Ghusn-i-Akbar, the First Unitarian Bahai — Part 1: The Facts
This is the first of a two-part series about Mirza Muhammad Ali Bahai, who was called Ghusn-i-Akbar by his father, the Prophet Bahaullah. In this article we will present some basic facts about this man, who can be regarded as the first Unitarian Bahai. The second article, which will be posted a couple weeks from now, will deal with the significance of Ghusn-i-Akbar — in other words, why he matters today to Unitarian Universalist Bahais and Bahais in general.
Much of this article deals with the conflict between Ghusn-i-Akbar and Abdul-Baha, two brothers who were at odds with each other in the early history of Bahaism. One of the basic principles of religious liberalism is to be willing to consider both sides of every story — especially when it comes to the historical narratives of religions, which are notorious for being based more on exaggeration, wishful thinking or mythological fantasy than objective facts. Conservative or fundamentalist religious people have a tendency to construct and uphold black-and-white narratives, driven by passionate emotion arising from the longing to “know the truth and believe” — even when the truth may be unclear or impossible to know for certain. Such narratives identify “good guys” and “bad guys” in the story of their faith or of religion in general, fitting complex human beings into these simplistic roles.
All Bahais know about the good things that Abdul-Baha taught and did; and those who know about Mirza Muhammad Ali typically only know him as the caricature of a “Covenant-breaker,” a stubborn and wicked heretic unworthy of any consideration. But is the story really so simple and monolithic? Is the saintly and inspired Abdul-Baha all good and that other guy a manifestation of satan?
Mirza Muhammad Ali was the first son of Bahaullah’s second wife, Fatima, upon whom Bahaullah conferred the title Mahd-i-Ulya (the “Supreme Cradle”). His title Mirza indicates his descent from a noble Persian family — just as Bahaullah himself had Mirza before his name (Mirza Husayn Ali).
Bahaullah gave the title Ghusn-i-Akbar to Muhammad Ali. He gave a nearly identical title, Ghusn-i-Azam, to Abbas Effendi (Effendi means “Sir”), who was the eldest son of his first wife, Asiya, upon whom he conferred the title Navvab (“Noble”). Both Ghusn-i-Akbar and Ghusn-i-Azam mean “Greatest or Mightiest Branch” — the words Akbar and Azam are synonyms and both are superlatives.
Muhammad Ali took the surname Bahai, which he passed on to his children. Abbas called himself Abdul-Baha (“Servant of Baha[ullah]”), rather than using the title given him by his father, and he did not take a surname.
Ghusn-i-Akbar was born in 1852 and Abdul-Baha was born eight years earlier, in 1844. Both were spiritual men, talented, proud, strong believers and diligent workers in their father’s cause from an early age.
As a young man, Ghusn-i-Akbar had an experience that surely left a mark on his psyche and influenced his belief system: He was chastised by Bahaullah for attempting to write verses in the style of religious scripture, imitating the prophetic writings of his father. Bahaullah impressed upon him that the station of divine messenger was not something that a prophet’s son could claim as a birthright.
Bahaullah assigned important roles and tasks to both Abdul-Baha and Ghusn-i-Akbar during his lifetime, based on their respective abilities and interests. Abdul-Baha was in charge of external affairs, using his charismatic personality to win friends and supporters for the new faith. Ghusn-i-Akbar was in charge of internal affairs, working as Bahaullah’s secretary, transcribing his writings, editing them and preparing them for publication and distribution.
Just two years before Bahaullah passed away, Ghusn-i-Akbar traveled to India on behalf of his father, where he arranged for the printing of the first edition of the Kitab-i-Aqdas, Bahaullah’s “Most Holy Book.” Bahaullah left this world in 1892, turning over the affairs of his faith to his two most trusted sons.
In Bahaullah’s will, Ghusn-i-Akbar was chosen as second in rank, after his elder brother: “Truly, God has ordained the station of Ghusn-i-Akbar after the station of the former [Ghusn-i-Azam, Abbas Effendi]. We have surely chosen Akbar after Azam as a command from the All-Knowing, the All-Wise!” (literal translation from the Arabic, which differs from the Haifan Baha’i Faith translation that is designed to make it look like Ghusn-i-Akbar is inferior to Abdul-Baha).
This statement of Bahaullah was understood by all the family as meaning two things: (1) Ghusn-i-Akbar was given an important role to play alongside Bahaullah’s eldest son, which was not given to his two other living sons. (2) It was God’s intention that Ghusn-i-Akbar become Bahaullah’s second successor, after Abdul-Baha’s passing — according to an established tradition in Shiite Islam of spiritual inheritance passing from elder to younger brother, such as in the case of Imam Husayn succeeding Imam Hasan.
The Shiite background of Bahaullah’s family and the early Bahais, as well as an effusive tablet written by Bahaullah to Ghusn-i-Akbar, would have given the younger son the clear impression that he was destined to follow in his elder brother’s footsteps of leadership. In that tablet, Bahaullah proclaims and prays to God about his second son: “You know, O my God, that I desire him, as You have desired him, and I have chosen him as You have chosen him. Therefore assist him with the hosts of earth and heaven, and help, O my God, whoever helps him, whoever chooses him, and assist whoever comes to him. Then foresake whoever denies him and desires him not.” (modernized version of a translation of the original text).
This is only a short excerpt of the lavish praises and status Bahaullah conferred upon his second son. Bahaullah also praised his first son, Abdul-Baha in similar ways. The two brothers had ample reason to believe that their father wanted them both to have authority in the Bahai faith.
Bahaullah did indicate in his will that his eldest son’s rank was higher — at least while both sons were living. Abdul-Baha interpreted this to mean that all power and authority in the Bahai faith and its community was granted to himself alone, and he expected only obedience from Ghusn-i-Akbar. Ghusn-i-Akbar, on the other hand, interpreted the will to mean that he was supposed to be Abdul-Baha’s lieutenant and that a collegial relationship of power-sharing between the two brothers was intended by their father — a continuation of the arrangement in which he had served in a position of weighty responsibility and high rank under Bahaullah, alongside Abdul-Baha.
As time went on, it became increasingly clear that Abdul-Baha was not willing to share any power with his brother — and furthermore that he envisioned himself as occupying a station very similar to that of a Messenger of God. Abdul-Baha expected all the Bahais to regard him as morally blameless, perfect in his servitude to God and Bahaullah (hence the title he chose for himself, “Servant of Baha”); and he asserted that all his own writings carried the same authority as divine scriptures. Some of his interpretations of Bahaullah’s writings seemed more like changes to the laws and teachings of the religion rather than mere clarifications on obscure points. He expected Bahais to agree with or obey everything he said, wrote, did, or instructed them to do.
Ghusn-i-Akbar believed this went too far, and he refused to go along with some of Abdul-Baha’s claims. A major religious dispute erupted between the two brothers, based on Ghusn-i-Akbar’s emphasis on the Islamic concept of tawhid (the Unity of God and prohibition of joining partners with God, i.e. Unitarianism) vs. Abdul-Baha’s emphasis on his own divine inspiration, authority over the Bahais, and infallibility as the representative of God. Ghusn-i-Akbar’s party called themselves the “Unitarians.”
Ghusn-i-Akbar and Abdul-Baha mutually came to regard each other as heretics. The conflict grew bitter, and harsh accusations of blasphemous and corrupt acts were hurled back and forth against these two men by supporters of the respective sides. It was also a family feud, and one in which Abdul-Baha found himself nearly alone among the descendants of Bahaullah: All but one of the other children of the prophet and their families sided with Ghusn-i-Akbar, while Abdul-Baha could only count a single sister as his ally.
Ghusn-i-Akbar repeatedly proposed to Abdul-Baha that a conference be held to attempt to reconcile their differences by referring to the writings of Bahaullah for guidance, as did his son. These proposals were rejected or ignored. “I pleaded with him time after time, for a conference to discuss our differences, and solve the problems in accordance with the teachings of Bahaullah, as we are commanded,” wrote Ghusn-i-Akbar, “but unfortunately my requests were not granted and my pleadings were in vain.” (spelling and capitalization modernized).
As the duly appointed leader of the Bahais, Abdul-Baha decided to pronounce an anathema on his younger brother, declaring him a “Covenant-breaker” because he did not agree with and obey the “Center of the Covenant” of Bahaullah, i.e. Abdul-Baha himself. Ghusn-i-Akbar regarded this as yet another example of Abdul-Baha going beyond the bounds of his authority, since Bahaullah had given him a high rank and appointed him to become his second successor. Could Abdul-Baha overrule what Bahaullah had written about Ghusn-i-Akbar, simply because he considered him a rebellious heretic?
Abdul-Baha also excommunicated all his family members who disagreed with the way he was leading the Bahai faith and sympathized with or supported Ghusn-i-Akbar. He cut off their financial allowances, which was a severe punishment. Since all of the family were exiled prisoners at the time, they depended on the financial help of Bahais for their livelihood. Abdul-Baha further directed that all Bahais were to shun Ghusn-i-Akbar and his supporters, and described them in dehumanizing terms such as comparing them to an infectious disease.
Abdul-Baha died in 1921. He wrote a will in which he appointed his own grandson, Shoghi Effendi Rabbani, to become his successor, thus passing over Ghusn-i-Akbar, whom Bahaullah had designated as the next in line after Abdul-Baha. Having no explicit authority from Bahaullah’s writings to take such an action, he justified it by accusing Ghusn-i-Akbar of terrible acts that would render him morally unfit to hold a spiritual office. It is unknown whether any of these allegations listed in Abdul-Baha’s will are true.
Ghusn-i-Akbar wrote the following in his own defense: “All the accusations in the said will and by other individuals towards me are hearsay, gross misrepresentation and without foundation. I have always lived in accordance with the commands of Bahaullah, glory be to him, and thus fulfilled my duties. I devoted my entire life to the service of the cause and the promulgation of his teachings. I have faced my enemies with a smile, hardships and calamities with endurance, and for those who wronged, misjudged and accused me falsely, I bear no feeling of animosity, but sincerely pray that God may forgive and guide them to the truth. He is the Merciful, the Forgiver.” (spelling and capitalization modernized).
Mirza Majdeddin, Bahaullah’s nephew and brother-in-law, wrote of Ghusn-i-Akbar: “This chosen son is a devout follower of the teachings [of Bahaullah] and a staunch believer in them. He is kind, gentle, patient and always ready to help the needy. … He is misjudged, wronged and falsely accused by so-called friends, those who satisfied themselves with hearsay without investigation.”
Ghusn-i-Akbar did not accept his elder brother’s appointment of a different person to be his successor and lead the Bahai faith. He sent his own eldest son Shuaullah to America, where he published a magazine to teach the faith and gained the support of a significant number of people in the 1930s, based on a message of focusing on the writings and teachings of Bahaullah rather than the authority of any successor.
Ghusn-i-Akbar never denied that Abdul-Baha was the legitimate successor of Bahaullah. But he did believe and argue that he went way too far in his claims of authority. Indeed, despite the clear appointment of Abdul-Baha in his father’s will as the first leader of the Bahai faith, most of Bahaullah’s children — the people who knew Bahaullah, Abdul-Baha, and Ghusn-i-Akbar the best — supported Ghusn-i-Akbar’s position and believed Abdul-Baha had overreached in his claims and leadership style.
This continued into the next generations, in which nearly all of Bahaullah’s grandchildren and great grandchildren supported Ghusn-i-Akbar’s Unitarian interpretation of the Bahai faith rather than Shoghi Effendi’s demands of total obedience. So complete was the refusal of Bahaullah’s descendants to repudiate Ghusn-i-Akbar and give Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi the degree of exclusive loyalty they desired, that the latter, who was unable to have children of his own, could appoint no one to become his own successor according to the instructions in Abdul-Baha’s will — having excommunicated every one of his relatives who had not already been excommunicated by Abdul-Baha.
Regardless, Abdul-Baha’s great charisma, missionary activities, and beautiful writings and speeches ensured that most Bahais accepted all of his claims along with his negative portrayal of his younger brother, never even hearing the other side of the story. Furthermore, Shoghi Effendi’s intelligence and skill as a writer, organizational planner and administrator consolidated the dominant version of Bahaism that viewed Ghusn-i-Akbar as the “Arch Breaker of the Covenant” and the “Greatest Violator.”
Ghusn-i-Akbar died in 1937. The distinct Unitarian Bahai community and tradition he founded faded away. But the basic ideas he articulated — that the successors of the prophet do not have absolute authority, and that Bahais should “go back to Bahaullah” and focus on the prophet’s writings and teachings above the decrees of Bahai religious leaders — have remained a potent force in Bahaism and have been manifested repeatedly in various “liberal” and “reform” movements by Bahais in more recent times, without invoking his un-rehabilitated name.
In the next article, we will explore the ways in which Ghusn-i-Akbar is a highly significant figure in Bahai history, his great relevance for Bahais today, and the role he and his legacy may play in the future development of Bahaism. Also look forward to some quotes from his writings that are available in English.
- Behai Quarterly magazine, 1934-1937
- The Baha’i Faith: Its History and Teachings by William McElwee Miller, 1974. Chapter 9: The Rule of Abdu’l-Baha