I.

Hasht Bihisht
The Azal’ apologetic Hasht Bihisht (Eight Paradises) was written around 1891-92 in Istanbul and
circulated in manuscript form, only being printed in 1958 in Teheran.
The existence of the Hasht Bihisht and some of its contents became known in the West as early as
1891 and 1892 through Browne's publications. Browne had acquired a copy of one part of the work
in 1891 from Shaykh Amad Ruhi, a son-in-law of Mirza Yahya Azal. He describes how this Shaykh,
with whom he had had no previous acquaintance, had written to him from Istanbul, drawing his
attention to the Hasht Bihisht and offering him a copy? Browne gladly accepted and regarded the
work as an important historical testimony, especially because he believed it to originate from the
pen of an early believer called Siyyid Javad-i-Karbila’i, since Shaykh Amad Ruhi had written in
response to his question about the authorship: The ideas contained in these two books [i.e. the two
volumes of the Hasht Bihisht] represent the teachings and sayings of the illustrious Haji Seyyid
Jaw‡d of Kerbela'i, who was one of the First Letters of the Living, the earliest believers, and the
Letters of the Bismillah. That illustrious personage, now departed, was a pilgrim after truth in these
degrees from the time of the late Shaykh Amad of Ahsa'i until seven years ago . . . But inasmuch as
during his latter days the strength of that illustrious personage was much impaired and his hands
trembled, he was unable to write, wherefore he dictated these words, and one of his disciples wrote
them down, but in an illegible hand and on scattered leaves. In these days, having some leisure
time in Istanbul, I and this person exerted ourselves to set in order these disordered leaves. In short
the original spirit of the contents is his [i.e. Seyyid Jawad], though perhaps the form of words may
be ours. Should you desire to mention the name of the author of these two books it is Hajji Seyyid
Jawad.
From these words by Shaykh Ahmad Ruhi’ it is evident that the work in its present form may stem,
at most, from recorded sayings by Siyyid Javad that were subsequently edited in Istanbul by
Shaykh Amad Ruhi’ and another person. Nevertheless, Browne following the Shaykhis advicen
cites Siyyid Jav‡d-i-Karbila'i as the author of the Hasht Bihisht. Since Browne received the first
parts of the Hasht Bihisht in 1891 and the late arrival of further parts was explained by the copies
having allegedly been stolen, one might conclude that the work had been completed by this time.
However, this cannot be the case since the text mentions the passing of Bahá'u'lláh,? so that it
cannot have been completed until after 29 May 1892.
Contrary to Shaykh Amad Ruhi's assertion, Siyyid Javad-i-Karbila'i was not one of the Letters of the
Living. Neither was he the author of the Hasht Bihisht, nor was it his spirit that found expression in
the contents of that work, as Shaykh Amad Ruhi claimed. That Browne considered Siyyid Javad-i-
Karbila'i to be an Azali, i.e. a supporter of Mirza Yay‡ Azal, is hardly surprising, since he regarded
him as the author of the Hasht Bihisht, which is very biased towards the Azal’s and against the
Bahá'ís. As Browne reports, Mirza Abu'l Fadl protested against the idea that Siyyid Javad-i-Karbila'i
had been an Azal’ or anything other than a devoted Baha'i. Nabil's Dawn-Breakers also contains the
statement that Siyyid Javad-i-Karbala'i remained until his last hour a staunch supporter of the Bahá'í
Faith and never wavered in his convictions. Moreover, according to Shaykh Amad Ruhi, Siyyid
Javad had died in 1884, so that some parts of the work that deal with later events cannot be
attributed to him. Browne himself points this out, since the Hasht Bihisht occasionally refers to the
late Siyyid Javad-i-Karbila'i several pages of the Hasht Bihisht are concerned with statements made
by an Azal’ who had visited Akka and who launches vehement diatribes against the Bahá'ís there.
Browne suspects that the person referred to is Shaykh Amad Ruhi himself who as he had once
mentioned in a letter to Browne had been to Akka. Unfortunately, however, Browne did not
investigate the provenance of the Hasht Bihisht any further, thus failing to verify the statements
made by Shaykh Ahmad Ruhi and all too trustingly taking them at face value.
It is now known that Mirza Aqa Khan-i-Kirmani, another son-in-law of Mirza Yahya Azal, and
Shaykh Ahmad Ruhi co-authored the work themselves. In her dissertation, Mangol Bayat-Philipp
concludes that not only the words were Ruhi and Kirmani, but the spirit as well. The work had been
attributed to Siyyid Jav‡d-i-Karbila'i only in order to give the impression that it was of greater
significance, originality and authenticity than it really was. This aim was evidently achieved with
respect to Browne; in view of what he took to be Siyyid Jav‡d-i-Karbilai's authorship, he
emphasized that: It is unnecessary to point out the importance of such a work from such a source.
Browne was, of course, aware that this was an apologetic work on behalf of the Azal’s, and he
repeatedly remarks upon this fact. He therefore describes it as having a strongly pro-Azal’ bias and
as raising passionate and virulent accusations against Bahá'u'lláh and his followers: These sections
occupy many pages, are of a violently polemical character, and contain grave charges against the
Behá'ís and vehement attacks on their position and doctrines.
The authors of the Hasht Bihisht do not restrict themselves to arguments about content and to mere
polemics; they raise false accusations and slanderous charges. Interestingly, the authors demand
elsewhere that the religion of the Bab be investigated without prejudice and that the tongue and the
pen should not be besmirched with cursing and slander. As is evident from the following examples,
which are typical of many statements in the Hasht Bihisht, the authors did not keep to these maxims
in their verdicts on Bahá'u'lláh and his followers.
In many places they attack the Bahá'ís in abusive terms, deride and slander them in the most vulgar
language.? The Azali who had visited Akka, for instance, says of the Bahá'ís: Their sayings and
arguments consist of a farrago of names, baseless stories, calumnies, falsehoods, and lies, and not
one of them has any knowledge of even the first principles of the religion of the Beyan or of any
other religion. They are all devoid of knowledge, ignorant, short-sighted, of common capacity,
hoodwinked, people of darkness, spurned of nature, hypocrites, corrupters of texts, blind imitators;
God hath taken away from them his light and hath left them in the darkness of the Wicked One, and
hath destroyed them in the abysses of vain imaginings, and hath put chains around their necks...
How different was BrowneÕs account of his visit, in which he reports about the sense of harmony
among the Bahá'ís in Bahji (near Akka) and about the spiritual atmosphere that surrounded him
there.
The visitor to Akka cited in the Hasht Bihisht also calls Abdu'l-Baha al-Wasws, the devil who
whispers or inspires evil into men's hearts, and speaks contemptuously about his alleged
ignorance. It is strange that Browne makes no reference to his own, very different assessment of
Abdu'l-Baha. He had been deeply impressed not only by Abdu'l-Baha appearance, but especially by
his eloquence, his clarity of argument and his detailed knowledge of the sacred scriptures of the
Jews, Christians and Muslims. Browne describes how his conversation with Abdu'l-Baha served
only to increase the respect that his outward appearance had instilled in him from the outset. He
ends his description of Abdu'l-Baha in the following terms: About the greatness of this man and his
power no one who had seen him could entertain a doubt. This assessment of Abdu'l-Baha was
shared by many contemporaries in both East and West who had met Abdu'l-Baha, such as
Muammad Abduh, Professor Vambery and Professor Auguste Forel. Abdu'l-Baha was appreciated
not only by intellectuals, who admired his sharp intellect and his manner of argument, but also by
countless ordinary people such as the poor of Akka and Haifa, whom he had always treated with
love and care. Through his wisdom and foresight in procuring and storing food supplies, he
prevented famine in Palestine during the First World War, for which he was awarded the title of
Knight of the British Empire.
Yet the authors of the Hasht Bihisht do not only write of the menacing character of the Bahá'ís, but
also attack their faith, which they do not regard as an independent religion. They assert that the
Bahá'ís do not have a sacred Book (kitab hastand) and that Bahá'u'lláh had abrogated the Bayan
without introducing a new law. They ask where the law of this revelation is: n uhœr-i-aam kœ
shar’at-i-n, kœ qnœn-i-n, kujst akm-i-adl-i-n That this is not merely a case of ignorance but of a
conscious false statement is proven by the authors themselves when, elsewhere in the text, they
refer to the Kitab al-Aqdas (the Most Holy Book of the Bahá'í revelation) and its laws. Further false
statements of this type are found elsewhere in the Hasht Bihisht, too, all of which are made without
any justification or citation of sources. Hence, Bahá'u'lláh is charged with speaking disrespectfully of
Im‡m asan and of Fatima; and what is more, he is accused of the murder of Dayyan. All these
accusations are completely groundless.
These examples will suffice to give the reader an impression of how the authors of the Hasht Bihisht
treat their subject and what message they are trying to convey. Hasht Bihisht is definitely not a
reliable source of Bab’ and Bahá'í history; it serves the purpose of Azal’ apologetics, and it is only in
that respect that it is of some interest to scholars in the field of religious studies: what it does is shed
light on the way in which two leading Azal’s presented historical events and how they treated their
opponents.
For Ficicchia, however, Hasht Bihisht is a rich source on which he gladly draws in order to
denounce Bahá'u'lláh and his followers. The murder charges raised against Bahá'u'lláh by Ficicchia
are based solely on statements made in Hasht Bihisht.