When the Bāb was imprisoned in Chihrīq,^[1] Muḥammad Shah of Qājār passed away and the princes and nobles of the court became preoccupied with the issues of succession. This put the country in a state of chaos and turmoil. The Bābīs took advantage of this situation and began to riot under the orders of the Bāb. These riots eventually lead to three bloody wars in three different regions of Persia.

The first war began in the first days of the reign of Nāṣir al-Dīn Shāh in the Fort of Sheikh Ṭabarsī in Māzandarān and was led by Mullā Ḥusayn-i-Bushrū’ī and after his death by Mīrzā `Alī Bārfurūshī. These clashes have been described in detail in The Dawn Breakers:

The day had not yet broken when at the signal, “Mount your steeds, O heroes^[2] of God!” . . . Mullā Ḥusayn and two hundred and two of his companions ran to their horses and followed Quddūs . . . He forced his way through the gate and rushed into the private apartments of the prince.^[3]

Mullā Ḥusayn . . . mounting his charger, gave the signal that the gate of the fort be opened. As he rode out at the head of three hundred and thirteen of his companions to meet the enemy, the cry of “Yā Sāhibu’z-Zamān!” again broke forth. Mullā Ḥusayn first charged the barricade which was defended by Zakariyyay-i-Qādī-Kalā’ī, one of the enemy’s most valiant officers. Within a short space of time, he had broken through that barrier, disposed of its commander, and scattered his men. Dashing forward with the same swiftness and intrepidity, he overcame the resistance of both the second and third barricades, diffusing, as he advanced, despair and consternation among his foes. Undeterred by the bullets which rained continually upon him and his companions, they pressed forward until the remaining barricades had all been captured and overthrown.^[4]

The second clash occurred in the city of Nayrīz^[5] with the uprising of Sayyid Yaḥyā Dārābī and this clash also left behind a large number of casualties.^[6]

The third clash occurred in Zanjān between the Bābīs and the government forces. The casualties in this conflict were at least 1800 from the Bābī side:

I have heard it stated that one of the companions of Hujjat who undertook to record the names of those who had suffered martyrdom, had left a written statement in which he had computed the number of those who had fallen prior to the death of Hujjat to be a thousand, five hundred and ninety-eight, whilst those who had suffered martyrdom afterwards were thought to have been in all two hundred and two persons.^[7]

Was the cause of these wars and massacres, anything other than the religion of the Bāb and the beliefs of a group of Bābīs? Did these individuals not cause their own destruction, as well as that of many others, because they rioted and fought for their faith and the love they had for the Bāb?

Bābism, which is the root of Baha’ism, openly ordered its followers to start wars and cause bloodshed. In contrary to what Baha’is claim in their history books and want non-Baha’is to believe, the Bābīs were not a group of oppressed and peace-loving people who were merely protecting their women and children from the Persian government:

That humiliating episode was soon followed by a number of similar attempts on the part of the supporters of the governor, all of which utterly failed to achieve their purpose. Every time they rushed to attack the fort, Hujjat would order a few of his companions, who were three thousand in number, to emerge from their retreat and scatter their forces. He never failed, every time he gave them such orders, to caution his fellow-disciples against shedding unnecessarily the blood of their assailants. He constantly reminded them that their action was of a purely defensive character, and that their sole purpose was to preserve inviolate the security of their women and children. “We are commanded,” he was frequently heard to observe, “not to wage holy war under any circumstances against the unbelievers, whatever be their attitude towards us.”[8]

The peaceful and oppressed face of the Bābis and Baha’is, as well as the historical narratives presented in the books authored by Nabīl Zarandī (many of which were later used by Shoghi Effendi) should be taken with a grain of salt. Nabīl Zarandī was one of the many people who had falsely claimed to be “the One Whom God Shall Make Manifest.”[9] The words of someone who tries to falsely attribute such a supposedly high station to himself should be met with healthy skepticism.

Furthermore, contrary to Nabīl Zarandī’s historical accounts, the orders of the Bāb clearly advocated all forms of violence and blood shedding. The wars that the Bābīs were fighting were the direct result of the Bāb’s orders to burn non-Bābī books, behead and massacre those who did not believe in him, and to destroy all monuments. Most of these wars were not the result of government oppression against the Bābīs, and what has been narrated about them in Baha’i books carry with them a high amount of distortions and exaggerations.

 `Abdu’l-Bahā clearly announces:

The utterance of the [book or religion] of Bayān in the day of the appearance of his Highness A`lā (meaning the Bāb) was to behead, burn the books, destroy the monuments, and massacre [everyone] but those who believed [in the Bāb’s religion] and verified it.^[10]

The savagery in the Bāb’s laws can clearly be seen in Bahā’u’llāh’s words too:

The unbelievers and the faithless have set their minds on four things: first, the shedding of blood [beheading][11]; second, the burning of books; third, the shunning of the followers of other religions; fourth, the extermination of other communities and groups. Now however, through the strengthening grace and potency of the Word of God these four barriers have been demolished, these clear injunctions have been obliterated from the Tablet and brutal dispositions have been transmuted into spiritual attributes.[12]

Since the Bābīs denied Bahā’u’llāh’s station, he refers to them as: “unbelievers and the faithless.” Regarding killing and savagery, `Abdu’l-Bahā says:

If religion causes killing and savagery it is not religion and having no religion is better than that. For religion is meant to be a cure. If a cure causes sickness then of course, no cure is better than it. Thus, if religion causes war and slaughter, then of course, it is better to have no religion.^[13]

According to these words, since the Bab gave orders for war, massacres, and plunder, then Bābism is not a religion. But then the question arises, if Bābism is not a religion, then what is Baha’ism? Did Baha’ism not arise as a continuation of Bābism and as a result of the tidings of the Bab to Him Whom God Shall Make Manifest? Does Baha’ism not proudly present itself as the spritiual successor to Babism? If Bābism is not a valid religion—which according to the current principle is not—then neither is Baha’ism.

[1] A village near the city of Salmās located in the Western Ādharbayjān province of Iran near the Turkish border.

[2] The original Farsi word used is jangjoo which means ‘combatant’ not ‘hero’.

[3] Nabīl Zarandī, The Dawn-Breakers: Nabīl’s Narrative of the Early Days of the Bahā’ī Revelation (US Bahā’ī Publishing Trust, 1932), p. 365.

[4] Nabīl Zarandī, The Dawn-Breakers: Nabīl’s Narrative of the Early Days of the Bahā’ī Revelation, p. 379–380.

[5] Nayrīz is located in the Fārs Province of Iran.

[6] Nabīl Zarandī, The Dawn-Breakers: Nabīl’s Narrative of the Early Days of the Bahā’ī Revelation, pp. 465–500.

[7] Nabīl Zarandī, The Dawn-Breakers: Nabīl’s Narrative of the Early Days of the Bahā’ī Revelation, p. 580.

[8] Nabīl Zarandī, The Dawn-Breakers: Nabīl’s Narrative of the Early Days of the Bahā’ī Revelation, p. 546.

[9] See Muḥammad `Alī Fayḍī, Ḥaḍrat Bahā’u’llāh, pp. 103–104.

[10] `Abdu’l-Bahā, Makātīb (Egypt), vol. 2, p. 266.

[11] The Farsi word used in the original tablet translates to beheading not shedding blood.

[12] Bahā’u’llāh, Tablets of Bahā’u’llāh Revealed After the Kitāb-i-Aqdas, p. 91.

[13] `Abd al-Ḥamīd Ishrāq Khāwarī, Payām-i malakūt, pp. 44–45.