had grown increasingly jealous of Bahaullah’s prestige. However, this had been concealed from the ordinary Babis, and Mirza Yahya had remained part of Bahaullah’s household. In Edirne, however, the dispute finally came into the open. After Bahaullah formally confronted Mirza Yahya with his claim to be him whom God shall make manifest, the promised one of the Bab, Mirza Yahya responded with a counterclaim to prophethood. Affairs reached such a state that Mirza Yahya made two attempts to kill Bahaullah, once by poison and once by suborning Bahaullah’s bath attendant. On 22 Shavval 1282/10 March 1866 Bahaullah withdrew from the community to allow his followers to decide their allegiances for themselves. Most chose to follow Bahaullah. Bahaullah referred to this period as the Ayyam-i Shidad (the “days of stress") and the “most great separation."

Finally, it was in Edirne that Bahaullah began to establish the laws of his own religion, composing, for example, the tablets containing the rituals to be followed during pilgrimage to the two Holy Houses of Shiraz and Baghdad, the prayers of fasting, and a summary of Baha’i law, as well as the Tablet of the Branch, which prefigured ‘Abd al-Baha’s later appointment as his successor.

During these years the Baha’is maintained excellent relations with the authorities and townspeople. Bahaullah and ‘Abd al-Baha were on visiting terms with several of the governors, as well as with consuls, missionaries, and the clergy, all of whom thought well of the character and piety of the Baha’is. Later some of these people came to visit in ‘Akka. It was also in Edirne that Bahaullah had his most extensive contact with Europeans.

In 1863–68 there were four governors of Edirne, at least three of whom are known to have been on good terms with the Baha’is: Muhammad-Amin Pasha Qibrisi, 1861–Apr. 1864, a former prime minister; Sulayman Pasha, Apr. 1864–Dec. 1864; ‘Arif Pasha, Dec. 1864–Mar. 1866; Muhammad-Khurshid Pasha, Mar. 1866– , whose deputy was ‘Aziz Pasha, later the governor of Beirut in 1889–92. When accusations were first made against Bahaullah, Khurshid Pasha defended his innocence. Later, when the orders came to exile Bahaullah, the Pasha left the city in protest, leaving his deputy ‘Aziz Pasha to carry out the explusion. ‘Aziz Pasha was a friend of ‘Abd al-Baha and later visited Bahaullah and ‘Abd al-Baha in ‘Akka.

Eventually, the dispute between the Baha’is and the Azalis came to the attention of the authorities. The decision was made to exile both parties to less sensitive areas. One morning in early August 1868, troops surrounded the house of Bahaullah. Despite the protests of the foreign consuls and the governor on their behalf, the Baha’is and Azalis were ordered to leave the city immediately. Bahaullah refused to leave until his steward could settle his debts. The property of the Baha’is was sold at auction at very low prices. Bahaullah and his companions left the city on 12 August 1868/22 Rabi‘ II 1285.

During their stay in Edirne, the Baha’i exiles rented a considerable number of houses and gardens. In addition, several other sites are also associated with Bahaullah’s stay.

The Khan-i ‘Arab was the two-story caravansary where Bahaullah was lodged during his first three nights in Edirne. It seems to have been located near the house of ‘Izzat Pasha, evidently in the southeastern part of the city near the Istanbul road. The accomodations there were poor. Others in the party stayed there somewhat longer. The Khan-i ‘Arab no longer exists.

Bahaullah and his family moved to a house near the Takyiy-i Mawlavi in the Muradiyya Quarter from the caravansary. It was too small for his family so they moved again after a week. Others of the party moved in from the caravansary after his departure. Bahaullah then moved to a larger house in the same area. His brothers, Yahya and Musa, lived with their families in a second house next door. These early residences in Edirne were all poorly built, draughty, and verminous. Since the winter was extremely cold and Bahaullah’s family had spent the previous winter in sweltering Baghdad, they were unprepared for the cold and suffered severely, especially the children, who were frequently sick. The sites of these first two houses were identified by Martha Root during her visit in 1933.

After six months or so, Bahaullah was able to rent the house of Amru’llah, a very large house across the street from the north entrance to the Salimiyya Mosque in the center of the city. This was a splendid three-story house covering a city block. The andaruni (inner family quarters) had thirty rooms. Bahaullah and his family occupied the top floor, Mirza Muhammad-Quli and his family the middle, and servants the bottom. The biruni (outer house) had four or five reception rooms on the top floor, as well as a kitchen. Other Baha’is occupied the middle floor. The house had a bath, cistern, and running water in the kitchen. Mirza Musa and Mirza Yahya occupied two other houses in the same quarter. Food for all three houses was prepared in the house of Amru’llah and was distributed to the poor as well. Meetings for prayer and to hear Bahaullah were regularly held in the reception rooms. Bahaullah lived in this house from 1864 until March 1866 and again later for a few months, probably during the first half of 1867. When the house was sold he moved to his final residence, the house of ‘Izzat Pasha. The house was apparently named for its owner, one Amru’ll’ah Big, but coincidentally its name means “Cause” or “command of God."

A the time of the open split with Mirza Yahya, Bahaullah moved to the house of Rida Big, where he lived with his family for a little less than a year, the first few months in total seclusion. It is now in Baha’i hands and has been rebuilt. Mirza Musa also had a house in the neighborhood, as did a number of Bahaullah’s companions. Down the street is an orchard rented by Bahaullah, now also in Baha’i hands. The house of Rida Big had an andaruni and a small biruni, but the latter had a very large walled garden.

After the sale of the house of Amru’llah, Bahaullah rented the house of ‘Izzat Aqa in the southeastern part of the city, not far from the Khan-i ‘Arab. This was another large house with a fine view of the river and countryside. There were two large courtyards with flowers and trees. Bahaullah lived here for about eleven months. his companions had another house in the same area. Mishkin-Qalam, the calligrapher, and Mirza Musa also had houses in the area which Bahaullah visited on occasion.

Also associated with Bahaullah is the Muradiyya mosque and Takyiy-i Mawlavi, which together form a fine fifteenth century mosque complex. Originally it was built for the Mawlavi dervishes, the mystical order founded by the poet Rumi and much patronized by the Ottoman Sultans. When the building became a mosque, a takya—dervish monastery—was built next door. Subsidiary charitable foundations were added to the complex: baths, a hospital, a seminary, a bakery, and an almshouse. Several of the Baha’i houses were close to this mosque, and Bahaullah is known to have visited it. It still stands.

The Salimiyya Mosque is the great domed royal mosque of Edirne. Built for the cultured and dissolute Sultan Salim II, “the Sot,” this wonderful building was the masterwork of Sinan, the greatest architect of the Ottomans. Its dome and minarets dominate the city, as they have since 1575. It was in this mosque that Mirza Yahya challenged Bahaullah to meet him to publicly dispute their claims. Bahaullah came to the mosque at the appointed time, but Mirza Yahya failed to appear.

For accounts of Bahaullah’s time in Edirne, see ‘Abd al-Baha, Makatib 161–180, Balyuzi, Baha’u’llah 217–59, 460–62, Taherzadeh 2, Momen, Babi 185–200, 205–7, 234–35, 487, Balyuzi, ‘Abdu’l-Baha 19–26, ‘Abd al-Baha, Traveller’s 55–59, Phelps, Life 47–69, Blomfield, Chosen 60–64, Shoghi Effendi, Baha’i 189.

Edirne after Bahaullah

Edirne is mentioned often in the later writings of Bahaullah, usually as the “Land of Mystery.” It is often associated with the open proclamation of his prophetic mission. The most important direct references to Edirne in Bahaullah’s writings are the prophecies found in the Suriy-i Ra’is and some other tablets of great destruction and political turmoil in the Edirne area and of Sultan ‘Abd al-‘Aziz’s impending loss of these territories. The fulfilment of these prophecies ten years later greatly raised Bahaullah’s prestige and was a proof often cited by Baha’i teachers over then next several decades. Another passage in the Suriy-i Ra’is states that “this Youth hath departed out of this country and deposited beneath every tree and every stone a trust, which God will erelong bring forth through the power of truth.”

‘Abd al-Baha, Makatib 181. Persian sources on the Edirne period, mainly important for Bahaullah’s prophecies concerning Edrine, are Ishraq-Khavari, Ma’ida 8:27–28, Mazandarani, Amr 2:284–92, 4:453–58, Ishraq-Khavari, Rahiq 1:55–56, 67–72, Qamus-i Tawqi‘ 1:100–104, Ishraq-Khavari, Da’irat 2:282, 283, 7:915. Other references to these prophecies and related subjects include ‘Abd al-Baha, Promulgation 398, Shoghi Effendi, World 178, Shoghi Effendi, Promised 62, 65, Iqt. 74, ‘Abd al-Baha, Tablets 213, Ishraq-Khavari, Ma’ida 4:277, 7:194–95, Bahaullah, Epistle 132, Bahaullah, Athar 4:336, ‘Abd al-Baha, Makatib 2:213, Zarqani, Badayi‘ 1:357, 2:194.

Bahaullah’s prophecies concerning Edirne were realized when war broke out with Russia and several Balkan Christian states soon after the fall of ‘Abd al-‘Aziz in 1876. The war of 1877–78 with Russia began with an initial success as the Turks heroically defended Plevna in Bulgaria against a Russian siege. However, when the Turks attempted to break out, they were defeated. The Russians poured south and the Muslim population of Bulgaria and Rumelia fled before them, dying in thousands from cold, hunger, disease, and Russian shells in that horrible winter. All the chief towns of European Turkey fell, Edirne included. The city and its population, particularly the Muslims, suffered greatly from that occupation. Most of the Turkish territory north of Edirne was lost to the new Christian state of Bulgaria.

After the Russians withdrew, the town recovered for a time, and in 1890 its population was still about 87,000. However, it was once more devastated in the Balkan Wars of 1912–13. The Turkish defeats in October 1912 left Edirne besieged by the Bulgarians. The Turks held out there until March 1913. When the Bulgarians began fighting with their former allies over the spoils of the war, the Turks were able to reoccupy Edirne. After the establishment of modern Turkey in 1923, the Greek population abandoned the town as part of the population exchanges between the two countries. The population—65,000 in 1911—had dropped to 34,500 in 1927.

Today Edirne is a border town with a population of 72,000 (1980), the first stop for travellers entering Turkey by train from Western Europe. It is the capital of the province of the same name. The area grows various grains and fruits.

The modern Baha’i community

After Bahaullah’s departure in 1868, no Baha’is lived in or visited Edirne for many decades. The first recorded Baha’i visit to the city was that of Martha Root and Marion Jack, 17 October–6 November 1933. Shoghi Effendi had supplied them with a list of the houses and sites associated with Bahaullah. In the course of their visit they were able to identify four houses—all then in ruins after five wars—in which Bahaullah had lived, as well as several other sites. Though sixty-five years had passed since Bahaullah’s departure, they were able to find two old men who remembered “Baha’i Big” and “‘Abbas Big” and who were able to supply them with information about the Baha’i households.

By 1963 a local spiritual assembly had been established in Edirne with the aid of pioneers from Iran, and two sites associated with Bahaullah—the house of Rida Big and a nearby orchard—were in Baha’i hands. This house has been rebuilt though not fully restored and furnished. Pilgrims occasionally visit. Two major anniversaries of events in Bahaullah’s life were observed in Edirne. On 11–12 December 1963 some seventy Turkish Baha’is visited the city to observe the centenary of Bahaullah’s arrival there. In 1967 five Hands of the Cause came to commemorate the centenary of the revelation of the Suriy-i Muluk.

For Martha Root’s account of her visit to Edirne, see Baha’i World 5:581–93, reprinted in Garis, Root 179–96. This article contains photographs of most of the important Baha’i sites. See also Garis, Root 393–97. On the modern Baha’i community of Edirne and the house of Rida Big, see Baha’i World 14:3, Baha’i News 328 (6/1958) 14, 397 (4/1964) 3–4, 434 (5/1967) 2.

Sultan ‘Abd al-‘Aziz and his Ministers

The period from Bahaullah’s arrival in Istanbul in 1863 to his de facto release from confinement in ‘Akka in 1877 coincided with the important political developments that took place in the Ottoman Empire during the reign of Sultan ‘Abd al-‘Aziz. He and his ministers ‘Ali Pasha and Fu’ad Pasha were the Ottoman officials responsible for Bahaullah’s successive exiles, and each was the recipient of important tablets from Bahaullah. Ottoman officials were apparently impressed with Bahaullah personally, and ‘Ali Pasha praised his character and beliefs to foreign diplomats. However, the Ottomans were mainly interested in the Babis as a pawn in Turkish-Iranian relations. By favoring or suppressing the Babis, they could exercise some influence on the Persian government. Bahaullah, however, held himself aloof from such machinations, refusing even to return the visits of Turkish officials. This evidently irritated the Sultan, and the Ottoman government yielded to the Iranian entreaties to send Bahaullah away from Istanbul. They were also apparently becoming concerned about the possibility of Babi views on theocratic government spreading and undermining Ottoman authority.

The reasons for Bahaullah’s final exile, to ‘Akka, are not absolutely clear. Evidently, the agitation of the Azalis in Istanbul aroused the implausible fear that Bahaullah was conspiring with the Bulgarians. (Balyuzi, Baha’u’llah 254.) Foreign diplomats were told that the Baha’is threatened to cause unrest by their efforts to convert Muslims. Although there do not seem to have been converts in Edirne, a number of Baha’is had drifted into the city. There also had been trouble in Baghdad occasioned by the conversion of an Ottoman officer of Sunni clerical background. Bahaullah Himself believed that the Persian government was at least partly responsible. In any case, the Baha’is were treated with noticeable harshness in their expulsion from Edirne and in their initial conditions of imprisonment in ‘Akka.

In the late 1860s a further concern began to trouble the Ottoman government. A group of young intellectuals, the Young Ottomans, had started agitating for constitutional reform. Bahaullah’s letters to the kings, written mostly during the Edirne period, also advocated constitutional monarchy. A number of the Young Ottomans were in touch with Bahaullah and ‘Abd al-Baha, both because Bahaullah and ‘Abd al-Baha were perceived as belonging to corresponding social and intellectual circles in Iran and because some of the Young Ottomans were imprisoned in ‘Akka at the same time as Bahaullah. See Necati Alkan’s articles in the bibliography on these links. Thus during the last decades of Bahaullah’s life, he was imprisoned not just because of old fears of Babi revolution but also because of the threat of liberal reform.

Bahaullah addressed the Ottoman government in a number of his works, especially during the period 1863–73. A number of tablets, notably the Suriy-i Muluk and the lost Lawh-i ‘Abd al-‘Aziz va-Wukala, addressed the Sultan directly, sternly criticizing the quality of his government. Bahaullah also complained of the unjust treatment he had endured at the hands of the Ottoman government, especially after his exile to ‘Akka. The Persian Lawh-i Ra’is, for example, catalogs the sufferings endured by the Baha’i exiles during the early months in the Barracks of ‘Akka. The Kitab-i Aqdas, completed in 1873, also denounces the tyranny of the regime of ‘Abd al-‘Aziz.

For Bahaullah’s relations with the Ottomans, see ‘Abd al-Baha, Makatib 146–47, 172–75, 179, 181, 225; Momen, Babi 182–200; as well as the sources cited in elsewhere in this chapter.

Sultan ‘Abd al-‘Aziz

Sultan ‘Abd al-‘Aziz ("Abdülaziz.” b. 9 Feb. 1830. d. June 1876) was the thirty-second Ottoman Sultan. Bahaullah’s exiles to Istanbul, Edirne, and ‘Akka all took place during his reign, and it was only after his overthrow and death the Bahaullah regained relative freedom.

The third son of the reforming Sultan Mahmud II, ‘Abd al-‘Aziz came to the throne after the early death of his brother ‘Abd al-Majid I on 25 June 1861. In the early years of his reign he was under the influence of his two great ministers ‘Ali and Fu’ad Pasha, who were thus able to continue the Tanzimat reforms. European-style reforms were made in such areas as provincial administration, education, civil law, and the treatment of minorities and foreigners. He himself toured Western Europe, the first Ottoman sultan to do so. On the other hand, unrest continued in the Balkans, much encouraged by Russia. There were revolts in Montenegro, Serbia, Herzegovina, Bulgaria, and Crete, eventually leading to the loss of much territory in Europe.

After the deaths of Fu’ad and ‘Ali Pasha in 1869 and 1871, ‘Abd al-‘Aziz became increasingly autocratic and reactionary. Though he aligned the Ottoman Empire with Russia, a traditional enemy, unrest continued in the Balkans, culminating in a bloody uprising in Bulgaria in 1875–76. Beginning in 1873 famine struck Anatolia. In one particularly severe winter wolves killed animals and people in the suburbs of Istanbul. The “Young Ottomans,” a loose network of constitutionalist reformers, agitated against the regime. Finally, the government was forced in 1875 to default on the huge public debt accumulated through years of deficits, triggering a major financial crisis and panic.

Midhat Pasha, the president of the Council of State and a sympathizer with the Young Ottomans, obtained a fatva from the Mufti of Istanbul accusing the Sultan of madness, incompetence, and corruption, and with the support of other ministers, moved to depose him. Before dawn on 30 May 1876 warships and troops surrounded the palace. Another ship threatened the Russian embassy to prevent intervention from that quarter. At dawn a salute of 101 guns from the warships announced the fall of ‘Abd al-‘Aziz. A few days later he was dead, though whether by suicide or murder is unclear.

There is not much evidence of ‘Abd al-‘Aziz’s own attitude towards Bahaullah. Most likely he shared the fears of his chief ministers about possible Babi political ambitions. He did personally endorse Bahaullah’s final exile to ‘Akka and most probably the two earlier exiles.

On his part Bahaullah bitterly resented his treatment at the hands of ‘Abd al-‘Aziz. He had done nothing against the Ottoman government: there was no justification for the harsh manner in which he and his followers had been treated. Thus, he denounces ‘Abd al-‘Aziz in a number of tablets. The injustice of ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, he more than once told visiting pilgrims, was greater than that of Nasir al-Din Shah, for the latter had actually been the object of an attempted assassination by Babis, whereas ‘Abd al-‘Aziz had no just cause for complaint against Bahaullah or the Babis.

Soon after the death of Fu’ad Pasha in 1869, Bahaullah prophesied the deaths of ‘Ali Pasha and of ‘Abd al-‘Aziz in Suriy-i Fu’ad and Lawh-i Ra’is. This prediction was well known. Thus the dramatic fall of ‘Abd al-‘Aziz greatly raised Bahaullah’s prestige and was a factor in the conversions of at least two eminent Baha’is: ‘Azizu’llah Jadhdhab and Mirza Abu al-Fadl Gulpaygani. Since it was in 1877 that Bahaullah was finally able to leave ‘Akka and move the Mazra‘a, it seems probable that his relative freedom was a byproduct of the brief period of constitutional government under Midhat Pasha and the Young Ottomans.

‘Abd al-‘Aziz is addressed directly at least twice in the writings of Bahaullah. In addition, he is mentioned in several other tablets, as well as in the writings of Shoghi Effendi.

The Lawh ‘Abd al-‘Aziz va-Wukala’, “Tablet to ‘Abd al-‘Aziz and his Ministers,” was the first of Bahaullah’s letters to kings and his reply to the Sultan’s order exiling him to Edirne. The order had been brought by the brother-in-law of the prime minister. Bahaullah refused to see this man, who was received instead by ‘Abd al-Baha and Mirza Musa, Bahaullah’s brother. Bahaullah promised to send a reply within three days. The next day Shamsi Big, Bahaullah’s host, took this tablet in a sealed envelope to the prime minister. Shamsi Big told the Baha’is that the prime minister turned pale on reading it and said, “It is as if the King of Kings were issuing his behest to his humblest vassal king and regulating his conduct.” On seeing this reaction, Shamsi Big discreetly left.

The text of this tablet is lost, but Nabil reports that it was long, began with an address to the Sultan, and included passages addressed to the ministers condemning their conduct and character. It would thus seem to have been similar in content to the passages addressed to the Sultan and his ministers in the slightly later Surat al-Muluk. There is doubt as to the identity of the recipient. Shoghi Effendi identifies him as ‘Ali Pasha, the prime minister. However, ‘Ali Pasha was foreign minister at this time and Fu’ad Pasha prime minister.

The most important surviving passage addressed to Sultan ‘Abd al-‘Aziz is contained in the Surat al-Muluk, which also addresses the kings of the earth as a group. Bahaullah tells the Sultan that the selflessness of his advice is shown by the fact that he did not ask the Sultan for anything. He warns him against corrupt ministers. He should surround himself with just ministers with whom he consults about the good of the people. He should not rely on those who do not believe in God or who disobey divine law, for such people are not trustworthy. He should not allow others to act for him but should personally attend to matters of state. He should act with justice, trust in God, and observe moderation. He should pay special attention to the needs of the poor and prevent his ministers from enriching themselves at the expense of the people, for in Istanbul Bahaullah saw that worthless people ruled over honorable people. (This is repeated in the apostrophe to Constantinople in the Kitab-i Aqdas: “We behold in thee the foolish ruling over the wise, and darkness vaunting itself against the light.") The king is the shadow of God on earth and should behave accordingly. The passage ends with Bahaullah complaining of the unjust suffering he has had to endure but reaffirming his loyalty and praying for the well-being of the Sultan.

In Shoghi Effendi’s work on the letters to the kings, The Promised Day Is Come, Shoghi Effendi quotes the passages of the Surat al-Muluk addressed to Sultan ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, as well as the apostrophe to Constantinople from the Kitab-i Aqdas. A major theme of this work is the destruction of the individuals, states, and religious institutions hostile to Bahaullah and his Faith. Shoghi Effendi pairs ‘Abd al-‘Aziz with Nasir al-Din Shah but identifies him as more powerful than the Shah and more responsible for the sufferings of Bahaullah. He quotes the prophecies of the Lawh-i Ra’is of the destruction and loss of the lands around Edirne and of the Lawh-i Fu’ad of the death of ‘Ali Pasha and the Sultan himself.

Shoghi Effendi then traces the swift decline of Ottoman Turkey: the loss of European and African territory during the reign of ‘Abd al-Hamid II, the loss of the remaining Near Eastern and Balkan territories during and after World War I, along with the death of a large fraction of the empire’s population due to war, disease, starvation, and massacre. Finally came the extinction of the six-hundred year old dynasty along with the title of caliph supposedly inherited from Muhammad Himself. Turkey was made a secular state and the capital was moved to Ankara. This, Shoghi Effendi states, was the retributive justice of God on ‘Abd al-‘Aziz and his successors. Similar passages occur elsewhere in Shoghi Effendi’s writings, notably in Shoghi Effendi, World 174–76.

On ‘Abd al-‘Aziz and the tablets addressed to him see EI2 “‘Abd al-‘Aziz”; ‘Abd al-Baha, Makatib 146, 158–60, 172–73, 179, 181, 195, 208, 225; Balyuzi, Baha’u’llah 154, 199, 206–7, 260–62, 307, 359–61, 379, 411–13, 476; Momen, Babi 199, 311n., 485; Balyuzi, Eminent 183; Mu’ayyad, Khatirat 217, 234; Sulaymani, Masabih 4:227–28, 7:461. Shoghi Effendi, Promised 19, 61–66, 71; Shoghi Effendi, World 174–79. For his portraits see Balyuzi, Baha’u’llah 209, 263. The text of the relevant parts of Surat al-Muluk is found in Bahaullah, Alvah...bi-Muluk 35–49. The English translation is in Bahaullah, Gleanings cxiv, Shoghi Effendi, Promised 37–40, Bahaullah, Proclamation 47–54. A facsimile of the Farman banishing Bahaullah to ‘Akka is found in Baha’i World 15:50 and Balyuzi, Baha’u’llah 284.

‘Ali Pasha

Muhammad Amin ‘Ali Pasha (Mehmed Emin Ali Paça; d. Bebek near Istanbul 7 Sept. 1871.) was the Ottoman statesman and diplomat who was foreign minister at the time of Bahaullah’s exiles to Istanbul and Edirne and prime minister when he was exiled to ‘Akka. He was the “chief” addressed in the two tablets known as Lawh-i Ra’is.

The son of an Istanbul shopkeeper, he was born in Istanbul in February 1815 and entered government service at the age of fourteen in the secretariat of the court. His nickname ‘Ali ("lofty") referred either to his abilities or to his short stature. Since he knew some French, he was appointed to the Translation Bureau in 1833. The Translation Bureau was one of the reforms of Mahmud II and served as a school of foreign languages and training institute for diplomats. As one of the few modern educational institutions in the country, it produced many of the reforming statemen of the middle of the century.

He rose rapidly in the diplomatic service and was sent to Vienna in 1836, St. Petersburg in 1837, and London in 1838 where he was the counsellor. In 1840 he was a deputy to the counsellor to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and became ambassador to Great Britain the following year. In 1845 he was counsellor to the Foreign Ministry and became foreign minister for the first time the following year when his mentor Rashid Pasha was promoted to prime minister. He was dismissed for a few months in 1848 but soon restored. He continued in this post until 1852 when he became prime minister (Grand Vazir, Sadr-i A‘zam) for two months after the dismissal of Rashid Pasha. In the next two years he briefly held two minor governorships before returning to the Foreign Ministry. Thereafter he remained in high office most of the rest of his life, alternating as foreign minister and prime minister with his friend and fellow-reformer Fu’ad Pasha. He was foreign minister 1854–55, 1857–58, July 1861, Nov. 1861–67, and 1869–71. He was prime minister (Grand Vizier) five times: 1852, 1855–56, 1858–59, 1861, and 1867–71.

‘Ali Pasha was greatly repected by European statesmen for his integrity, personal charm, diplomatic skill, and mastery of French. This served to protect him, since Sultan ‘Abd al-‘Aziz would have been happy to be rid of him. As a diplomat he worked tirelessly to placate the European powers who threatened to dismember the empire. He was also able to settle peacefully the rebellion in Crete.

At home he was less popular. The sultan disliked him for his attempts to restrain the arbitrary exercise of royal power, to protect the prerogatives of ministers, and to strengthen the rule of law. The younger reformers, the so-called “Young Ottomans"—attacked him because he did not support the movement for a constitution. Nonetheless, under his ministry a number of important reforms of the government structure were carried out, railroads begun, and improvements made in education, the army, and the navy.

William Howard Russell, the British war correspondent, said of him in 1869,

Aali Pasha is a very small, slight, sallow-faced man, with two very penetrating honest-looking eyes. He has a delicate air, and looks timorous and nervous; and his standing attitude is one of rather imbecile deference to everybody, but in the presence of the Sultan this becomes almost prostration. Yet, he is courageous, bold, enlightened, honest, and just; full of zeal for the interests of his country, and unceasing in his efforts for its improvement.

When Bahaullah came to Istanbul, ‘Ali Pasha was serving his fourth term as foreign minister and his ally Fu’ad Pasha was prime minister. He initially summoned Bahaullah to Istanbul at the urging of the Persian ambassador, who was anxious to have him removed from the vicinity of the Persian border and the Shi‘i shrines. He seems to have been favorably impressed by Bahaullah. In 1866 the Austrian ambassador, Prokesch von Osten, reported:

‘Ali Pasha has spoken to me with great veneration of the Bab, interned at Adrianople, who he says is a man of great distinction, exemplary conduct, great moderation, and a most dignified figure. He has spoken to me of Babism as a doctrine which is worthy of high esteem, and which destroys certain anomalies that Islam has taken from Jewish and Christian doctrines, for example this conflict between a God who is omnipotent and yet powerless against the principle of evil; eternal punishments, etc. etc. But politically he considers Babism unacceptable as much in Persia as in Turkey, because it only allows legal sovereignty in the Imamate, while the Osmalis for example, he claims, separate temporal from spiritual power. The Bab, at Adrianople, is defrayed all expenses by the order of and to the charge of the Persian government.

For general accounts of his life see EI2, s.v. “‘Ali Pasha Muhammad Amin,” as well as EB “Ali Pasa, Mehmed Emin,” Momen, Babi 491, Balyuzi, Baha’u’llah 469. For information on his attitudes towards the Baha’is, see Momen, Babi 187, 191, 311n. Bahaullah’s statements about him are summarized in ‘Abd al-Baha, Makatib 174, 208, 231–32.

Two years later, the dispute between the Azalis and the Baha’is led him to believe that Bahaullah and his followers had political ambitions and were attempting to spread their religion in Turkish territory, and that they were likely to cause disturbances. Thus Bahaullah was to be exiled to a less sensitive area. Bahaullah viewed this as a clear injustice, motivated by nothing more than political expediency, particularly in view of the harsh conditions of his imprisonment in ‘Akka. He prophesied the downfall of both Fu’ad and ‘Ali Pasha.

Lawh-i Ra’is, “Tablet of the Chief,” is the title of two tablets addressed to ‘Ali Pasha. The Arabic Lawh-i Ra’is, also known as Lawh-i Ra’is I or Surat al-Ra’is (or “Suriy-i Ra’is”) was composed during the journey from Edirne to Gallipoli. It was begun at Kesan (Kashana), where the exiles spent the night of 14-15 August 1868, and was finished at Gyawur-Kyuy soon after. It is written in an elevated Arabic style and is some twenty pages in length. The opening pages are addressed to ‘Ali Pasha. Most of the tablet, however, is addressed to Haji Muhammad-Isma‘il Kashani, known as Dhabih—“sacrifice”—or Anis—“companion”—by which he is called in this tablet. Dhabih and some others had arrived in Edirne, only to find Bahaullah’s house guarded by troops. Unable to meet Bahaullah, he had gone to Gallipoli. The portions of the Surat al-Ra’is addressed to him are intended to console him for his failure to meet Bahaullah. Bahaullah also answers a question about the nature of the soul that Dhabih had asked in a letter. Dhabih was able to meet Bahaullah in a public bath in Gallipoli a few days after the completion of this tablet. Dhabih died in Tabriz about 1880.

The opening pages of the Surat al-Ra’is are a stern denunciation of ‘Ali Pasha for his persecution of Bahaullah. Addressing him bluntly as “O chief,” Bahaullah tells him that he has no power to hinder the Cause of God by his “grunting” or the “barking” of those around him. His deeds have caused Muhammad to mourn. He has allied himself with the “chief of Iran”—meaning either the Shah or the Persian ambassador in Turkey—to harm Bahaullah. (‘Ali and Fu’ad Pasha both denied to foreign diplomats that the urgings of the Persian government had anything to do with Bahaullah’s exile.) Bahaullah compares him to the rulers who had opposed Muhammad, Moses, and Abraham. The Shah of Iran had killed the Bab, but Bahaullah had nonetheless arisen to revive his religion. He prophesies that there will be great afflictions and turmoil in the region of Edirne and that it will pass out from under the authority of the Turkish Sultan. Finally, Bahaullah states that his only purpose is “to quicken the world and unite all its peoples.”

Bahaullah then addresses Dhabih. He tells of how he and his family and followers awoke to find the house surrounded by soldiers barring all from coming or going, even keeping them from obtaining food the first night. The people of the town, hearing that they were to be sent away, gathered around the house weeping—but the grief of the Christians was greater than that of the Muslims. One of the Baha’is, Haji Ja‘far Tabrizi, thinking that he was to be separated from Bahaullah, cut his own throat. Another of Bahaullah’s followers had done this in Baghdad. Though this was contrary to divine law, it showed the depth of their love. Such a thing had not been seen in past religions. Bahaullah praises Dhabih and seeks to console him. This is a day the prophets of the past all longed to attain. His followers should thus not let afflictions discourage them. He prophesies that God will raise up a king to protect his followers. He prays for Dhabih’s success in spreading his faith during his travels and compares Dhabih’s happy state with that of those people who have rejected Bahaullah.

Bahaullah also replies to Dhabih’s question about the soul, regretting that he could not have heard the answer from Bahaullah’s own lips. Saying that he does not wish to dwell on what people have said in the past, he gives a brief account of the soul, explaining that “soul,” “spirit,” “mind,” “vision,” and the like all represent the same entity, differentiated by the circumstances under which they are exercised. He refers Dhabih to another tablet where the matter is explained fully.

Bahaullah also mentions one “‘Ali” who had been in Baghdad with Bahaullah and who had come to Edirne, only to find him a prisoner. The tablet closes with a prayer that Dhabih will not be hindered from meeting Bahaullah in Gallipoli.

On the Arabic Surat al-Ra’is, see Taherzadeh 2:411–21; Ishraq-Khavari, Muhadirat 602–6, 687, 964; Ishraq-Khavari, Ganj 109–11; ‘Abd al-Baha, Makatib 172, 174, 179–80; Shoghi Effendi, Promised 48; Ishraq-Khavari, Da’irat 13:2058. The Arabic text is found in Bahaullah, Athar Muluk 203–25, Bahaullah, Majmu‘ah 87–102, Surat al-Haykal 129–43. Translated excerpts are found in ‘Abd al-Baha, Makatib 174, 179–80, Shoghi Effendi, World 178, Taherzadeh 2:414–16.

The Persian Lawh-i Ra’is, also known as Lawh-i Ra’is II and occasionally Suriy-i Ra’is, is a letter to ‘Ali Pasha written not long after Bahaullah’s arrival in ‘Akka, probably before the end of 1868. It is a strong protest at the injustice of the imprisonment of Bahaullah, his companions, and their dependents. The title is by analogy to the earlier tablet to ‘Ali Pasha, for the prime minister is not addressed as “Ra’is” in this tablet. It is in Persian and is about twenty pages long. Bahaullah begins by criticizing ‘Ali Pasha’s presumption of lofty rank. The heading of the tablet—“He is the Master by right”—reminds him that God is the true ruler. Bahaullah then addresses him as “thou who reckons thyself the highest of men"—a pun on his name ‘Ali, “lofty.” He reminds him that all the Prophets of God, though they came to reform the world, were, like Bahaullah, branded as trouble-makers by the rulers of their time. However, even if this accusation were true, the women and children who were imprisoned with Bahaullah had done nothing wrong.

Bahaullah then describes some episodes of his exile from Edirne to ‘Akka: how some companions who were not included in the order paid their own way to ‘Akka, the sufferings of the children forced to change from ship to ship, how two of his companions tried to kill themselves when faced with separation, how they were denied food and water during the first night in ‘Akka, the three loaves of inedible bread that was the daily food ration, and the death and disrespectful burial of two of the exiles. Such treatment was manifest injustice, since the people of Edirne could testify to the piety and detachment of Bahaullah and his companions. Bahaullah prophesies that as a result, the wrath of God would seize ‘Ali Pasha and his government. Warnings had come before—for example, when a large part of Istanbul burned—but they had not heeded. Now it is too late: the wrath of God is so great to allow him to repent.

Bahaullah reminds him that neither pomp nor abasement lasts forever. To illustrate this, Bahaullah tells of an incident from his youth. his older brother was getting married, and Bahaullah’s father had arranged a puppet show as part of the festivities. Bahaullah watched in fascination as the puppet-king and the members of his court come on stage and take their places. A thief is executed and blood spurts from the severed neck. The king dispatches soldiers to fight a rebel, and from behind the curtain the sounds of cannon are heard. After the show, Bahaullah saw a man come out with a box under his arm. Bahaullah asked him where the king was and all the members of his court. The man said they were all in the box. From that day on, says Bahaullah, all the glory of the world has been like that puppet show in his eyes and of no value. Any perceptive person, he says, knows that worldly glory will soon be placed in the box of the grave. Even if a man is not given to know God, he ought at least to pass his life with prudence and justice. Nevertheless, most people are asleep and infatuated with worldly things. They are like the drunken man who fell in love with a dog, only realizing what his lover was when morning came. ‘Ali Pasha himself is subject to the vilest ruler: his own self and passion. If he examined his own soul, he would realize his own abasement.

Bahaullah tells how, when he reached Gallipoli on his way to ‘Akka, he had asked a Turkish officer named ‘Umar escorting him to arrange a ten-minute interview with the Sultan at which the Sultan might ask him for whatever miracle or proof he thought sufficient to prove the truth of Bahaullah’s revelation. If Bahaullah was able to produce it, he and his companions should be freed and left to their own devices. But no word came from the Sultan or from the officer. Though it was not fitting for the Manifestation of God to go before another, Bahaullah made this offer out of consideration for the children and women who shared his imprisonment and exile. The tablet closes with Bahaullah’s advice to ‘Ali Pasha to ask God to let him see the good and evil of his own actions.

On the Persian Lawh-i Ra’is, see Taherzadeh 3:33–37, Ishraq-Khavari, Ganj 121–23, Balyuzi, Baha’u’llah 173, Ishraq-Khavari, Da’irat 13:2058. The text is found in Bahaullah, Athar: Muluk 227–47, Majmu‘a (Eg.) 102–16. Translations of excerpts are found in ‘Abd al-Baha, Makatib 187, Shoghi Effendi, Promised 46, 62.

These two tablets and the related Lawh-i Fu’ad, with their grim prophesies of affliction for the Ottoman Empire and its leaders were soon widely circulated among the Baha’is and were recognized as being of special importance. Bahaullah himself in a later tablet said that “from the moment the Suriy-i Ra’is was revealed until the present day, neither hath the world been tranquilized, nor have the hearts of its peoples been at rest.” (Bahaullah, Gleanings, sect. 16.3.) They were in circulation by the mid-1870s and were included in early published collections of the works of Bahaullah. Their importance for early Baha’i teachings lies in the fact that their prophecies were well known before the dramatic fall of Sultan ‘Abd al-‘Aziz in 1876.

Fu’ad Pasha

‘Ali Pasha’s friend and ally, Keçeci-Zada Muhammad Fu’ad Pasha, was born in Istanbul in 1815. His father, ‘Izzat Mulla, was a religious judge and poet of some importance who lived an adventurous life in and out of royal favor. In 1829 ‘Izzat Mulla was exiled to Sivas, and Fu’ad left the theological seminary to study at the new modern medical school in Istanbul. He spent three years as an army doctor in Tripoli, Libya. Having learned French in medical school, he was able in 1837 to obtain an appointment to the Translation Bureau, which also served as a training school for the modern diplomatic corps. Over the next fifteen years he rose rapidly as a diplomat and protege of the reformer Rashid Pasha, serving in London (where he was translator and later first secretary when ‘Ali Pasha was ambassador), Spain, Rumania, and Russia, as well as holding various high offices and commissions in Istanbul.

In 1852 he was appointed foreign minister for the first time under his friend ‘Ali Pasha and dealt with crises over Montenegro and the Christian holy places in Jerusalem. He was again foreign minister in 1855–56, 1858–60, 1861, and 1867. He was also prime minister in 1861–63 and 1863–66, during which time ‘Ali Pasha served as foreign minister. During 1863–67 he was also minister of war. He held several other senior posts at various times and was sent on a number of special missions, notably the suppression of the Greek revolt in Thessaly and Epirus in 1854–55 and the Lebanese civil war in 1860–61.

Fu’ad Pasha was one of the principal figures of the Tanzimat reforms of the middle of the nineteenth century. He was determined to reshape the Ottoman Empire in a more European mold. Nonethless, his efforts were necessarily less devoted to positive reforms than to fending off external threats to the empire and internal threats to the reforms by conservatives, notably from the Sultan himself. He was criticized by the younger reformers because of his lack of interest in representative government. He was also interested in linguistic reform and in 1850 wrote the first modern Ottoman Turkish grammar with Ahmad Jawdat, a liberal cleric who was another of Rashid Pasha’s reformist proteges. He accompanied the Sultan to Europe in 1867. Exhausted by overwork, he went to France to rest in 1868–69. He died of a heart attack in Nice 12 February 1869. (For his life and career, see EI2 “Fu’ad Pasha,” Balyuzi, Baha’u’llah 471–72, Momen, Babi 501.)

Fu’ad Pasha was prime minister at the time of Bahaullah’s arrival in Istanbul and foreign minister at the time of his exile to ‘Akka. As such he answered the inquiries of foreign diplomats made on Bahaullah’s behalf. His policy is succinctly stated in his reply to the inquiries of the Austrian ambassador:

On representing to Fuad Pasha the intolerant acts of the Ottoman Government towards the Babee Sect, he was informed by His Highness that the Porte had ordered Mirza Hussein Ali and his adherents to be deported to Tripoli in Africa on account of their having tried to propagate religious dissensions in the Mahomedan Element in Roumelia; that the Porte was entirely responsible for this measure, the Persian Legation having taken to part in it; and that the subvention of 5000 piasters per month which was allowed to the Mirza by the Authorities at Adrianople would not be discontinued at Tripoli. (Momen, Babi 192.)

The idea of exiling Bahaullah to Tripoli in Libya perhaps reflects Fu’ad Pasha’s memory of three years as a young army officer in that desolate spot.

For his relations with Baha’is see Momen, Babi 187, 191, 311n; Balyuzi, Baha’u’llah 154, 199, 206 (with photo); ‘Abd al-Baha, Makatib 146, 174, 208, 231–32.

Bahaullah had prophesied his fall in the Surat al-Ra’is, and comments on his death in the Suriy-i or Lawh-i Fu’ad, an Arabic tablet written to Shaykh Kazim Samandar, probably soon after Fu’ad Pasha’s death in 1869. The Suriy-i Fu’ad is written in the style of the passages about Hell in the Qur’an and contains many allusions to the Qur’anic narratives of the punishment of the ancient nations that persecuted the prophets. It was aptly described by Baron Rosen as “a sort of hymn of triumph on the occasion of the death of the most implacable enemies of the new religion.” Because of its accurate prophecies of the fall of ‘Ali Pasha and Sultan ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, it was widely circulated during the time of Bahaullah and was included in one of the collections of Baha’i scripture published in India during his lifetime. This tablet is also known as “Lawh-i Kaf-Za, “Tablet of K. Z.” The tablet begins with these letters, which are an abbreviation of Kazim, the name of the recipient.

After counselling Samandar to be steadfast, Bahaullah announces the death of Fu’ad Pasha: “God has taken the greatest of those who issued the decree against us.” Using the narrative style of the Qur’an, he describes how Fu’ad Pasha fled to France, seeking the help of physicians against the wrath of God. A dialogue then takes place in which Fu’ad Pasha pleads with the avenging angel for his life, citing his wealth and high position as reason to be spared. But there is no escape for him: the angels of hell summon him to the punishment prepared for him, reminding him of the great injustice he committed in making prisoners of the Holy Family. Bahaullah then prophesies the downfall of ‘Ali Pasha, the other minister involved in his exiles, and of Sultan ‘Abd al-‘Aziz himself—“their Chief who ruleth the land.”

Bahaullah once again exhorts Samandar to remain steadfast against the lies of the Azalis, for God has also taken Mirza Mahdi Gilani, the Azali in Istanbul. This man had written a treatise against Bahaullah, to which Bahaullah’s Kitab-i Badi‘ was a reply. A second narrative depicts Mirza Mahdi’s pleadings with the angel of death. These stories, Bahaullah says, are told to console Samandar.

The text of Lawh-i Fu’ad is published in Bahaullah, Mubin 210–14 and Rosen, Collections 6:231–33. A sentence is translated in Shoghi Effendi, Promised 63. For further information on the tablet see Taherzadeh 3:87, Ishraq-Khavari, Ganj 192–93, Ishraq-Khavari, Da’irat 13:1961, 2071, 2073–74.

The Last Years of the Ottoman Empire

In 1876 the loose group of reformist exiled intellectuals and politicians known as the Young Ottomans had succeeded in deposing ‘Abd al-‘Aziz on grounds of misgovernment and madness. The result was a brief period of constitutional government—and, in distant ‘Akka, the release of Bahaullah from strict confinement within the city. ‘Abd al-‘Aziz was succeeded by his nephew, the young Murad V, who was himself deposed three months later when he proved to be a drunkard and mentally incapable. The reformers turned to his younger brother ‘Abd al-Hamid (Abdülhamid), who thus became the thirty-sixth Ottoman Sultan.

Born 21 Sept. 1842 in Istanbul, ‘Abd al-Hamid was the fifth of thirty children of Sultan ‘Abd al-Majid and seems to have had an unhappy childhood after his mother died when he was seven. Midhat Pasha, the reformer who had led the plot that overthrew ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, offered him the throne on condition that he accept a constitution and constituent assembly and that he rule through the reformist ministers. Before the reformers could accomplish much, the disastrous war broke out that led to the Russian occupation of Edirne In the end the Russians were stopped when the British navy moved to support Istanbul. Nonetheless, the Turks lost most of their remaining territory in Europe. The border of the newly-independent Bulgaria was only a few miles from Edirne. The finances of the Empire were placed under European control. The failure of the Western European powers to support Turkey against Russia confirmed ‘Abd al-Hamid’s suspicions of the Europeans. Thereafter, he pursued a passive policy of delay in foreign relations. Though his extreme suspicion of the European powers sometimes lost opportunities for Turkey—as when his failure to cooperate with England lost him the chance to reassert Turkish sovereignty in Egypt—it kept Turkey at peace for a generation and prevented further major losses of territory.

It quickly became clear that ‘Abd al-Hamid was an autocrat of the most absolute sort and did not share the liberal views of the reformers who had brought him to power. Once the war with Russia was over, he suspended the constitution and dissolved the irritating new Constituent Assembly. The reformers were soon silenced, exiled, or killed. An attempted countercoup further fueled his fears. Unlike earlier sultans who had left much of the ordinary business of government to their ministers, ‘Abd al-Hamid created a centralized despotism of a quite modern sort. He was himself shrewd and energetic, and he created a palace bureaucracy that allowed him to control directly all the details of government. A horde of police, spies, and informers pervaded the empire. The building of railroads and a telegraph network allowed him to control the empire far more tightly than any of his predecessors could have dreamed possible. Freedom of speech was suspended. Censorship was all-pervading and thorough. The palace was a virtual fortress, guarded by Albanian guards loyal only to the Sultan.

Apart from absolutism the distinguishing policy of his reign was Pan-Islamism. The Ottoman sultans had always claimed the title Caliph, supposedly bequeathed to them by the last ‘Abbasid caliph when the Ottomans conquered Egypt. Now, with many of the Christian provinces lost to the Empire, ‘Abd al-Hamid stressed his role as supreme Islamic leader: head of the leading Muslim state, protector of the Holy Cities, and successor to the Prophet Himself. This won him support from the Muslim masses in the Empire and prestige for him and the Ottoman Empire in other Muslim countries, especially those controlled by Europeans, where he was able to make trouble for the European powers. The greatest achievement of this policy was the building of the Hijaz Railway to carry pilgrims from Damascus to Mecca and Medina. It was paid for by contributions from the entire Muslim world and was completed as far as Medina, before being destroyed in World War I. (It has never been rebuilt.)

The other side of this policy was the persecution of the non-Muslim minorities, especially the Christians. This culminated in civil disorders in Macedonia and great massacres of Armenians in 1894–96 (repeated on a much larger scale during World War I), carried out at the instigation of the authorities. Nonetheless his partiality to his Muslim subjects did not in the end win their permanent loyalty, for his administration was sufficiently corrupt to alienate Muslims as well. In some ways ‘Abd al-Hamid is to be seen as the full expression of the darker side of the Tanzimat reforms earlier in the nineteenth century. Like many of his reforming predecessors, he believed that reform could only be imposed from above, and in fact he carried out important reforms in education, communication, and law. However, absolute power was in the hands of a man gripped by exaggerated fears and for the most part blind to the actual needs of the people. Moreover, his insistence on dealing with everything himself greatly limited the effectiveness of government.

The Europeans were appalled by the oppressiveness and incompetence of his government, by the all-pervasive censorship, and especially by the brutal treatment of minorities. This won him the nicknames “Red Sultan” and “Abdul the Damned.”

In the end the new educational institutions he had founded produced the reformers who overthrew him. A loose network of reform-minded exiles called the Young Turks formed the Committee of Union and Progress. The commanders of the Turkish army in Macedonia mutinied in support of the Committee, marched on Istanbul, forced ‘Abd al-Hamid in July 1908 to reintroduce the constitution, and placed the leaders of the Committee in charge of the government. The following April a countercoup by the Istanbul garrison, probably instigated by ‘Abd al-Hamid, briefly overthrew the new government. The Macedonian troops returned, this time to depose ‘Abd al-Hamid. His brother, Muhammad V (r. 1909–18), became Sultan. ‘Abd al-Hamid lived out his life under house arrest, first in Salonika and then in Istanbul. He died in Istanbul on 10 Feb. 1918.

‘Abd al-Hamid was in some respects an attractive figure—approachable, simple in dress, hard-working, and intelligent. Unlike some of his predecessors, he was not ruined by the temptations of the harem. But he was lonely, fearful, and unhappy, and these qualities expressed themselves in the paranoia, treachery, and absolutism of his government. Muslims, Christians, and Jews celebrated together in the streets when he was overthrown.

On ‘Abd al-Hamid see EI2, s.v. “‘Abd al-Hamid II.” and the standard histories of the late Ottoman Empire.

Bahaullah was the prisoner of ‘Abd al-Hamid from 1876 until his death in 1892, but there is no evidence that the Sultan was particularly concerned with the Baha’is in those years. Bahaullah was able to move out of the city of ‘Akka without interference the year after ‘Abd al-Hamid’s accession. When Bahaullah died in 1892, ‘Abd al-Baha sent a cable to the Sultan, who gave permission for Bahaullah to be buried at Bahji—an interesting example of ‘Abd al-Hamid’s concern for the minutiae of administration. This tolerance of the Baha’is lasted until the turn of the century.

After 1892 ‘Abd al-Baha remained a prisoner as his Father had been, theoretically in custody but in practice under few restrictions. It was the opposition of Mirza Muhammad-‘Ali, the second surviving son of Bahaullah, to ‘Abd al-Baha that finally attracted Sultan ‘Abd al-Hamid’s personal attention to the Baha’is. Mirza Muhammad-‘Ali and his followers had approached the governor of Damascus, accusing ‘Abd al-Baha of plotting against the government. Several factors seem to have led the Sultan to give credence to these accusations. First was the increasing threat of nationalist movements in the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire. Second was the arrival of Western pilgrims. The Sultan was well aware that various European powers had colonial ambitions in Ottoman territory, and he seems to have feared that the Americans visiting ‘Abd al-Baha were part of a plot to foment revolt. Finally, ‘Abd al-Baha had many friends—and possibly even followers—among reform-minded Turks. In August 1901 ‘Abd al-Hamid ordered that ‘Abd al-Baha, his brothers, and his cousin Majd al-Din once again be strictly