Is the Tablet of Beirut a Forgery?
Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:08 am
Dear Posters,
As a sincere seeker who wishes to independently investigate the truth as commanded by Baha'ullah, can someone please explain why The Tablet of Beiruit was said to be a forgery by the life-long secretary of Baha'ullah in the following passage:
Since this is the only Tablet that makes reference to Abdul-Baha as being the Most Mighty Branch that is mentioned in the Book of the Covenant, it appears to be of critical academic interest in the Baha'i community to produce credible evidence refuting Khadim Ullah's forgery claim.
Specifically, Khadim Ullah claims that the "middle" part of the Tablet was omitted, and in its place were put "combined parts of two different Tablets."
Here is an excerpt from the middle portion of the Tablet:
If one closely examines the context of this sentence, it changes after "from behind the gate of the Prison-city there hath appeared...." This is an odd place for a change in context since it appears that the rest of the description of Baha'u'llah as the Manifestion of God that hath appeared behind the gate of the Prison-City is peculiarly missing, and then the sentence is separated by the subordinate clause describing what is to be found above the horizon of the Prison-city, which is a secondary thought to the appearance of the Manifestation. This incomplete description of the Manifestation in a sentence which then moves on to a secondary thought is most perplexing since it is not typically found in the Writings of Baha'ullah and would be consistent with the claims of Khadim Ullah that the middle portion was omitted from the Tablet and replaced with text from somewhere else.
Can anyone here who is familiar with the linguistic style of Baha'u'llah comment on this most unusual incomplete description of the Manifestation and whether you believe this supports Khadim Ullah's claim of forgery.
As a sincere seeker who wishes to independently investigate the truth as commanded by Baha'ullah, can someone please explain why The Tablet of Beiruit was said to be a forgery by the life-long secretary of Baha'ullah in the following passage:
(1) The so-called Tablet of Beirut, which confirmed the claim of Abbas, and was said to be transcribed by Khadim Ullah. The latter declared it to be a forgery by Abbas Effendi. (2) Abbas omitted the middIe part of the "Tablet of command" to make it certify his claims. A complete copy in Baha's own handwriting showed the subterfuge. (3) He combined parts of two different Tablets, called it the "Treasure Tablet," and claimed that it certified his succession. The two Tablets were produced and proved the falsity of the claim.
Since this is the only Tablet that makes reference to Abdul-Baha as being the Most Mighty Branch that is mentioned in the Book of the Covenant, it appears to be of critical academic interest in the Baha'i community to produce credible evidence refuting Khadim Ullah's forgery claim.
Specifically, Khadim Ullah claims that the "middle" part of the Tablet was omitted, and in its place were put "combined parts of two different Tablets."
Here is an excerpt from the middle portion of the Tablet:
All the atoms of the earth have announced unto all created things that from behind the gate of the Prison-city there hath appeared and above its horizon there hath shone forth the Orb of the beauty of the great, the Most Mighty Branch of God--His ancient and immutable Mystery--proceeding on its way to another land.
If one closely examines the context of this sentence, it changes after "from behind the gate of the Prison-city there hath appeared...." This is an odd place for a change in context since it appears that the rest of the description of Baha'u'llah as the Manifestion of God that hath appeared behind the gate of the Prison-City is peculiarly missing, and then the sentence is separated by the subordinate clause describing what is to be found above the horizon of the Prison-city, which is a secondary thought to the appearance of the Manifestation. This incomplete description of the Manifestation in a sentence which then moves on to a secondary thought is most perplexing since it is not typically found in the Writings of Baha'ullah and would be consistent with the claims of Khadim Ullah that the middle portion was omitted from the Tablet and replaced with text from somewhere else.
Can anyone here who is familiar with the linguistic style of Baha'u'llah comment on this most unusual incomplete description of the Manifestation and whether you believe this supports Khadim Ullah's claim of forgery.