The Baha'i Studies Listserv
Baha’u’llah revealed two major letterss in answer to Manakji’s
questions. The first letter is written at the level of general
principle and Baha’u’llah articulates the universality of his own
claims. Manakji, however, was dissatisfied because he did not feel
this letter had adequately addressed his specific questions. A second
set of correspondence followed in which Manakji presented his
questions once again, this time through his secretary Mirza Abu’l-Fadl
while Baha’u’llah responded through His own amanuensis Mírzá Áqá Ján.
The letter states:
"Now, as to his questions, it was not deemed advisable to refer and
reply to each one individually, for the response would have run
counter to wisdom and been incompatible with that which is current
amongst men."
By wisdom [hikmat] Baha’u’llah is referring to the caution that should
be exercised to avoid misunderstandings and opposition on the part of
Muslims who might get a hold of this correspondence. Baha’u’llah
insists that had Manakji truly understood what He was saying Manakji
would have seen that his questions had been answered fully and
completely. Baha’u’llah states that He had avoided going into
specifics in the second letter, unlike the first, Manakji’s own
questions are repeated and a specific response is given to each one.
While on some levels Baha’u’llah initial letter is perhaps the more
profound, I wish to focus primarily on the second letter for only this
one provides a window as to the specific questions Baha’u’llah was
being asked.
Manakji’s first question is as follows.
“The Prophets of Mahábád, together with Zoroaster, were twenty-eight
in number. Each one of them sought to exalt, rather than abrogate, the
faith and religion of the others. Each one that appeared bore witness
to the truth and veracity of the former law and religion and breathed
no word about abolishing them. Each declared: ’We are the bearers of a
revelation from God, which We deliver unto His servants.’ Some of the
Hindu Prophets, however, have declared: ’We are God Himself, and it is
incumbent upon the entire creation to bear allegiance unto Us.
Whensoever conflict and dissension appear amongst men, We arise to
quench it.’ Each one that appeared announced: ’I am the same One that
appeared in the beginning.’ The latter Prophets such as David,
Abraham, Moses and Jesus confirmed the truth of the Prophets gone
before them, but said: ’Such was the law in the past, but in this day
the law is that which I proclaim.’ The Arabian Prophet, however, hath
said: ’Through My appearance every law hath proven to be unsound and
no law holdeth but Mine.’ Which of these creeds is acceptable and
which of these leaders is to be preferred?”
Manakji alludes to Hindu beliefs when he states: “Some of the Hindu
Prophets, however, have declared: ’We are God Himself, and it is
incumbent upon the entire creation to bear allegiance unto Us.
Whensoever conflict and dissension appear amongst men, We arise to
quench it.”This appears to be an allusion to the famous fourth chapter
of the Bhagavad-Gita,
"Though myself unborn, undying, the lord of creatures, I fashion
nature, which is mine, and I come into being through my own magic.
Whenever sacred duty decays and chaos prevails, then, I create myself,
Arjuna. To protect men of virtue and destroy men who do evil, to set
the standard of sacred duty, I appear in age after age."
Each one claims to be an incarnation of God Himself and therefore they
are all considered one. He then compares this with the Abrahamic
religions where each one recognizes the previous prophets but changes
their laws. So the question is which schema is better, the one Manakji
supposes to be the Zoroastrian one wherein each Messenger deems
himself a mere servant of God who reiterates the exact same message,
or the Hindu concept of Avatars wherein God is thought to incarnate
Himself, or the Abrahamic religions wherein Prophets acknowledge
themselves to be servants of God but who change the laws. Muhammad,
however, he appears to place in a separate category as one who both
changed the laws and outright rejected the revelations which proceeded
His.
Baha’u’llah answers by reiterating the same principle articulated in
the Kitab-i Iqan that all the Messengers of God are basically the same
and none to be preferred over the other. They differ in that some
reveal a new set of laws whereas others do not. But this relates to
the exigencies of the time, not Their own station. Baha’u’llah
challenges Manakji’s conception of Muhammad’s revelation but He
remains silent on the question of the validity so-called prophets of
Mahabad and their unchanging revelation. He also is silent on the
question of incarnation or reincarnation in relation to Hinduism. But
He doesn’t hesitate to draw Manakji’s attention to the following
principle of Progressive Revelation which directly contradicts
Manakji’s own perennialism:
"The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He
perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the
remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular
aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day
afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may
require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in,
and centre your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements."
__________________________________________________
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[email protected]
Unsubscribe: send a blank email to
mailto:leave-549519-27401.54f46e81b66496c9909bcdc2f7987...@list.jccc.edu
Subscribe: send subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [email protected]
Or subscribe: http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=bahai-st
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
Mail - mailto:[email protected]
Web - http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/?forum=bahai-st
News (on-campus only) - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st
Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
