Occasional Papers in Shaykhi, Babi and Baha'i Studies
Walbridge, Essays and Notes on Babi and Baha'i History
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 confined within the wall of ‘Akka.
Around 1905, Mirza Muhammad-‘Ali and his supporters, aware of ‘Abd
al-Hamid’s alarm at the Constitutional Revolution in Iran, approached the
authorities with fresh accusations.
This time the Sultan responded with a Commission of Inquiry that spent
some weeks investigating ‘Abd al-Baha and the Baha’is. However, when the Commission returned to Istanbul,
they found the Sultan preoccupied with finding those responsible for his attempted
assassination, and ‘Abd al-Hamid did not take up the matter for some time. A tablet from ‘Abd al-Baha of about this
time tactfully praises ‘Abd al-Hamid for ignoring the slanderous accusations
against him and instructs the Baha’is to pray for the Sultan. (‘Abd al-Baha, Tablets 3:494–96.) In about 1908 there
was fear that the Commission’s recommendations would finally be acted on and
‘Abd al-Baha would be exiled to Fezzan in the interior of Libya. However, the Young Turks’ revolution in the
summer of 1908 resulted in the release of all political prisoners, ‘Abd al-Baha
included.
Accounts of the reincarceration of ‘Abd al-Baha, the Commission of Inquiry, and the release of ‘Abd al-Baha are found in ‘Abd al-Baha, Makatib 263-72, Balyuzi, ‘Abdu’l-Baha 94-95, 111-24, and Momen, Babi 320–23. These are largely based on information from Afrukhtah, Khatirat, and Mu’ayyad, Khatirat. See also Balyuzi, Baha’u’llah 420, 425–27; Balyuzi, ‘Abdu’l-Baha 47, 128–29, 374, 395; Balyuzi, Eminent 148, 259; Shoghi Effendi, Promised 13, 61, 64–65; Shoghi Effendi, World 174–75; ‘Abd al-Baha, Promulgation 36, 203, 225.
Naturally enough, ‘Abd al-Hamid’s dramatic fall and imprisonment
and the simultaneous liberation of ‘Abd al-Baha impressed the Baha’is as an
example of the hand of God at work.
‘Abd al-Baha, for example, sometimes remarked on it in his talks: “God
removed the chains from my neck and placed them around the neck of ‘Abd
al-Hamid. It was done suddenly—not a
long time, in a moment, as it were.” (‘Abd al-Baha, Promulgation 225.) For
Shoghi Effendi, ‘Abd al-Hamid was (quoting an unnamed historian) “the most
mean, cunning, untrustworthy and cruel intriguer of the long dynasty of
‘Uthman.” His fall was “the beginning
of a new era,” one of “the awful evidences of that retributive justice,” and
was one part of the collapse of Islamic institutions as a result of their
failure to accept the Bab and Bahaullah. (Shoghi Effendi, Promised 65, 66)
Jamal Pasha
and World War I
After the revolution of 1908, the Committee of Union and
Progress ruled in the name of the Sultan.
New administrative, social, and economic reforms were imposed, including
areas neglected by earlier reformers such as women’s rights and industrial
development. ‘Abd al-Baha took
advantage of the new freedom to travel to Egypt, Europe, and America. ‘Abd al-Baha publicly stated his gratitude
for the fall of the Sultan, but by the time of his return to Haifa in 1913, the
Committee of Union and Progress had become a dictatorship, ruling in an
authoritarian style reminiscent of ‘Abd al-Hamid’s. Once again ‘Abd al-Baha feared for the Baha’i position in the
Holy Land. Internal reforms were,
however, overshadowed by military disasters.
In 1911 Italy seized Libya, the last Ottoman province in Africa. The First and Second Balkan Wars of 1912–13
resulted in the lost of almost all the remaining Ottoman territory in Europe to
an alliance of Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Montenegro.
The Ottoman Empire rashly entered World War I as an ally of
Germany and Austria. Though Ottoman
forces performed fairly well—inflicting a humiliating defeat on the British in
the Dardanelles campaign of 1915, for example—the Ottoman economy eventually
collapsed under the strain of modern war.
Troops deserted in large numbers.
The Arab provinces of the Near East fell to Allied troops. On 30 October 1918 Turkey signed an
armistice. Battle, famine, and disease
had devastated the population.
For Baha’i history, the most important Ottoman official during
World War I was Ahmad Jamal Pasha (Cemal Pa¶a), the Turkish commander-in-chief
in Syria, who threatened to execute ‘Abd al-Baha. Born in Istanbul in 1872, Jamal Pasha graduated from the Ottoman
military college in 1895 and was commissioned a captain in the general
staff. Stationed in Salonika, he joined
the subversive Committee of Union and Progress, the “Young Turks.” When the Committee seized power in 1908, he
became a member of its executive committee.
In the following years he was military governor of Üsküdar and civil
governor of Adana and Baghdad. He
commanded a division in the First Balkan War (1912). After the Committee of Union and Progress seized total power in
January 1913, he became successively military governor of Istanbul (promoted to
lieutenant-general), minister of public works, and minister of the navy. During this period he was one of the three
Young Turk leaders who ruled as a dictatorial triumvirate.
Soon after war broke out, he was made commander of the Fourth
Army in Damascus and military governor of the Syrian provinces—the area
covering modern Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, and northwestern Saudi
Arabia. His efforts in 1915 and 1916 to
invade British-occupied Egypt were repulsed.
Despite progressive tendencies—notably an interest in public works and archaeology—Jamal
Pasha ruthlessly suppressed the Arab nationalists, hanging thirty-two prominent
Arab leaders in 1915 and 1916. He also
persecuted the Jewish settlers in Palestine.
In December 1915 Jamal Pasha contacted the Allies, offering to revolt against
the Ottoman Government, stop the massacres of Armenians, and cede European
Turkey to the Russians. In return he
would become Sultan of the Ottoman provinces in Asia. The British rebuffed him.
Since the Turkish government did not find out about these negotiations,
he remained in command of the Syrian army.
In June 1916 the Sharif of Mecca—the hereditary ruler of the
Hijaz—revolted against the Turks and began harrying their lines of
communication. The British invaded
Sinai in 1916 and Palestine in 1917, driving back Jamal Pasha’s army. At the end of the year, he was relieved of
his command, having lost Palestine as far north as Jaffa and Jerusalem.
After the outbreak of World War I, ‘Abd al-Baha came under
renewed suspicion, probably for his Western connections. When Jamal Pasha first came to ‘Akka,
probably about the beginning of 1915, he summoned ‘Abd al-Baha to his camp and
told him bluntly that he had received reports that ‘Abd al-Baha was a religious
mischief-maker. ‘Abd al-Baha saw that
the Pasha was drunk and knew his reputation for hanging enemies real and
imagined, so he turned the matter to a joke by comparing his own reputation to
that of Jamal Pasha, who had been in the eyes of the Sultan a political
mischief-maker. The two men parted on
good terms.
Mirza Muhammad-‘Ali and his followers began reporting to Jamal
Pasha that ‘Abd al-Baha’s religious activities and relations with people in
other countries were of a political nature and that he was opposed to the
Committee of Union and Progress. It was
not long after that the German consul in Haifa brought ‘Abd al-Baha the news
that Jamal Pasha had told a gathering of Muslim clergy in Jerusalem that he
intended to crucify him after he returned from conquering Egypt and that he
would destroy the Shrines of Bahaullah and the Bab. ‘Abd al-Baha reassured the distraught consul that none of these
events were likely to happen.
After the failure of the first Turkish attack on the Suez Canal
on 2–3 February 1915, Jamal Pasha and his German advisers began elaborate
preparations for a larger attack. Jamal
Pasha himself roamed Syria and Palestine trying and hanging Arab
nationalists. “Gallows” occurs
frequently in ‘Abd al-Baha’s description’s of the Pasha’s character. ‘Abd al-Baha was sufficiently concerned that
one day early in 1916 he went to Nazareth to meet Jamal Pasha. When a letter arrived asking about ‘Abd
al-Baha’s whereabouts, he replied, “Tell him, ‘In front of a cannon.’”
Jamal Pasha’s attacks on the canal in April and July also failed. Thereafter, he was preoccupied with the
British advance through Sinai and southern Palestine that began in August and
lasted until December 1917. Before he
could carry out his threats to ‘Abd al-Baha, he was recalled. Nonetheless, in December 1917 rumors of
danger to ‘Abd al-Baha reached Major Tudor-Pole, a friend of ‘Abd al-Baha who
was at that time an intelligence officer with the British army in
Palestine. He alerted influential
friends and followers of ‘Abd al-Baha, who persuaded the military authorities
to pass word through the lines that ‘Abd al-Baha was not to be harmed. Haifa and ‘Akka fell to British and Indian
cavalry on 23 September 1918. The
British authorities immediately announced that ‘Abd al-Baha and his family were
safe.
The main source for Jamal Pasha’s relations with ‘Abd al-Baha is Mu’ayyad, Khatirat, pp. 184–86, 290, 332–33, 443–47, from which are derived other accounts such as Balyuzi, ‘Abdu’l-Baha 409–14, ‘Abd al-Baha, Makatib 317, Rabbani, Priceless 26, Mazandarani, Asrar 3:42–45, Ishraq-Khavari, Rahiq 1:370. See also Blomfield, Chosen 202–5. Note that the order of events given in the body of the present article is an educated guess. On the capture of Haifa, see Balyuzi, ‘Abdu’l-Baha 425–30, Blomfield, Chosen 219–27, Momen, Babi 332–38.
Jamal Pasha appears several times in ‘Abd al-Baha’s talks to
local Baha’is. (Most of what we know
about his dealings with the Pasha come from these talks.) Though he joked about the real danger that
Jamal Pasha posed, he described him as “a mountain of arrogance” and said that
he was bloodthirsty, rapacious, and drunken.
For Shoghi Effendi, Jamal Pasha was one of a series of threats to the
Baha’i World Center—Sultan ‘Abd al-Hamid, Hitler, and the 1947–48 war—averted
by the providence of God. Shoghi
Effendi described his character as “bloodthirsty” and “suspicious and
merciless” and referred to his “ruthless military dictatorship” and to his
being “an inveterate enemy of the Faith.”
For Shoghi Effendi on Jamal Pasha, see Rabbani, Priceless 189, Shoghi Effendi, Promised 13, 65, Shoghi Effendi, Citadel 54, 72, ‘Abd al-Baha, Makatib 317.
When the Young Turk government fell at the end of 1918, Jamal
Pasha fled to Europe. He was tried in
absentia and sentenced to death.
Accepting an appointment in the Afghan army, he traveled to Russia,
where he helped negotiate an agreement between the Bolsheviks and Atatürk’s
nationalists in Turkey. In Tiflis,
Armenia, on 21 July 1922, while returning from another diplomatic mission to
Moscow, he was assassinated by Armenians, the third victim of a campaign to
avenge the Armenian massacres of World War I.
For the life of Jamal Pasha, see EI2, s.v. “Djemal Pasha” and his own Memories of Turkish Statesman (London, n.d.), also available in Ottoman, modern Turkish, and German.
Atatürk and
Modern Turkey
Peace, however, was not to come to Turkey for four more years
after the end of World War I, for the Allies planned the dismemberment of
Turkey. The British, French, and
Italians occupied Istanbul, the Straits, Cilicia, and the old Arab
provinces. The Armenians had been
promised a state including most of eastern Anatolia, and the Italians had been
allotted southwestern Anatolia. The
Greeks had invaded western Anatolia, pushing eastwards from the ancient Greek
territories of the Aegean coast, burning and killing as they went. The Sultan, a bitter enemy of the Young
Turks, was in the hands of the Allies and was abetting their plans.
In the face of this disastrous situation, the Turks of Anatolia
rallied to resist the various invaders.
Mustafa Kemal, later known as Atatürk, the most successful of the
wartime generals, organized a popular government in Ankara. The new regime defeated the Armenian
Republic in 1921, regaining some territory lost to Russia forty years earlier
and ending Armenian hopes for regaining their old lands in eastern Anatolia. In
1922 the Turks drove the Greeks back into the sea at Smyrna. The Treaty of Lausanne of 1923 confirmed the
existence of the new Turkey. Huge
population exchanges—Muslim Turks from Greece and Greek Christians from
Turkey—and the loss of the non-Turkish Muslim provinces resulted in a new
Turkish republic that was overwhelmingly Muslim and ethnically Turkish. The Sultanate was abolished and with it the
Ottoman Empire. The last Sultan
lingered a few months longer as caliph—now only a religious leader—but even
this title was abolished in 1924.
Atatürk made himself a virtual dictator and set about
reorganizing Turkey on the model of modern European nation-states, providing in
the process a model for Reza Shah Pahlavi in Iran. The Ottoman Empire had been a multi-ethnic empire ruled by a
Turkish dynasty; the Republic of Turkey became a Turkish national state. Islam was deinstitutionalized. Though mosques remained open, all the
theological seminaries and monasteries of the mystical orders were closed. Almost all religious institutions were
disbanded. A new civil law based on the
Swiss code replaced Islamic law.
Traditional headgear was prohibited, and men were required to wear
Western hats. Under state sponsorship
there was rapid economic development.
Atatürk turned Turkey’s back on the Islamic world and attempted to make
Turkey Western and European.
Atatürk was not entirely successful in eliminating Islam as a social
and political force, particularly in the countryside. His attempts to abolish Arabic as a liturgical language were
eventually abandoned. Even Atatürk’s
harsh anti-clerical measures could be seen by many pious Muslims as salutary
reforms of corrupt religious institutions.
Typical, perhaps, is the fact that Turks never ceased referring to
Atatürk himself as “Ghazi”—“victor in the holy war.”
Politically, Turkey has become generally democratic. After Atatürk’s death in 1938 Turkey enjoyed
considerable periods of democratic rule, broken by military intervention in
times of instability. Generally, Turkey
has remained true to Atatürk’s vision of a secular modern state—in recent
years, for example, attempting to join the European Community. However, Islamic nationalism is also
increasingly influential.
Shoghi Effendi
on the fall of the Ottomans and the rise of modern Turkey
Five years after the end of World War I the Ottoman Empire was
gone, replaced by Atatürk’s secular Republic of Turkey. In several of his works, especially The Promised Day is Come, Shoghi Effendi
points to this extraordinary transformation as evidence of the hand of God at
work, sweeping away the obsolete forms of Islam and preparing the way for the
eventual triumph of the Baha’i Faith, “a slow yet steady and relentless
retribution.” (Shoghi Effendi, Promised
61.) He links it to the fall of the Qajar monarchy in Iran. For Shoghi Effendi the decline of
Istanbul—no longer the capital even of the shrunken Turkish
Republic—particularly symbolized this.
For Shoghi Effendi the Ottoman Empire also represented Sunni Islam’s
encounter with the revelation of Bahaullah, just as Iran and the Qajar regime
represented Shi‘ism.
Shoghi Effendi considered the Ottoman regime more culpable than
the Iranian government in its treatment of the Baha’is. While in Iran the Babis had attempted to
assassinate the Shah, the Ottomans had no just cause for complaint against the
Bahaullah.
For Baha’i writings
on the Ottoman Empire and Turkey, see Mazandarani, Amr 4:453–58; Bahaullah, Proclamation
102–4; Bahaullah, Tablets, 213;
Shoghi Effendi, Promised 19, 38–39,
61–66, 100–1; Shoghi Effendi, World
173–74; Taherzadeh 2:312–23, as well as the bibliography on tablets mentioned
above.
The Baha’i Community of Turkey
The modern Republic of Turkey now has the second
largest Baha’i community in the Middle East.
The modern Baha’i community of Turkey was established by Iranian Baha’i
traders, pilgrims, and refugees seeking the opportunities and relative freedom
of cosmopolitan Istanbul. A local
spiritual assembly was established there, and Baha’i communities eventually
grew up in other towns in the area. A
second area of Baha’i settlement was in the south, in partly Arab areas like
Adana, Iskenderun (Alexandretta, held by France until 1937), and neighboring
towns. The Baha’is here seem to have
been Arabic-speaking descendants of early Baha’is in Iraq and the Holy
Land. Baha’i communities also
eventually grew up in other important towns such as Smyrna and Ankara.
Like the Tanzimat and Young Turk reformers before
him, Atatürk attempted to modernize Turkish society by authoritarian rule
rather than by liberalization. He
ruthlessly suppressed competing influences: most Islamic institutions,
particularly the mystical orders, Freemasons, labor groups, Communists, and the
like. In 1928 a number of Baha’is in
Smyrna were arrested on the grounds that they were—as the Times of London
correspondent put it—“a group of Turks, Americans, and Persians who had formed
a secret society with the object of continuing the religious practices in vogue
in the days of the Sultans.” They were
further suspected of having political contacts with royalist emigres. When the Istanbul spiritual assembly
intervened, its members were also arrested.
The Istanbul Baha’is used the trial as an opportunity to expound
publicly the history and teachings of the Baha’i Faith, gaining considerable
publicity in the Middle Eastern press.
In the end they were cleared of the charge of being a subversive organization
and convicted only of the minor charge of having failed to register as an
association. In 1932–33 many Baha’is
were arrested in Istanbul and Adana on similar charges, although in Adana the
prejudices of Muslims seem to have been a factor also. By March 1933 the Istanbul Baha’is had been
acquitted, but fifty-three Baha’is remained in prison in Adana, prompting
Shoghi Effendi to ask the American and Iranian Baha’is to appeal to the Turkish
authorities in their behalf. All the
Baha’is were released by the beginning of April.
In later decades Baha’is continued to face intermittent
harassment from Turkish authorities concerned that they represented a foreign
political or cultural influence, thus forcing the Turkish Baha’is to remain
somewhat cautious in their public activities.
As late as the 1960s a Baha’i election meeting was raided by police and
those present briefly jailed.
The constitution of the Republic of Turkey
guarantees freedom of worship and conscience but prohibits religious interference
in politics. The criminal code
prohibits proselytism. The
establishment of the republic resulted in the deinstitutionalization of Islam
but also the departure of almost all non-Muslims from the country. Islamic institutions now are entirely
controlled by the state. Other
religious communities are free of direct state control but must operate within
narrow legal limits. The development of
the modern Turkish Baha’i community has been shaped by these paradoxical
circumstances. Though in most ways freer
than other Middle Eastern Baha’i communities, it has always had to exercise its
freedom with caution for fear of triggering old religious or newer political
prejudices. The Turkish Baha’i
community, like Turkey itself, exists in a cultural borderland between Europe
and the Middle East.
Martha Root visited Turkey in 1927, 1929, and 1932. Systematic development of the Baha’i
community began with the Ten Year Crusade (1953–63). With the aid of pioneers from Iraq and Iran, the community grew
to twelve assemblies in 26 localities.
A national spiritual assembly was formed in 1959. The community built a national hazirat
al-quds in Istanbul and bought a temple site and three holy places. There were organized youth activities.
During the Nine Year Plan (1964–73) the community grew to 22
assemblies in 57 localities, including groups on three islands near the
Dardanelles: Imroz, Bozca Ada, and Marmara.
There were also systematic efforts to establish communities in the towns
and villages visited by Bahaullah and along the Black Sea coast. The number of assemblies and localities grew
to 33 and 102 in 1979 but dropped to 29 and 98 by 1983. In 1986 there were 50 assemblies and 157 localities. Statistics on assembly activities such as
feasts, assembly meetings, and children’s classes show that the Turkish
assemblies are relatively strong and active.
Fairly large scale enrollments have occured in southwestern Turkey. The Turkish Baha’is have undertaken various
efforts associated with Bahaullah’s stay in Turkey. These include establishing communities in the areas visited by
him, acquiring and restoring holy places, and commemorating events of his life
in Turkey.
The peculiar political conditions of Turkey made goals involving
official recognition difficult to attain.
The first national spiritual assembly had to be elected by mail. Though the national spiritual assembly was
not been able to achieve incorporation, by 1980 it had some exemption from
taxation. Since 1966 authorities have
also permitted believers to list their religion as “Baha’i” on their identity
cards.
The most significant accomplishment of the Turkish Baha’i
community is the degree to which it has become assimilated into its country, an
achievement only equalled in the Middle East by the Baha’i communities of Iran,
Iraq, Egypt, and Morocco. The earliest
Baha’is in Turkey were Iranians. Some
of their families have remained and have assimilated thoroughly into Turkish
life, a process encouraged by strong Turkish nationalist pressures. Though Turkey still receives pioneers, it
sends almost as many pioneers out to other countries. Over the years Baha’i teaching has brought many ethnic Turks into
the community, especially since the 1970s.
During the Nine Year Plan the Turkish community was successful in
teaching in the ‘Alavi, or ‘Ashiq, community, a dissident Shi‘i minority in
Anatolia. By the 1970s the Turkish
Baha’i community was culturally Turkish, rather than being an expatriate
Iranian community as is the case in many other Middle Eastern countries.
Since the Iranian Revolution of 1979, many Baha’i refugees have
crossed into Turkey, some of whom have had to stay for long periods while
awaiting resettlement.
For the history of the modern Turkish Baha’i community, see Balyuzi, ‘Abdu’l-Baha 399; Momen, Babi 474–75; Ishraq-Khavari, Da’irat 7:972–74; Garis, Root 294–95, 322–27, Baha’i World 1:101, 103; 2:183; 3:43, 45, 218, 222–23; 4:97, 274, 430–31; 5:432; 6:511; 7:560; 8:692; 9:658–59; 10:559; 11:524–25; 13:297–98, 356, 759, 951, 1035; 14:86, 161, 418; 15:173–74, 251; 16:267; 17:96, 185–86; Baha’i News 28 (Nov. 1928) 2; 72 (Ap. 1933) 4; 397 (Ap. 1964) 3–4; 434 (May 1967) 2; Rabbani, Priceless 316–18; ‘Abd al-Baha, Makatib 303. See also the statistical and teaching plan summaries released by the Baha’i World Center: 1963: 26, 31, 36, 44, 119; 1964: 12–14, 35; 1968: 2, 27, 50, 67, 79, 94, 101–2; 1975: 11, 44, 67, 71, 76, 95; 1983: 98; 1986: 39, 45, 50–51, 56, 66, 72–74, 79, 88, 90–91, 152–53. Some photographs of Turkish Baha’is are found in Baha’i World 3:321, 4:317, 319; 13:297, 525; 14:264; 15:251, 576; 16: 266.
Growth of the
Baha’i community (including
Alexandretta/Hatay)
Year Baha’is LSAs Groups
Isol. Local. Inc. LSAs
1900 100?
1921 1
1930 2 8
10
1937 6?
1944 6?
1953
1963 12 9 5 26
1973 22 35
57
1979 33 69 102
1986 44 58 55 157
Other Turkish
Baha’i Communities.
Though the largest modern Turkish community is in Turkey, large
numbers of Turks live in Iran, the Soviet Union, and China, as well as
elsewhere in the Middle East, Europe, and now even America and Australia. All speak Turkic dialects that are somewhat
mutually intelligible.
Turks and Turkic peoples have lived in Iran for more
than a thousand years, largely sharing the culture of the Persian-speaking
majority. More often than not, Iran has
been ruled by Turkish dynasties such as the Safavids (1499–1722) and the Qajars
(1779–1924). Most Turks in Iran are in
Aharbayjan, now divided between Iran and the Soviet Union. These are the Azeri (Ahari) Turks, closely
related by language and culture to the Turks of Turkey but thoroughly
assimilated into Iranian life and sharing a common Shi‘i faith. The Babi and Baha’i religions spread among
the Turks of Aharbayjan as it did among the Persians elsewhere in Iran. Most of the Babis at the battle of Zanjan,
for example, must have been Turks. A
number of the nomadic tribes of Iran are also Turkic, but there have never been
many Baha’is among them, though systematic efforts have been made to teach
them.
Six of the new republics of the former Soviet Union
are ethnically Turkic: Azerbaijan, Kirghizistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and
Kazakhstan, although the last is now only 40% Turkic due to immigration from
other parts of the former Soviet Union.
The area north of Iran and Afghanistan and east of the Caspian was
formerly known as Russian Turkistan.
There are also other Turkic groups elsewhere in the Soviet Union. Baha’i refugees from Iran established
communities in Russian Turkistan and the Caucusus around the turn of the
century. Until the early 1930s there
were national spiritual assemblies in the Caucasus, which included Soviet
Azerbaijan, and Turkistan. Some of
these communities still exist after half a century of isolation from the rest
of the Baha’i world. Few if any of the
local Turkic peoples ever became Baha’is.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, there has been rapid
growth in the Baha’i communities in the new republics, including the Turkish
areas. New converts seem to include a
significant number of Turks, but the sitatuation is changing rapidly.
Other Turkic communities exist in western China,
Bulgaria, Syria, and Iraq. There are
few if any Baha’is among these groups.
In the last three decades poverty has driven many Turks to
emigrate to Western Europe, America, and Australia. The Five Year Plan called for collaboration among the national
spiritual assemblies of Turkey, Germany, and Australia in teaching these emigrants.
Baha’i literature in Turkish
The Turkic languages belong to the Altaic family and are thus
related to other Central Asian languages such as Mongolian. All the Turkic languages are characterized
by vowel harmony, agglutinative morphology, and verb-final word order. They are thus very different in sound and
structure from other Islamic languages such as Persian and Arabic. Almost all modern Turkic languages once used
the Arabic alphabet, though it was not very suitable for their sounds. Early Turkic languages also used the ancient
Uighur script, and modern Republican Turkish uses the Roman alphabet. Since about 1939 Soviet Turkic languages
have used the Cyrillic script, but since the independence of the Turkish
republics of the former Soviet Union there have been plans for adopting the
Latin alphabet of modern Republican Turkish.
The Turkic language used in the nineteenth century Near East was Ottoman (Osmanli), a southwestern Turkic dialect heavily infused with Persian and Arabic words. It was the language of government and the ruling elite throughout the Ottoman Empire, though educated Ottomans usually knew Persian and Arabic as well. It was closely related to Azeri, the Turkic dialect of northwestern Iran. In 1928 as part of his modernization program, Atatürk decreed that Turkish should be written in the Roman alphabet. In addition he tried to purify the language from Persian and Arabic loan words. The Arabic script was no longer to be taught. This had the effect of cutting modern Turks off from their old literary heritage; not only could they not read the old alphabet, they no longer knew many of the Arabic and Persian words and phrases that filled Ottoman Turkish. Modern Turkish is thus quite different now from other Turkic languages and from the Ottoman Turkish of a century ago.
It should be noted that Republican Turkish spelling of Arabic
and Persian words and names is based on Turkish pronunciation and thus differs
substantially from the common transliterations directly from Persian and
Arabic. “Muhammad,” for example, is “Mehmet”
in modern Turkish.
For information on Turkish, see EB (1985) “Turkic Languages;” Bernard Comrie, The World’s Major Languages (New York: Oxford, 1987) pp. 619–44.
‘Abd al-Baha lived almost his entire life in the
Ottoman Empire and spoke Ottoman Turkish well.
He wrote a number of prayers in Turkish. These are heavily infused with Persian words and phrases, in
accordance with the literary tastes of the time. They have been published.
Though a few items evidently were published in Ottoman Turkish, Baha’i
publishing in Turkey did not begin in earnest until after the change to the
Roman alphabet. In addition to
expository works originally written in Turkish, many of the best known Baha’i
books in Persian were translated, particularly works by Bahaullah, ‘Abd
al-Baha, and Mirza Abu al-Fadl Gulpaygani.
The early translators, such as Majdi Ènan, were educated before the reform and thus knew Persian and Arabic. These translations, though written in the
Roman alphabet, were thoroughly Ottoman in style and became increasingly
difficult for younger Turks educated in the new system. There have thus been attempts to rewrite the
older translations in modern Republican Turkish to make them more accessible. Translation remains a problem since there
are now few Turkish Baha’is who are fluent in Arabic and Persian. The enrichment of Turkish Baha’i literature
has been a goal of teaching plans since 1964.
Though there are large Turkish-speaking Baha’i
communities in Iran, the Iranian government prohibited the publication of
literature in Turkish throughout most of this century. As a result there has been little Turkish
Baha’i literature published in Iran, the Turkish prayers of ‘Abd al-Baha being
a notable exception. A translation of
the short obligatory prayer into Azeri is found in Baha’i World 16:601 and 17:520.
Sixty percent of the speakers of Turkic languages live outside
Turkey, many of them in the former Soviet Union: about one out of eight
citizens of these republics speaks a Turkic language as his mother tongue. Most of the earliest published Baha’i
literature in Turkish was printed by the large Baha’i communities in Baku in
Russian Azerbaijan and Ashkhabad in Russian Turkistan. Beginning with the Nine Year Plan, the
translation of Baha’i literature into the various dialects of Soviet Central
Asia has been a goal, including Turkmen, Kazakh, Kirghiz, and Uzbek. Translations were made into at least the
first two of these prior to the fall of the Soviet Union. It seems likely that with the independence
of these states there will be a large increase in Baha’i literature in the
languages of the Turkish republics.
The most recent bibliographies of Baha’i literature in Turkish are Baha’i World 13:1108; 18:889. For other Turkic languages see Baha’i World 14:569; 15:714; 16:601, 612; 18:843, 857–58.
Excursus
‘Abdu’llah Pasha
This Turkish official was the governor of ‘Akka from
1819 to 1832 and was the owner of a number of buildings important in Baha’i
history. He was the governor of ‘Akka
after his father-in-law Sulayman Pasha.
He sided with the Turkish Sultan against Muhammad-‘Ali Pasha of Egypt
when the latter sent his son Ibrahim Pasha to invade Turkish Syria in the
summer of 1831. The Egyptian army
besieged ‘Akka for six months.
Eventually, he was forced to surrender the city after a bombardment that
damaged almost every building in the city.
He was exiled to Egypt but later returned to reclaim his properties in
the ‘Akka area. He then moved to
Istanbul and finally to Medina where he died and is buried.
Among the extensive properties he amassed were the
mansion of Mazra‘a on land formerly owned by his father ‘Ali Pasha and in which
Bahaullah later lived; the Governorate of ‘Akka, now known as the House of
‘Abdu’llah Pasha, where ‘Abd al-Baha lived from 1896 to 1910; and mansions
adjacent to the Mansion of Bahji and on the promontory of Mt. Carmel. He also completed the Citadel of ‘Akka in
which Bahaullah was imprisoned. (Ruhe, Door
205-6.)