O Breaker of All Idols! or The senile ramblings of Mirzā Ḥusayn ʿAlī Nurī Bahā’u’llāh (d. 1892) in his Tablet of O Creator of all creation! (lawḥ-i-yā mubdiʾ-i-kull-i-badīʾ)
جَاءَ الْحَقُّ وَزَهَقَ الْبَاطِلُ إِنَّ الْبَاطِلَ كَانَ زَهُوقًا
Academia.edu link
O Breaker of All Idols!
or
The senile ramblings of Mirzā Ḥusayn ʿAlī Nurī Bahā’u’llāh (d. 1892)
in his
Tablet of O Creator of all creation!
(lawḥ-i-yā mubdiʾ -i-kull-i-badīʾ)
Translated with critical introduction , notes and transcription
by
Wahid Azal © 2004
(slightly edited 2022)
The following work was first identified in Western print by William McElwee Miller in his Baha’i Faith: It’s History and Teachings (Pasadena: 1974) and entitled the Tablet of O Creator of all creation (lawḥ-i-yā mubdiʾ kull-i-badīʾ).[1] A copy of it was made available to Miller by the late Jalāl Azal (d. 1971) and is currently amongst his collection of papers deposited at the Princeton University Library special collections.[2] Photo-scans of two original exemplars -- one in the hand of Mirzā Ḥusayn ʿAlī Nurī Baha’u’llah (d. 1892) himself and the other in the hand of his son and second-named successor, Mīrzā Muḥammad ʿAlī (d. 1937) -- was acquired by the Iranian Bayānī community (i.e. Azalī Bābīs) from descendents of the latter, who have titled it “lawḥ-i-badīʾ.” However, this is not the kitāb-i-badīʾ of the 1866-68 period, which Mirzā Ḥusayn ʿAlī Nurī had specifically addressed to one of the loyalist Bayānīs who had written to him.[3] It is rather a different work altogether. As of February 2005 originals of this document were for the first time made publicly available on the internet, together with an accompanying Persian and partial English translation. All are on the website bayanic.com.[4] See the three appendices to this translation below for the two exemplar copies which originate from that site. This present translation is therefore the first full translation.
The two manuscript exemplars contain no colophon or date, but concurring with Miller and the Iranian Bayani community, it appears to be one of Ḥusayn ʿAlī Nurī’s epistles in his later years and possibly of the period shortly before his death. While there is no internal evidence specifically dating it -- and consensus does not necessarily prove its lateness -- barring the work being transcribed again at a later time (which is probable), that its second exemplar is in the hand of Mīrzā Muḥammad ʿAlī would place it in, at least, the 1880s, if not shortly after, since it appears he was functioning as his father’s amanuensis and secretary in that period, not before. Note also that this second exemplar is in a version of the khatt-i-badīʾ (‘new’ or ‘innovative’ script) which Mīrzā Muḥammad ʿAlī is said to have invented (or, rather, modified, as it is merely an amended version of the traditional shikastih style). However, there is no doubt that the first exemplar is in the hand of Mīrzā Ḥusayn ʿAlī Nurī himself, as the handwriting clearly attests that it is.
Like much of the corpus of Mīrzā Ḥusayn ʿAlī Nurī’s post-Edirne period tablets, the Tablet of O Creator of All Creation is a short work. Consisting of a single page, its style is rather obtuse, repeating a typically recondite and arrogant sounding self-devotional doxology and refrain to his own theophanic claims that is a trademark of virtually all his work in that period. The shortness and paucity of content in Mīrzā Ḥusayn ʿAlī Nurī’s later tablets is to be contrasted with the final works of the Bāb, or even those of Mīrzā Ḥusayn ʿAlī Nurī’s rival, younger half-brother, and the Bāb’s legitimate successor, Subḥ-i-Azal (d. 1912), which sometimes often run into several hundred pages, discussing multiple topics, while also providing uniquely interesting and far more powerful doxological refrains than his. This is a major difference between the Bāb and Azal with Ḥusayn ʿAlī Nurī. Whereas the corpus of both the Bāb and his successor’s writings clearly demonstrate a qualitative difference between correspondences and a major doctrinal piece, the majority of Ḥusayn ʿAlī’s tablets are actually correspondences couched in terms of a doctrinal work, and with meager content at that.
The need for translating and further examining this epistle is necessitated by the fact that it, along with other documents, helps place the Bayānī response to Mīrzā Ḥusayn ʿAlī Nurī’s claims in a far more complex (and, dare I say, credible) light. While he doesn’t quite step-down from his pedestal of being the embodiment of a unique revelatory theophany (or ‘Manifestation of God’), surprisingly in it he explicitly stops short in stating that he is not in fact the Bābī messianic figure of ‘He whom God shall make Manifest’ (man yuẓhiruhu’Llāh). This is especially demonstrated in the second and third sentences where he identifies the Promised One (mawʿūd) with the mustaghāth (the one invoked) of the Bayān.
The admission is quite startling as well as historically significant. Ḥusayn ʿAlī Nurī had made his prophetic career in Edirne precisely on this very claim, viz. of being the mustaghāth, which is one of the two most well-known titles (and ciphers) in the Persian Bayān specifically designating ‘He whom God shall make Manifest’ and the date of his possible advent.[5] It seems that while he stops short in explicitly stating he is not the Bābī messiah (and with such brazen, yet nevertheless implied, admission on his part the doors are swung wide open for speculation), he attempts then to have his cake and eat too in that, while he insists on his own divine status, he then maintains the contradictory position that the true Bābī messiah will also be appearing in the prescribed time validating him! In light of the relevant passages of the Persian Bayān as well as the Will and Testament of the Bāb,[6] and other documents addressed by the Bāb to Subḥ-i-Azal (d. 1912), Mīrzā Ḥusayn ʿAlī Nurī’s claim begins to appear weaker than usual, highlighting power politics on his part rather than veridical truth or a divine mandate as such. Moreover, one is at a loss to understand exactly how such a scheme as suggested by him would work, given the straightforward eschatology and prophetology the Bayān offers on the question; if indeed, that is, he is saying he is not the ‘He whom God shall make Manifest’ of the Bayān as his wording strongly indicates.
It seems that Mīrzā Ḥusayn ʿAlī Nurī had not thoroughly considered the full implications of the logical and theological conundrum that making such an argument as his would create in the future for his overall theophanic claims, magnifying by several factors the holes already pointed out by his Bayānī detractors, making the very raison d’etre of his claims in both the late Baghdad and Edirne periods sound completely disingenuous. Bahāʾī apologists might offer explanations to the effect that the one spoken of in this tablet refers to the theophany to occur in the one-thousand year period after Ḥusayn ʿAlī Nurī’s own, as mentioned in his kitāb-i-aqdas. Unfortunately, given what Ḥusayn ʿAlī does state here (especially how he clearly waffles in contradictory fashion between his own model of a future parousia and that of the Bayān’s), and given the very specific Bayānic terminology he uses and the even more specific original intentionality behind the meaning of those terms, the question remains far more problematic than citing his provisions in his ‘most holy book’. It is therefore not surprising that the Haifan Bahāʾī authorities have sought to suppress this document, not circulating it for public consumption or translating it, since along with his kitab-i-badīʾ it is a rather embarrassing work vis-à-vis the Bahāʾī hagiographical tradition.
A further, but unrelated, point in this tablet is the inordinate importance that Ḥusayn ʿAlī Nurī places upon his family (aghsān). Without naming his two successors -– ʿAbbās Effendī (d. 1921) and Mīrzā Muḥammad ʿAlī -– it seems that he imbues a tout court sanctity upon his whole family very reminiscent of the kind of sanctity imbued upon the ahl al-bayt (i.e. Muḥammad, Fāṭima, the Imāms and all related kinsmen) in Shiʿism. He says things like those who have turned away from them are accounted as infidels and as those who have associated partners with God, while also exhorting his followers to give his kinsmen the highest respect. In light of later demonizations of Muḥammad ʿAlī and his family as ‘covenant breakers’, the ironies become quite glaring.
Overall, the descendents of Mīrzā Muḥammad ʿAlī are to be thanked profusely for making this document available for historical posterity; for, indeed, it will greatly assist in the kind of future research needed to examine the trajectory of Ḥusayn ʿAlī Nurī’s claims (from Baghdad to Edirne and the Acre period up to this tablet) beyond the tendentious propaganda and myth-making churned out by Bahāʾī hagiographers throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. One of the attributes of the Godhead often invoked in Islamic theological works devoted to the science of the Godhead’s attributes is the Breaker of Idols. I have dubbed this paper “O Breaker of Idols,” both as a pun on Ḥusayn ʿAlī Nurī’s own opening and also because it appears to me that by bringing this work into the general consciousness, the diffusion of it will go a long way in eventually breaking the idol (i.e. ṣanam as well as ṭaghūt) by which Bahāʾī apologists and hagiographers have spent a century and a half contriving the myth of Mirza Ḥusayn ʿAlī Nurī. It is to be hoped that this translation will contribute to that end.
Translation
O Creator of all that hath been created!
This is that which hath been sent down from the primeval heaven and in it is established the station of excellence wherein is made apparent the beauty of God on the throne of the name of might. And verily he is the Promised One mentioned by every name in all the tablets, if ye be of those who know. In the Bayān he was named He who shall appear[7] and he shall [indeed] be manifested in mustaghāth with sovereign distinction. Say, by God, this is the day the like of which hath not been witnessed by the eyes of the unseen, let alone those who are of the veiled. So praised be to the one who is present on that day between my divine hands with an invulnerable submissiveness and recites this tablet in front of that throne so that God may hear his melodies which were revealed from before between the heavens and the earths; and, by this, the name hath been mentioned in the place wherein God hath made holy in all that is mentioned in the worlds. Verily in this tablet we have not desired to mention this but that it is my own self, the protector of the worlds. [And] whosoever anticipates another revelation after me, verily he is of those who have gone astray, for verily he who shall appear after one-thousand [years], indeed he will speak in my name; and he shall come in mustaghāth, testifying in my name in that I am God, the lord of the heavens and the earths. None hath understood this revelation other than a few, for he is cognizant of all things. Hold fast after me, O people, to the branches which have branched from the ancient root. By them the fragrant scents of my garment are wafted among the worlds, and [none] shall find it except [those who] turn to the straight [path]. It behoveth thee, O people of Bahāʾ, to hold steadfast in the cause of God in your days in every state and [thereby safeguard yourselves] from following every ignorant sinner. And after the branches, for the pious servant present in front of this throne, [we have made] an elevated station. It behoveth thee to account the family from amongst whom the beloved of the worlds appeared with the highest respect: Of those who have believed in God, the dearly precious, the praised. Likewise was it revealed in the Bayān and in this luminous tablet. Whoever turns away from them, verily he is among the infidels and those who associated partners with God and among those who have lost, unless he turn and repent, for verily he is the forgiver, the merciful.
Appendix I: Exemplar in the hand of
Mirzā Ḥusayn ʿAlī Nurī
Appendix II: Typescript of the Text
یا مبدع کل بدیع
هذا
مانزل من سمآء القدم و فیه فضل مقام لذی فیه استقر جمال الله علی عرش اسم عظیم و
انه الموعود فی کّل الالواح بکل اسم ان انتم من العارفین و سمی فی البیان بمن یظهر
و انه سیظهر فی المستغاث بسلطان مبین فطوبی لمن یحضر فی ذلک الیوم بین یدی الله
بخضوع منیع و یقرء هذااللوح فی مقابلة العرش لیسمع سمع الله نغماته التی ظهرت من
قبل بین السموات والارضین و بذلک بذکر هذا الاسم فی مقعد الذی جعله الله مقدساً عن
ذکر العالمین انا ما اردنا فیما ذکر فی هذا اللوح الا نفسی المهمینة علی العالمین
من ینتظر ظهوراً بعدی انه من الخاسرین و الذی یظهر بعد الالف انه ناطق باسمی و فی
المستغاث بانی من یشهد لی بانی انا الله ربّ السموات والارضین ما عرف احد هذا
الظهور الا علی قدر انه بکل شیئ علیم تمسکوا باقوم بعدی بالاغصان المنشعبة من هذا
الاصل القدیم بهم ثمر نفحات قمیص بین العالم و لایجدها الا کل مقبل مستقیم ینبغی
لکم یا اهل البهآء بان تستقیموا علی امر الله فی کل شأن ایاکم ان تتبعوا کل جاهل
اثیم و بعد الاغصان قّدر لعبد الحاضر لدی العرش مقام رفیع و ینبغی لکم بان توقروا
طائفة التی ظهر بیتهم محبوب العالمین من الذین آمنو بالله العزیز الحمید کذلک نزل
فی البیان و هذا اللوح المنیر والذی اعرض منهم انه مّمن کفرو اشرک الا اّنه من
الأخسرین الا بان یتوب اّنه لهو الغفور الّرحیم
Appendix III: Exemplar in the hand of Mīrzā Muḥammad ʿAlī
[1] See p.428, #49 under List of Documents in Appendix 2. Also see note (5) p. 108 where Miller states, “…Baha at first tried to explain the words ghiyath (1511) and mustaghath (2001) in some way that would not conflict with his claims. However, near the end of his life in his Tablet O Creator of All Creation, Baha revoked his earlier interpretation and stated that “He who was in the Bayan ‘He-Who-Will-Appear’ [that is, He-Whom-God-Will-Make-Manifest] shall in truth come in the Mustaghath with manifest power. He did not explain how it happened that he (Baha’u’llah) had come before the Mustaghath,” online https://archive.org/details/miller-the-bahai-faith-its-history-and-teachings (retrieved 25 January 2022).
[2] Ibid., Azal’s Notes, pp. 256, 257, 1021-1023, online https://www.h-net.org/~bahai/index/diglib/mss.htm (retrieved 25 January 2022).
[3] Online https://oceanoflights.org/bahaullah-st-016-fa (retrieved 25 January 2022).
[4]http://www.bayanic.com/notes/ghiyath/ghiyath03.html (retrieved 25 January 2022).
[5] Gate 17, Unity 2 of the Persian Bayān states, for example,
“If He [whom God shall make Manifest] appears in the number of ghiyāth (1511) and all enter therein, no one shall remain in the fire. If it tarries till mustaghāth (2001), all shall enter therein, no one shall remain in the fire, yet shall all be transformed into His Light.”
And Gate 15, Unity 3:
“No one knoweth [the time] of the manifestation other than God. Whenever it takes place, all must bear witness to its truth and give thanks unto God, although by His grace it is hoped that He will appear till [the time of] mustaghāth [2001] whereby the word of God may be raised high. And the proof is a sign, for His very being proves Him, whilst He cannot be known by what is beneath Him. Glory be to God above what they attribute to Him!”
Online https://archive.org/details/20201208_20201208_1113 (retrieved 25 January 2022).
[6] See my translation of this document, online https://archive.org/details/will-testament-of-point-3 (retrieved 25 January 2022).
(retrieved 25 January 2022).
[7] Meaning, He whom God shall make Manifest.
