A FRAUDULENT TESTAMENT Part-4

Chapter 5.

 

V. THE DIFFERENCE IN THE PUBLICATION OF THE TESTAMENT OF

BAHA'ULLAH AND THAT OF THE ALLEGED TESTAMENT OF ABDUL BAHA 

The fact that Abdul Baha, the "Center of the Covenant and Interpreter of the Words of Baha'u'llah", was supposed to become his successor was known for a long time in advance through Baha'u'llah's presentation in Kitab-i-Akdas, Kitab-i-Ahd (Book of the Covenant) and in the Tablet of the Branch." ¹²³The opening of Baha'u'llah's Testament is accurately passed down to us and reported by Shoghi Effendi in God Passes By on page 238, "... unsealed, on the ninth day after His ascension in the presence of nine witnesses...; read subsequently, on the afternoon of that same day, before a large company assembled in His Most Holy Tomb, including His sons, some of the Bab's kinsmen, pilgrims and resident believers."How was it, on the other hand, with the alleged testament of Abdul Baha? First a telegram from Haifa arrived on December 22, 1921 for Consul Schwarz in Stuttgart:"Memorial meetings world over january seven produce prayers for unity and steadfastness master left full instructions In his will and testament translations will be sent inform friends greatest holy leaf" ¹²⁴

Shoghi was not yet back in Haifa, although Miss Hauff (Stuttgart), the present Baroness of Werdern, had written her parents on December 3, 1921 in a letter from Haifa, ".. - until the instructions which Abdul Baha gave, and his Last Will are read, which will be done by his oldest grandson, who is expected back from England in the next few days." ¹²⁵The "last instructions" of Abdul Baha were naturally known at this time to a small group of initiates. This fact is clear Irom the telegram to Consul Schwarz: "The master left full instructions in his will and testament." How far these "exact instructions regarding his will and testament" agreed with the real "last stipulations", is not known to us. Because the Testament of Baha'u'llah, with the exception of Abdul Baha's appointment to the "Center of the Covenant" and "Interpreter" of his teachings, was of an even more general nature, the testament of the Master might have gone even more in that direction. The announced "translations" were indeed sent on just three years later (for the first lime in February, 1925, in the United States).

This fact, that the contents of the last instruction of Abdul Baha were not made known until after Shoghi's return from Europe but had been read, although not published, earlier comes from a letter which A. Diebold received from Shoghi's former secretary — his cousin, Rouhi Afnan - and which was legally authorized by Shoghi himself in a postscript, "Read and approved, Shoghi". It was dated March 12, 1930. This letter says, ".. the other members of the family, i.e. my grandmother, her four daughters and sons-in-law, myself as the only grand-son present and Khosrow, a trusted servant of the Master. Together, we got the key from His dress pocket which lay near His couch and went to the sate. Before them all, I opened the safe and directed by Monever Khanum found and opened the tin tube in which the Will was. I opened the Will and we took turns in reading it. We kept the purport of the Will a secret until Shoghi Effendi came from Oxford. In short, I opened the document in the presence of the whole family the next day after the Master passed away."

Some critical comments concerning these statements:

1. Whoever has read the alleged Will of Abdul Baha will confirm our opinion that it takes half an hour to read it, and then one must have read very quickly. The ten persons present would have needed, then, five hours altogether. It seems a little doubtful that the family would have stood it so long. Even one reading aloud of the Will would have proved a long sitting. About this, however, nothing is said.

2. In the letter of Rouhi Afnan, the secretary and cousin of Shoghi, to A. Diebold there is nothing said about Shoghi  not being informed about the contents of the testament of Abdul Baha by telegram or letter. The telegram which arrived December 22, 1921 in Stuttgart might therefore be traced back indirectly to Shoghi.This presentation is a new proof that the real last will is not identical with the one whose typed translation was distributed to recognized Bahais from February, 1925, on.In any case, Shoghi was still in England on December 22, 1921. Most probably Shoghi was also not yet back by the end of December, 1921, because we read from Ahmad Sohrab, "Shoghi . . . went to Oxford ... He was there when Abdul Baha passed away from this life and was unable to return until more than a month after the funeral services."¹²⁶A further telegram that Consul Schwarz of Stuttgart received on January 16, 1922 from Haifa might have been sent on from Haifa shortly after Shoghi's return there: "In will Shoghi Effendi appointed guardian of cause and head of house ot justice inform friends greatest holy leaf" cit. White, loc. cit., p. 

3).Ruth White writes about the further development, "An unsigned, undated typewritten translation of the alleged will of Abdul Baha arrived In America four weeks later and was read by Mr. Horace Holley to a gathering of Bahais. But no details whatsoever, or comments, upon the alleged will were vouchsafed the audience." Mrs. White, who was there herself, gives this presentation in The Bahai Religion and its Enemy, the Bahai Organization (1929, page 3). Therefore, this appointment of a successor for Abdul Baha seemed like a "thunderbolt out of a clear sky", since Abdul Baha had never given an indication of naming a successor. The leadership of the Bahai Cause was supposed to be handed over to the House of Justice.

In Star ot the West of November 23, 1913, Abdul Baha said on page 238, "The promised One of Baha'u'llah will appear after one thousand or thousands of years. This is the Covenant which Baha'u'llah made .. . In case of difference, Abdul Baha must be consulted . . . After Abdul Baha whenever the Universal House of Justice is organized, it will ward off differences." ¹²⁷Only three years later in February, 1925, typewritten copies were distributed only among "old and recognized believers" with permission from Shoghi. Mrs. White also received a copy.In the meantime, parts of the alleged testament of Abdul Baha had been published as, for example, in "Sonne der Wahrheit" in August, 1922. This publication of excerpts of the alleged testament of Abdul Baha was extremely meager. The first point of discussion is the covenant breakers, then the branches and hands of the cause, and finally the disciples of Christ and their task after the death of their Lord and Master. This Is followed by the part about "conflict and contention", which is not allowed. Here the anticipated reactions to the publication of the whole testament are dampened by immediately taking the wind out of the sails of potential attackers from the very beginning. Nothing at all is spoken of the real aggravating elements of the alleged testament. The tenor of these selections is extraordinarily quiet and moderate: some parts of it could have originated from a testament really attributed to Abdul Baha.These harmless parts of the testament correspond approximately to the parts which were published in 1923 In the Bahai Scriptures (New York) and attached at the very end. As a clever tactic, Mr. Holley, the publisher of the book, printed the section about "conflict and contention are in no wise allowed" as the very first statement. He knew exactly what would happen. The statement "from the onslaught of the insincere" ¹²⁸ follows the section about the "Covenant-breakers" and the "Branches"; that is, the relatives of Abdu! Baha and the "Hands of the Cause".¹²⁹The section about the disciples of Christ after their Lord's death is followed by the previously mentioned statement, which again nullifies all the modifications of the testament by referring to the "Most Holy Book" or the House of Justice. There, everything must really be in order. Not one word is mentioned about the name of the Guardian and his function as head of the House of Justice. The prohibition of the involvement in political affairs which is published here in addition to the fragments in the "Sonne der Wahrheit",¹³⁰ is supposed to strengthen the believers in the idea that everything is okay. The counterpart to this, thus the message that Shoghi is the head of the House of Justice and thus has been promoted up to the highest functionary of this world parliament, is simply avoided. This fact was indicated, to be sure, in the telegram of the "Greatest Holy Leaf" of February 16, 1922, but they wanted to push this pure politicking as far as possible into the background by not mentioning it in the abridgement of the testament.In 1923, another book which deals with sections from the alleged testament of Abdul Baha less frugally appeared. We are speaking of the Esslemont book, which by that year had appeared in English. Here we confront the Guardian dynasty for the first time. The first-born of the Guardian is supposed to follow in his footsteps. Further, Shoghi is allegedly established as the "Interpreter of the Word of God" by Abdul Baha. The group of the "nine hands" which is to be chosen from the total number of the "Hands" arises here for the first time. Nothing Is spoken at all here of their special function as bodyguards. Instead, the Guardian again steps up as "Head of the Universal House of Justice". The financing of the Guardian's privy purse, the "fixed money offering" with the Persian name "Huququ'llah" or "Right of God", is also not yet mentioned here.No criticism can be raised against the linguistic presentation of all these statements. From this point of view it would appear not impossible at all that Abdul Baha had made these stipulations. The language is as innocent as a lamb. Only once are the "covenant-breakers" dealt a blow because they are ". . .foolish and ignoble ... they discern not good from evil . . . and walk In the footsteps of the most imperfect and foolish amongst them".Except for this one sentence, everything could originate — according to the tone — from Abdul Baha." ¹³¹ However, this one sentence can never be attributed to Abdul Baha, as we have proven earlier. If one but takes the whole alleged testament in hand, a completely different, icy wind blows in his face. There Is almost no hint of this in the first excerpts. Because we earlier had plentiful opportunity to get to know the different language of the testament by contrasting the alleged testament of Abdul Baha with the major work of Shoghi, we can eliminate it here. One can still read today just how carefully the Guardian kept step at that time. In the fourth German edition of the Esslemont book (1963) there is this sentence: "In view of the momentous importance of the last Will and Testament of Abdul Baha, the gravity of the issues it raises and the profound wisdom underlying its provisions, we feel that it would be inadvisible, for the present, to undertake any commentary on its contents ..." (German Edition Frankfurt/M 1963, p. 319. !n the Third revised English Edition Wilmette 1970, the second part of this sentence — in italics — has disappeared, author's statement).This passage remained in the famous book for exactly forty years after it was first edited (London 1923, p. 223) and also was in the German edition published six years after Shoghi's death. It is not conceivable that someone simply forgot to take it out. Perhaps the reason for this is the wide circulation of the book which, as far as one can read, is the work most often translated into other languages of the Bahai literature. The possibility that the book might come into the hands of a non-Bahai is also especially great here. is not an intelligent man shocked by some sayings of this alleged testament of Abdul Baha; for example, by the Judgment of damnation? Or was somebody afraid that an alert but non-Bahai reader would find it a regression into a long past time, that a doubt surfacing by chance also might not be expressed since the "outcast clause" must be brought to bear by the Hands as well as by the friends? Or would they like for it not to betrue that the Guardian had to be supported monetarily by his believers? Or were they afraid that an alert reader would be offended by the hard, sometimes downright common manner of expression in the alleged testament of Abdul Baha? We don't know! But we do know one thing: Many of the published sections of the alleged testament of Abdul Baha could have come from a testament that he actually left behind, but certainly not the unpublished parts!

PART FIVE
 

---

123.  H. Grossmann, Das Bundnis Gottes in jer Offenbarungsreligion, Frankfurt, 1956, p. 32f
124.  "Sonne der Warheit", January, 1922, p. 169
125.  "Sonne der Warrheit", January, 1922, p. 182
126.   A. Sohrab, Abdul Baha's Grandson, 1943, p. 168
127.  cit. White, loc. cit., p. 4
128.  W.& T..p. 22
129.  W.& T..p. 9.f
130.  W.& T..p. 15
131.  cited from Esslemont, New Era, 1970, p. 259f.