257

Towards a Contextualization of Bahá’u’lláh’s

Law˙-i qiná‘

Sholeh A. Quinn

Some time between 1868-1871, while exiled in Akka,

Palestine, Bahá’u’lláh, founder of the Bahá’í religion, composed
a treatise entitled the Law˙-i qiná‘, or “Tablet of the Veil.”
Addressed to the Shaykhí leader Karím Khán Kirmání (1810-
1871), the text forms the final communication in a series of
direct and indirect correspondence between the two.1 The
purpose of this paper is to provide a critical analysis of
Bahá’u’lláh’s Law˙-i qiná‘ in order to illuminate the process
through which Bahá’u’lláh engaged in dialogue — in this case
with a religious rival of the Báb — in multiple texts. In order to
narrow our analysis, we shall focus on the following three
themes that are central to the Tablet: gender and the use of the
word qiná‘, The Báb’s grammar, and the Qur’án.
In terms of secondary scholarship, The Law˙-i qiná‘ has not
yet been translated into English, nor has it been extensively
discussed in the scholarly or academic European-language
literature. The Law˙-i qiná‘ has, however, been discussed in
Persian language scholarship. References to the text and its
context appear in the scholarship of Fázil Mázandarání and
Ishráq Khávarí. More recently, Vahid Rafati has written an
important article on this Tablet, published in an Irfan
Colloquia volume.2 We are only at the beginning of making
sense of the complex issues relating to the historical
contextualization of Bahá’í scripture. These include questions
of audience, authorial intent, dating of the texts, and
numerous other literary and historiographical matters.
Therefore, in order to begin contextualizing the Law˙-i qiná’,
258 Lights of ‘Irfán Book Eleven

we begin with a brief overview of the Tablet’s addressee: Karím

Khán Kirmání.

Karím Khán Kirmání

Karím Khán Kirmání was born in 1810 and died in 1871. He
came from the Persian city of Kirmán, and was the son of a
Qájár prince. Kirmání’s father was Ibrahím Khán ¸áhir al-
Dawlih, and Kirmání had nineteen brothers and twenty-one
sisters. This Ibrahím Khán was an admirer of Shaykh A˙mad al-
A˙sá’i, founder of the Shaykhí movement, which contributed
markedly to the establishment of the Bábí religion. Ibrahím
Khán founded a religious college named after himself, the
Ibráhímiyyih. When Karím Khán went to Karbala, soon after
his father’s death, he met Sayyid Kázim Rashtí, successor to
Shaykh A˙mad al-A˙sá’i and leader of the Shaykhí movement at
the time. Karím Khán Kirmání became a disciple of Sayyid
Kázim Rashtí and eventually went back to Kirmán, where we
planned apparently to “teach and guide the faithful” there. 3
Kirmání was an extremely learned and highly prolific
individual who wrote a great deal on a wide variety of subjects.
He was perhaps best known for his elaborations on the “fourth
pillar” (rukn al-rábi‘).”4 Kirmání wrote a number of passages
and tracts elaborating on his understandings of this fourth
pillar. Other subjects he wrote on included optics, alchemy,
hadith, color mysticism, prophetology, and many others. As
time passed, because of the sorts of ideas he was teaching to his
students, he ran into conflicts with various individuals and
groups in Kirmán. Among those individuals was his brother-in-
law, Sayyid Áqá Javád Shírází.5 These two quarreled over
control of the Ibráhímiyyih, with Karím Khán trying to have
Shaykhism taught there. When Sayyid Kázim Rashtí died in
1844, Karím Khán proclaimed himself the new leader of the
Shaykhí school, continued to spread the teachings of Shaykh
A˙mad and Sayyid Kázim and expanded Shaykhí thought in
various ways.
In addition to clashes with the religious orthodoxy, and
other Shaykhis, Karím Khán also denounced the Báb, and in
fact viciously attacked Him and His claims in a number of
essays and books (at least eight). His earliest work against the
Bahá’u’lláh’s Law˙-i-qiná‘ 259

Báb was entitled the Iz˙áq al-bátil, a text which has been
analyzed by William McCants.6 Karím Khán Kirmání spent his
last years in privacy on his estate in Langar, outside of Kirman
city. Mangol Bayat states that “his ideas remained unrealized,
his ambition unfulfilled,” and the radical transformation of
Shaykhí ideas into a concrete program of action was instead
undertaken by someone else — namely the Báb. 7
Bahá’u’lláh first discusses Kirmání’s writings in a passage of
the Kitáb-i Íqán, where He comments on something that
Kirmání had written in a book entitled the Irshád al-a‘vám. In
the Irshád al-a‘vám, Kirmání states that in order to understand
the mi’ráj, or the night journey of the prophet Mu˙ammad, one
must be well versed in a vast range of sciences, including
everything from alchemy to physics. Bahá’u’lláh disagrees with
this, stating that ones spiritual qualities were what mattered.
This section serves as the immediate introduction to the
famous “true seeker” section of the Kitáb-i Íqán. 8

The Treatise of Mullá Jamál “the Bábí”

Some five years (7 Sha‘bán 1283/15 December 1866) after the
composition of the Kitáb-i Íqán, Kirmání composed a treatise
known as the “Risálih dar javáb-i su’álát-i Mullá Jamál-i Bábí”
(The Treatise in Response to the Questions of Mullá Jamál the
Bábí).9 Kirmání states that a certain individual sent him a
number of questions via another individual, asking that
Kirmání answer them. Kirmání’s treatise reproduces the
questions and provides answers for them. This treatise is the
key document for contextualizing the Law˙-i qiná‘. It numbers
approximately 50 pages and was copied out and printed in the
1960s as part of the Shaykhí collection of books held in Kirmán.
Kirmání’s preface to the treatise is in Arabic and the rest is in
Persian. He tells us in the introduction that, while he was in
Tehran in the company of a certain Sulaymán Khán, someone
sent Sulaymán Khán a number of questions and asked them to
be relayed to Karím Khán. This individual also requested that
Karím Khán provide answers to the questions. Karím Khán tells
us that since this request came via Sulayman Khán, and
Suleyman Khán had great respect among Muslims, it was
necessary for him to reply. However, he continues, for various
260 Lights of ‘Irfán Book Eleven

reasons he did not want to reveal the name of the questioner,

and so he decided that he would write the questioner’s words
phrase by phrase and then write whatever came to mind in way
of response to each phrase.10 This Suleyman Khán was in all
likelihood Suleyman Khán Afshár (d. 1309/1891).11 Suleyman
Khán was not a Bábí, but a Shaykhí, and the leader of the Afshár
tribe. An extremely wealthy man, he gave money to support
Shaykhí publications and was in charge of Sa’in fortress. He
fought against the Bábís in the battle at Shaykh Tabarsí.
As for the identity of who sent the questions to Kirmání, the
situation is complicated by the fact that his name actually does
not appear anywhere in the treatise itself, and it is possible that
the title of the treatise was added later by the Kirmání Shaykhís
and their bibliographers, such as the individual (Shaykh Abú al-
Qásim Kirmání d. 1969) who prepared the Fihrist, or index, to
the Shaykhí collection.12 Fázil Mázandarání, in his Asrár al-
áthár, has identified the writer of the questions to Kirmání as
Áqá Mu˙ammad Rizá Qannád Shírází, but unfortunately he
does not state where he obtained this information.13 Regardless
of this, Mázandarání does not appear to have seen the treatise
itself or been familiar with its title. I have suggested another
possibility regarding the identity of this person: if the
individual who gave the questions to Karím Khán Karím Khán
Kirmání is indeed named “Mullá Jamál,” then Mullá Jamál
would almost certainly be Mullá Jamál Burújirdí, an early
convert to the Bahá’í religion who later rebelled against the
authority of ‘Abdu’l Bahá. 14
After the introduction to his treatise, Kirmání proceeds to
deconstruct the questioner’s opening phrases, breaking down
the Arabic in each one, and pointing out what he seems to
consider the many grammatical errors in each phrase. The most
prevalent type of criticism he makes is comments on various
forms of Arabic verbs and other words. This sort of analysis of
the introductory portion of the questioner’s letter goes on for
four pages in the printed edition, as Kirmání breaks it down
into fifteen sections, with his commentary on each phrase
numbering anything between just a few words or a few
sentences. After this, Kirmání starts addressing Mullá Jamál’s
specific questions. At this point, the answers start getting
Bahá’u’lláh’s Law˙-i-qiná‘ 261

longer and the questioner’s language turns from Arabic to

Persian.
In an unpublished study, Stephen Lambden has translated
one of the questions and answers in Kirmání’s treatise, and
noticed that some of the queries of the questioner seem to refer
to his reading of passages in the Kitáb-i Íqán, particularly
certain biblical passages cited therein. In this instance, the
question has to do with the Gospel of Matthew and certain
prophecies in that book regarding the “sign of the
manifestation of the countenance of the Promised One,
Muhammad.” Kirmání’s dense reply to this question is fairly
standard, in that he points out that the Four Gospels were
composed by the disciples of Jesus. He then states that the
prophecy or sign referred to in the biblical quotation has
nothing to do with the Prophet Muhammad, but is referring to
Jesus, and goes on to interpret the biblical passage referred to
in the question.15 In other words, he is contesting Bahá’u’lláh’s
interpretation of the prediction in Matthew chapter 24.
Bahá’u’lláh’s interpretation focuses on the verse’s fulfillment in
Mu˙ammad.

The Law˙-i qiná‘ in Context

Karím Khán Kirmání did not have the last word on any of
these matters, however. In His own “introduction” to the
Law˙-i qiná‘ (the portion preceding the Basmala), Bahá’u’lláh
Himself provides a context for His Tablet, stating that one of
the “divine lovers” had sent a letter to Kirmání, and Kirmání
had objected to the usages (language) in that letter, and for that
reason, had turned away from the truth. Bahá’u’lláh then
explains that He only saw or heard of one part of Kirmání’s
response to the letter that was sent to him, and His Tablet was
revealed in response to that one portion. In order to dispel any
doubt about what that was, He states it in the preface to the
Tablet.16 The passage in question first appears in Kirmání’s
treatise, and here Kirmání quotes “Mullá Jamál-i Bábi” as
stating the following: “In the name of God, the Merciful, the
Compassionate; Praise be to God who lifts (arfa‘a) the veil from
the eyes of the saints.”17 Kirmání then responds to this
statement, stating “The word arfa‘a is wrong and is not
262 Lights of ‘Irfán Book Eleven

Arabic. They say “rafa‘a” and “rafa‘a” itself is (a)

transitive/causal (verb). And the word “qiná‘“ is also wrong
here, because a qiná‘ is a head scarf (chahárqad) that women put
on their head, and a qiná‘ does not cover one’s eye; that which
covers the face and the eye(s) is a burqa‘. 18
In the introduction to the Law˙-i qiná’, Bahá’u’lláh
reproduces, with one slight difference, this sentence in
Kirmání’s treatise: “Praise be to God who lifts the veil from the
face of the saints.” He then describes and criticizes Kirmání’s
objections to this phrase: “The above-mentioned Khán has
objected, saying ‘this phrase is a mistake, and the possessor of
this letter, you would say, has not attained a single letter of
knowledge and idioms/forms of speech of the people, for the
qiná‘ is specifically for the heads of women. He has been
occupied with objecting to (grammatical) usages and is
unaware that he is devoid of both knowledge and
understanding.”19 Echoing the portion of the Kitáb-i Íqán
addressed (indirectly) to Kirmání, He then states that the
purpose of knowledge is to guide people to the truth. Finally,
Bahá’u’lláh ends the introduction by noting that He did not see
Kirmání’s other objections, He only heard and saw the one
passage and this Tablet was revealed so that perhaps the people
would not be deprived. 20
After the introduction, the Tablet directly addresses
Kirmání: “O thou who hast a reputation for knowledge but
standeth upon the brink of the pit of ignorance. We heard that
you have turned away from the Truth (haqq) and rejected one of
its lovers who sent you a sublime treatise to guide you to God,
your lord and the lord of all the worlds.”21 Here the “lover”
refers to “Mulla Jamal the Bábi” and the “sublime treatise”
refers to the questions that he sent to Kirmání.

Gender and the Law˙-i qiná‘

Having established the context for the Law˙-i qiná‘,
Bahá’u’lláh then starts addressing specific issues. One major
component of Kirmání’s critique of the sentence we have been
discussing relates to the issue of gender and the word qiná‘. The
context for this is the opening section of the Risalah, where
Bahá’u’lláh’s Law˙-i-qiná‘ 263

Kirmání chastises Mullá Jamál for using the word qiná‘,

stating, as mentioned above, that his usage of this word is a
mistake because a qiná‘ is a headscarf or chahār-qadī that
women wear on their heads, and therefore a qiná‘ is not
something that someone would place over their eyes. What is
placed over the eyes, he says, is a burqa‘.22
Bahá’u’lláh addresses Kirmání’s criticism of usage in
relation to the word qiná‘, stating, “Verily, if you had
journeyed the paths of the people of literary learning, you
would not have objected to the usage of the [word] veil (al-
qiná‘), and you would not have been among the disputers.
Furthermore, you rejected the words of God in this sublime
theophany.”23
Bahá’u’lláh then makes reference to a pre-Islamic poet called
al-Muqanna‘, asking Kirmání, “have you not heard mention of
al-Muqanna‘, who is known as al-Muqanna‘ al-Kindí, and he is
Mu˙ammad ibn ¸afar ibn ‘Umayr ibn Fir‘án ibn Qays ibn
Aswad?”24 Bahá’u’lláh goes on to say “If we desired to make
mention of his forefathers one by one until they terminated at
the very first origin, we would indeed demonstrate the like of
that which my lord hath taught me of the ancients and the
moderns. This despite the fact that we have not read your
sciences, and God is an all-knowing witness to this.”25 He
explains how al-Muqanna‘ was supposed to have had the most
beautiful face and he veiled his *face* because he was afraid of
getting the evil eye from others. Ultimately, he became an
analogy or an example of beauty.26 Vahid Rafati has shown that
for this second part on al-Muqanna‘, Bahá’u’lláh quotes almost
verbatim from Abú al-Faraj al-Ißfahání’s (d. 356/957) Kitáb al-
aghání.27 Bahá’u’lláh then gives other examples of pre-Islamic
and early Islamic figures who came to be associated with a
particular virtue or attribute, and continues to encourage
Kirmání to “peruse the books of the people so that you will
know about this and be among the knowledgeable people.”28
Interestingly, Bahá’u’lláh does not mention the other al-
Muqanna‘, the so-called “Veiled prophet of Khorasan” who
launched a rebellion against the Abbasid caliph al-Mahdi
(d.169/785), but this may be due to the fact that this al-
264 Lights of ‘Irfán Book Eleven

Muqanna‘ claimed divinity for himself and seems to have held

other ghuluww (exaggerated) beliefs.29
Bahá’u’lláh concludes His comments here on gender and the
word qiná‘ by repeating His earlier point about the qiná‘ being
applicable to men and women, and then offers examples of
other words from Arabic and Turkish for veil or head covering:
“Be certain that the learned ones in literature use the word qiná‘
for men as we have mentioned to you in a clear and apparent
explanation. Know further that the qiná‘ is specifically [used]
for women and they put it on their heads, but it is used for
men and the face [and] it is admissible, if thou wert among
those who were knowledgeable.”30 Later in the text, Bahá’u’lláh
writes in Persian and makes the same point about the qiná‘: “As
for the qiná‘ and miqna‘, they are two kinds of clothing with
which women cover their heads. And it is specifically for
women’s heads. But it is also permissible [to use it] for men
and for the face. And similarly, lisám is what women cover
their mouth with [and is what] the people of Fars and Turks call
a yashmaq, as has been mentioned in books of literature.”31

Kirmání and the Báb’s Grammar

Another of the central themes in the Law˙-i qiná‘ is that of
grammar and grammatical rules. Although Bahá’u’lláh did not
see the portion of Kirmání’s treatise that addresses grammar,
He was doubtless aware of the debates surrounding the Báb’s
grammar and Kirmání’s earlier criticisms of it. Much
discussion has surrounded the issue of the Báb’s grammar:
whether it was correct or not, why He used the grammar that he
used, and other related questions.32 Bahá’u’lláh uses the
opportunity of the Law˙-i qiná‘ to elaborate on this issue,
addressing not just Kirmání but others who held similar views.
He does this through echoing the words of the Báb and stating
that human beings and human grammatical standards should
not judge God and divine grammatical standards:
Besides this, you have rejected and are rejecting the
words of the lovers of God [i.e. the Bahá’ís]. In
ignorance, you have reached such a level that you have
also rejected the words of the Primal Point, ..and you
have written books against God and his lovers...You
Bahá’u’lláh’s Law˙-i-qiná‘ 265

and the likes of you have said that the words of the
most great Báb and the Most Complete Remembrance
[i.e. the Báb] are in error, and are contrary to people’s
rules of grammar. Have you still not comprehended
that the divine revealed words are the standard of
everything? Each grammatical rule that is contrary to
the divine verses, that rule loses its credibility.33

Kirmání and the Qur’án

In His earlier Kitáb-i Íqán, Bahá’u’lláh alludes to Kirmání
having been mentioned in the Qur’án, and cites two Qur’ánic
passages that He says refer to Kirmání:
And as to this man’s [Kirmání’s] attainments, his
ignorance, understanding and belief, behold what the
Book which embraceth all things hath revealed; ‘Verily,
the tree of Zaqqum shall be the food of the Athím.’ (Q.
44:43-44) And then follow certain verses, until He saith:
‘Taste this, for thou forsooth art the mighty Karím!’
(Q. 44:49) Consider how clearly and explicitly he hath
been described in God's incorruptible Book! This man,
moreover, feigning humility, hath in his own book
referred to himself as the ‘athím servant’: ‘Athím’ in the
Book of God, mighty among the common herd, ‘Karím’
in name!34
Towards the end of the Law˙-i qiná‘, Bahá’u’lláh again picks
up on this theme, this time drawing an analogy between
Kirmání’s rejection of the Báb’s grammar and early rejections
of Qur’ánic grammar during the time of Mu˙ammad:
Reflect upon the days when the Qur’án was revealed
from the heaven of the will of the all-merciful. To what
an extent have the people of sedition rejected [it]. It
seems that it has vanished from your sight. For this
reason, it was necessary to mention some [Quranic
passages] so perchance you would recognize yourself,
and to what extent you turned away during the time of
the rising of the Mu˙ammadan sun from the horizon
of eternal glory. The purpose is this, that during those
days you had another name, for if you were not of
266 Lights of ‘Irfán Book Eleven

those souls, you would never have turned away during

this theophany from the truth.35
The idea that Kirmání existed at the time of Mu˙ammad with
another name has been discussed by Stephen Lambden in a
paper entitled “The Bahai Interpretation of the Antichrist-
Dajjal Traditions.” Here, Lambden suggests that the early Bábís
singled out Kirmání as one of the latter day anti-Christ figures.
In his analysis of this section of the Law˙-i qiná’, Lambden
tentatively hypothesizes that this is an allusion to the notion of
the “eschatological return” (raj`a) of the one-eyed Dajjál. 36
Bahá’u’lláh continues elaborating on this theme by
reminding Kirmání of seven Qur’ánic passages which were
rejected in the early Islamic period and briefly states why
objections were made about them. Five of these verses were
rejected for grammatical reasons: 3:84, 40:3, 12:29, 3:45, and
74:35 and two due to conflicts with other verses: 2:29, 7:11.37
The full verses are as follows:
“We do not make any distinction between any of
them.” (The Family of Imran 3:84)
“He it is Who created for you all that is in the earth,
and He directed Himself to the heaven, so He made
them complete seven heavens.” (The Cow 2:29)
“And certainly We created you, then We fashioned
you, then We said to the angels: Make obeisance to
Adam.” (The Elevated 7:11)
“The Forgiver of the faults and the Acceptor of
repentance, Severe to punish…” (The Believer 40:3)
“…ask forgiveness for your fault, surely you are one of
the wrong-doers.” (Yusuf 12:29)
“…a Word from Him (of one) whose name is the
Messiah…” (Imran 3:45)
“Lo! this is one of the greatest (portents).” (Muddathir
74:35)

After providing these examples and explaining the historical

objections to them, Bahá’u’lláh adds that there were nearly
three hundred places in the Qur’án which the clerics of that
Bahá’u’lláh’s Law˙-i-qiná‘ 267

period and after cited in order to reject Mu˙ammad. They

accused Mu˙ammad, He said, of insanity and corruption, and
most people followed the clerics away from God and towards
hell. Some thought that Mu˙ammad had stolen verses from Amr
al-Qays, the famous pre-Islamic poet, and preferred the poems
known as the “mu‘allaqát” to the verses of God. Some, however,
did not pay any attention to these objections and turned
towards Mu˙ammad. It was, Bahá’u’lláh said, when the
“command of the sword” came down that a lot of people
entered the religion of God (voluntarily and involuntarily). The
verse of the sword, Bahá’u’lláh said, negated the verse of
ignorance. 38
The entire purpose of Bahá’u’lláh’s comments here is to
point out to Kirmání that early in the history of Islam the same
accusations were leveled against the Qur’án that Kirmání was
leveling against the Báb’s writings. Using arguments such as
this to confront Kirmání’s prejudices, Bahá’u’lláh again and
again urges Kirmání to peruse literary works and to educate
himself on the topics about which he claims to be so
knowledgeable. Throughout the Tablet, Bahá’u’lláh emphasizes
Kirmání’s ignorance, criticizing his lack of knowledge in not
just spiritual truths, but in basic aspects of Islamic history
and theology.
Through the analysis presented here, we have established the
series of texts that form the immediate and not-so-immediate
background for the Law˙-i qiná’. These are, in order, the Irshád
al-a‘vám, the Kitáb-i Íqán, and the Risálih-yi Mullá Jamál-i
Bábí. Although by no means constituting a direct
correspondence, through these texts, Karím Khán Kirmání and
Bahá’u’lláh each address issues raised by the other, the result
being a fairly wide-ranging (and long-ranging) discussion. The
themes involved include the notion of knowledge (‘ilm) and its
role in understanding the night journey of the Prophet (Irshád
al-a‘vám and Kitáb-i Íqán), the notion of Karím Khán being
mentioned in the Qur’án (Kitáb-i Íqán and Law˙-i qiná’), the
grammar of the Báb, and the meaning of the word qiná‘. This
study may also tell us something about how ideas were
exchanged and discussed in written form in the Shi’i and
emergent post-Shi’i universe of religious discourse of 19th
century Qajar Iran.
268 Lights of ‘Irfán Book Eleven

NOTES

Author’s Note: I am grateful to Dr. Stephen N. Lambden and Dr. Moojan

Momen for their valuable assistance in preparing this paper. I take full
responsibility for all errors.

1
See Bahá’u’lláh, “Law˙-i qiná‘,” in Alva˙-i mubárakih-yi ˙adrat-i Bahá
Alláh (Wilmette, Illinois: Bahá’í Publish Trust, 1978), 66-87. Hereafter
cited as LQ.
2
See, for instance, Vahid Rafati, “Nazarí bih Law˙-i qiná‘,” in Safinih-yi
Irfán, (Darmstadt, ‘Asr-i jadíd, 2001), 170-191.
3
For more information on Karím Khán Kirmání, see Mangol Bayat,
Mysticism and Dissent: Socioreligious Thought in Qajar Iran (Syracuse:
Syracuse University Press, 1982), 86. Information on Kirmani’s
biography can also be found in “shaykhiyya,” Encyclopaedia of Islam,
2nd edition, by Denis MacEoin.
4
Shaykh Ahmad had already condensed the traditional “five pillars” of Shi’i
Islam--(1) divine unity, (2) prophethood, (3) resurrection, (4) divine
justice, and (5) the imamate--into three pillars: (1) knowledge of God,
(2) prophethood, (3) the imamate. The early Shaykhí leaders added a
fourth pillar: (4) the Shi’i community or someone within that
community who would offer guidance. (Sayyid Kazim saw this as an
individual figure, and it was understood messianically by the Báb).
Kirmání seems to have modified that fourth pillar to refer to (4)
“knowledge of friends and enemies of the Imams.” See Stephen N.
Lambden, “Some Aspects of Isrā'īliyyāt and the Emergence of the Bābī-
Bahā'ī Interpretation of the Bible,” PhD dissertation, University of
Newcastle upon Tyne, 2001.
5
He was a son-in-law of Ibráhím Khán ¸áhir al-Dawlih and therefore
Karím Khán’s brother-in-law.
6
He composed it approximately a year or so after the Báb made his claims
to Mulla Husayn, and in it he not only divined the fact that the Báb
was making a great claim, but thought fit to reject it and condemn it
through a close analysis of the Qayyúm al-asmá’. He also attacked the
notion of a “new prophet,” and vowed that he would destroy the Báb.
See Dr. Will McCants, unpublished paper, presented at the Irfan
Colloquium at Louhelen Conference Center in October, 2003,
(http://irfancolloquia.org/51/mccants_shaykhi).
7
Bayat, Mysticism and Dissent, 86.
8
See Bahá’u’lláh, The Kitáb-i Íqán, translated by Shoghi Effendi as The
Book of Certitude (Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1983), 186-187.
Hereafter cited as KI.
Bahá’u’lláh’s Law˙-i-qiná‘ 269

9
Karím Khán Kirmání, “Risálih dar javáb-i su’álát-i Mullá Jamál-i Bábí,”
in Majma‘ al-risá’il-i fársí, 2 (Kirmán: Chápkhánih-yi Sa‘ádat-i Kirmán),
n.d., hereafter cited as “Risálih.”
10
Kirmání, “Risálih,” 210-11.
11
I am grateful to Moojan Momen for assistance in identifying this
individual.
12
Shaykh Abú’l Qásim Kirmání, Fihrist, 3rd ed. (Kirmán: Chápkhānih-yi
Sa‘ádat, n.d).
13
Asadu’lláh Fázil Mázandarání, Asrár al-áthár vol. 3 (Tehran: Mu’assasih-
yi Millí-i Ma†bú‘át-i Amrí, 124/1968), 519.
14
For more information on Mullá Jamál Burújirdí, see Asadu’lláh Fádil
Mázandarání, Tarikh-i zuhúr al-˙aqq, vol. 3 (Tehran: n.p., 1944), 300-
310.
15
Stephen N. Lambden, “Some Observations on Karím Khán’s Critique of
Bahá Alláh’s interpretation of the New Testament in the Kitáb-i íqán in
Karím Khán Kirmání’s ‘Risálih dar javáb-i su’álát-i Mullá Jamál-i
Bábí,’” unpublished paper.
16
Bahá’u’lláh, LQ, 66. This and all subsequent translations into English
from the LQ are provisional, and done by Sholeh A. Quinn.
17
Kirmání, Risálih, 211.
18
Kirmání, Risálih, 211.
19
Bahá’u’lláh, LQ, 66.
20
Bahá’u’lláh, LQ, 66.
21
Bahá’u’lláh, LQ, 67.
22
Kirmání, Risálih, 211.
23
Bahá’u’lláh, LQ, 68.
24
Bahá’u’lláh, LQ, 68.
25
Bahá’u’lláh, LQ, 68.
26
Bahá’u’lláh, LQ, 68.
27
See Vahid Rafati, “Nazarí bih Law˙-i qiná‘,”174, 190.
28
Bahá’u’lláh, LQ, 68
29
For more information on this individual, see EI2, “al-Mukanna.”
30
Bahá’u’lláh, LQ, 69.
31
Bahá’u’lláh, LQ, 76.
32
In an important study published in the on-line journal Syzygy, available
at Stephen Lambden’s website, Dr. Will McCants has discussed a
treatise of the Báb on grammar where he addresses many of these
topics. See
http://www.hurqalya.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SYZYGY/syzygy-03-
yes/Grammar%20of%20the%20Divine%20-6.htm.
270 Lights of ‘Irfán Book Eleven

33
In one of the most poignant portions of the Law˙-i qiná‘, Bahá’u’lláh
explains that if sorrows that had been inflicted and physical illnesses
had not prevented him, “Tablets on the divine sciences would be
written, and you would bear witness that the divine laws would
encompass earthly laws.” Bahá’u’lláh, LQ, 78.
34
Bahá’u’lláh, Kitáb-i-íqán, 190.
35
Bahá’u’lláh, LQ, 79.
36
Stephen N. Lambden, “The Bahai Interpretation of the Antichrist-Dajjal
Traditions,” Bahá’í Studies Bulletin 1/3 (1982): 3-44.
37
Bahá’u’lláh, LQ, 79-81.
38
Bahá’u’lláh, LQ, 81-82.