|
|
|
|
|
The picture on page 83 of William Miller's book (Bahai Faith: its History and Teachings) is a portrait of Baha'u'llah, but different from the one displayed in the International Archives.
The Universal House of Justice in a published letter to a believer March 30,1980
We would like to point out to you that the National Spiritual Assembly has no documentation verifying the authenticity of the illustrations in Mr. William McElwee Miller's book, and as such they cannot be regarded as being of Baha'u'llah and the Bab.
Letter from the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States to an individual 6 February 1981 (1)
As a Bahá'í youth, I saw two photographs of Bahá'u'lláh. The first was the picture above, which I found in my college library. I saw the second photograph while on my Bahá'í pilgrimage in Haifa, Israel.
Though I was told by an adult Bahá'í that the picture above was not of Bahá'u'lláh, I found the picture in Israel quite similar, though I recall that his beard was cut differently.
I distinctly remember not being charmed by either photograph of this stern, troubled figure. Having grown up with charming images of Abbas Effendi (AKA `Abdu'l-Bahá), my expectations were high, and unfair to Bahá'u'lláh.
Portraits of `Abdu'l-Bahá are as common as the Virgin Mary in Bahá'í households, and they have guidelines for posting these portraits in a respectful manner. In spite of this idolatrous practice, Bahá'ís consider themselves special for not displaying portraits of Bahá'u'lláh!
Even when I was still a Bahá'í, this behavior made me quite uncomfortable.
I don't intend to criticize Bahá'u'lláh for his lack of physical charm. There is certainly no absolute need for a Manifestation of God to have a warm, charming appearance, but when I hear Bahá'ís wonder at the attractiveness of `Abdu'l-Bahá, I am moved to ask, why do you place significance on such matters?
I can't help but be skeptical regarding the motives behaind the Bahá'í prohibition against portraits of Prophets. Given the Bahá'í affection for graven images, I'm inclined to wonder whether the prohibition would have ever been laid down had Bahá'u'lláh been better looking.
Bahá'ís are told not to keep photos of their Prophets because such photos could too easily become 'idols'; believers would focus on the appearance of their prophet, and be distracted from his message. In light of this, it self-discrediting for Bahá'ís to even consider the legitimacy of a photograph, because physical appearance ought to be irrelevant.
Yet, the anticipation of Bahá'ís to view the one Holy Image in the International Archives Building in Israel is only heightened by that prohibition of graven images, and Bahá'ís the world over redirect their idolatrous insticts toward a myriad oversized portaits of `Abdu'l-Bahá, as though they were former Catholics in dire need of replacements for their virgin marias.