September 5. On this date in 1973, John Ferraby, a Hand of the Cause of God and from 1959 to 1963 one of the nine Custodians, died. He wrote All Things Made New, which is notable for the changes made from the original publication in 1957 to subsequent editions published after the death of Shoghi Effendi. For example, comparing the original 1957 edition to the 1987 edition, among the numerous alterations, is the replacement of his dedication of the book to "The First Guardian of the Bahá'í Faith" to simply "The Guardian." Other references to "the Guardian" have been replaced with "the Universal House of Justice."

 

September 5. On this date in 1973, John Ferraby, a Hand of the Cause of God and from 1959 to 1963 one of the nine Custodians, died. He wrote All Things Made New, which is notable for the changes made from the original publication in 1957 to subsequent editions published after the death of Shoghi Effendi. For example, comparing the original 1957 edition to the 1987 edition, among the numerous alterations, is the replacement of his dedication of the book to "The First Guardian of the Bahá'í Faith" to simply "The Guardian." Other references to "the Guardian" have been replaced with "the Universal House of Justice."

Born on January 9, 1914, in Southsea, England, into a Jewish family, he was educated at Malvern College and King's College, Cambridge. He became a Bahá'í in 1941 and was elected as secretary of the National Spiritual Assembly, which he remained until 1959. In October 1957, Ferraby was appointed a Hand of the Cause of God by Shoghi Effendi. From 1959 to 1963, he served as one of the nine Custodians at the Bahá'í World Centre.

In 1941 that he was told about the Faith by a non-Bahá’í. Wanting to know more, he found John Esslemont's book Bahá'u'lláh and the New Era in a public library. John Esslemont's book Bahá'u'lláh and the New Era remains an important text that has been used in Bahá'í missionary activity. However, from in its initial publication to later editions, Bahá'u'lláh and the New Era has been significantly edited, with references to Avarih removed in subsequent editions published after Avarih's apostasy from the Bahá'í Faith.

Ferraby was by then living in London, so he started to look for the Bahá’ís there, but he had difficulty in finding them because during the blitz, the Bahá’í Centre was empty most of the time. However, finally he found someone and after a couple of visits he wanted to be accepted as a member of the community. Almost imediately he began to work for the Faith, becoming in less then an year a member of the London Spiritual Assembly and of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of the British Isles. In 1943 he married a fellow member of the National Assembly, Dorothy Cansdale.

In 1946 he became secretary of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of the British Isles, working at first in his spare time and from 1950 as full-time secretary. This work he continued, living in the National Hazíratu'l-Quds in London from December 1954, until he went to serve in the Holy Land at the end of 1959. During a good deal of the time he was also manager of the British Bahá’í Publishing Trust, as well as being an active teacher and committee member. From 1951 to 1956 he was busily involved in the work of the Africa Committee and during the opening of the various territories in Africa, at that time mostly colonies or protectorates, he attended to most of the government relationship, acting in his capacity of national secretary. He attended the first Intercontinental Conference, held in Kampala, Uganda, in 1958, as well as the successive Intercontinental Conferences which were held in Europe.

In January 1955, he made the Bahá'í pilgrimage. While in Haifa, Shoghi Effendi advised him to write his book All Things Made New. The book has been widely used, running to one edition of the British Isles and three in the United States. All Things Made New, which is notable for the changes made from the original publication in 1957 to subsequent editions published after the death of Shoghi Effendi. For example, comparing the original 1957 edition to the 1987 edition, among the numerous alterations, is the replacement of his dedication of the book to "The First Guardian of the Bahá'í Faith" to simply "The Guardian." Other references to "the Guardian" have been replaced with "the Universal House of Justice."

In 1957, Shoghi Effendi named Ferraby in the last group of Hands of the Cause. He carried a big share of the work and responsibility for the arrangements when Shoghi Effendi died and was buried in London. After that he took part in the gathering of the Hands of the Cause in Haifa and stayed on there for over three months to help. In December 1959, John went to live in Haifa as one of the Hands of the Cause resident in the Holy Land and remained there until Riḍván 1963. After that he returned to England and lived in Cambridge for the last ten years of his life, working for the first few years as one of the Hands of the Cause in the continent of Europe, dealing with their secretariat and traveling a good deal. Later it became no longer possible for him to serve in this way.

He died on September 5, 1973.

September 4. On this date in 2005, the Universal House of Justice wrote a letter "concerning the source of a statement about 20,000 [Babi] martyrs" given that "Some historians think the number of early Babi/Bahá'í martyrs was not 20,000, as 'Abdu'l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi mentioned numerous times, but 2,000 to 3,000."

 

September 4. On this date in 2005, the Universal House of Justice wrote a letter "concerning the source of a statement about 20,000 [Babi] martyrs" given that "Some historians think the number of early Babi/Bahá'í martyrs was not 20,000, as 'Abdu'l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi mentioned numerous times, but 2,000 to 3,000."

September 4. On this date in 1981, a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States clarified "that the Spiritual Assemblies and individual believers are free to quote in their publications from any of the Writings of the three Central Figures of the Faith or from the writings of the beloved Guardian, whether in the original language or in translation, without obtaining clearance from the copyright holder... it does not change the existing requirements for individual believers to submit their works on the Faith for review before publication, neither does it relieve Spiritual Assemblies of their responsibility to protect the dignity of the Faith and uphold the proper standard of reverence in the use of its Sacred Scriptures

 

September 4. On this date in 1981, a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States clarified "that the Spiritual Assemblies and individual believers are free to quote in their publications from any of the Writings of the three Central Figures of the Faith or from the writings of the beloved Guardian, whether in the original language or in translation, without obtaining clearance from the copyright holder... it does not change the existing requirements for individual believers to submit their works on the Faith for review before publication, neither does it relieve Spiritual Assemblies of their responsibility to protect the dignity of the Faith and uphold the proper standard of reverence in the use of its Sacred Scriptures

363. Copyright Clearance on Sacred Writings Not Necessary for Assemblies and Bahá'í Believers

"The Universal House of Justice has been concerned of late to note an apparently growing impression among Spiritual Assemblies and individual believers in many parts of the world, that they must obtain copyright clearance before they may quote from the Sacred Texts of the Faith in any publication. It has now instructed us to make it clear that the Spiritual Assemblies and individual believers are free to quote in their publications from any of the Writings of the three Central Figures of the Faith or from the writings of the beloved Guardian, whether in the original language or in translation, without obtaining clearance from the copyright holder, unless the copyright holder in the case of a translation is an individual or is a non-Bahá'í institution. It is recognized that this ruling may endanger copyrights, but we feel that this is a risk that must be taken.

"The ruling is made to ensure that the Sacred Scriptures of our Faith and the writings of the beloved Guardian may be freely used by the believers; it does not change the existing requirements for individual believers to submit their works on the Faith for review before publication, neither does it relieve Spiritual Assemblies of their responsibility to protect the dignity of the Faith and uphold the proper standard of reverence in the use of its Sacred Scriptures. Thus, if any Assembly sees that one of the friends is making use of any of the Holy Texts in an unbefitting manner, it should remonstrate with him and, if necessary, require him to stop doing so."

(From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States, September 4, 1981)

August 22. On this date in 2005, the NSA of the U.S. wrote Kalimat Press about its intention "to distribute a reprint of Abbas Amanat's Resurrection and Renewal: The Making of the Babi Movement 1844-1850, with the addition of a new preface in which — according to your description — Mr. Amanat comments on developments in the field of Babi-Bahá'í studies since the original publication of the book in 1989" noting "Word has reached us from independent sources that Mr. Amanat's preface is severely critical of institutions of the Faith....We hope that Kalimat Press is exercising appropriate care in the nature of the material it propagates and is mindful of the need, especially during this critical period in the Faith's development, of safeguarding the high station and dignity of institutions that derive their being from the wellsprings of Bahá'u'lláh's mighty revelation.

 

August 22. On this date in 2005, the NSA of the U.S. wrote Kalimat Press about its intention "to distribute a reprint of Abbas Amanat's Resurrection and Renewal: The Making of the Babi Movement 1844-1850, with the addition of a new preface in which — according to your description — Mr. Amanat comments on developments in the field of Babi-Bahá'í studies since the original publication of the book in 1989" noting "Word has reached us from independent sources that Mr. Amanat's preface is severely critical of institutions of the Faith....We hope that Kalimat Press is exercising appropriate care in the nature of the material it propagates and is mindful of the need, especially during this critical period in the Faith's development, of safeguarding the high station and dignity of institutions that derive their being from the wellsprings of Bahá'u'lláh's mighty revelation.

National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of the United States

August 22, 2005

Dear Bahá'í Friend:

The National Spiritual Assembly noted in your July 13 email message conveying news of your forthcoming publications that you intend soon to distribute a reprint of Abbas Amanat's Resurrection and Renewal: The Making of the Babi Movement 1844-1850, with the addition of a new preface in which — according to your description — Mr. Amanat comments on developments in the field of Babi-Bahá'í studies since the original publication of the book in 1989.

Word has reached us from independent sources that Mr. Amanat's preface is severely critical of institutions of the Faith. Not having seen it, we have drawn no conclusions about the preface and are obviously not in a position to comment on it. We hope that Kalimat Press is exercising appropriate care in the nature of the material it propagates and is mindful of the need, especially during this critical period in the Faith's development, of safeguarding the high station and dignity of institutions that derive their being from the wellsprings of Bahá'u'lláh's mighty revelation.

We look forward to your reply.

With loving Bahá'í regards,

[National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of the United States]

August 3. On this date in 1999, the Universal House of Justice addressed a letter to Kalimat Press "on the subject of the manner in which Kalimat has promoted to Bahá'ís Juan Cole's book, Modernity and the Millennium." The letter addresses "the problem of attitude on your part that the National Assembly was asked to raise with you" and admonishes "The assumption of Bahá'í institutions is that the purpose motivating a group of believers to create a publishing house that enjoys privileged access to the Bahá'í community is in order to promote the advancement of the Bahá'í Cause. The House of Justice has always assumed — as is no doubt the case with Bahá'ís generally — that this was the desire that motivated you and your associates to create Kalimat Press. If some different conception of purpose underlies the Kalimat enterprise, then it is essential that you advise the United States National Spiritual Assembly of the facts of the situation, frankly, unequivocally, and without delay. The House of Justice calls on you to meditate profoundly on the questions raised in the foregoing, as these issues bear directly on the relationship that binds you to your Lord...The House of Justice expects that you have now understood clearly what is at stake and that you will resolve, unambiguously and at once, to abandon the course you have, alas, been pursuing."

August 3. On this date in 1999, the Universal House of Justice addressed a letter to Kalimat Press "on the subject of the manner in which Kalimat has promoted to Bahá'ís Juan Cole's book, Modernity and the Millennium." The letter addresses "the problem of attitude on your part that the National Assembly was asked to raise with you" and admonishes "The assumption of Bahá'í institutions is that the purpose motivating a group of believers to create a publishing house that enjoys privileged access to the Bahá'í community is in order to promote the advancement of the Bahá'í Cause. The House of Justice has always assumed — as is no doubt the case with Bahá'ís generally — that this was the desire that motivated you and your associates to create Kalimat Press. If some different conception of purpose underlies the Kalimat enterprise, then it is essential that you advise the United States National Spiritual Assembly of the facts of the situation, frankly, unequivocally, and without delay. The House of Justice calls on you to meditate profoundly on the questions raised in the foregoing, as these issues bear directly on the relationship that binds you to your Lord...The House of Justice expects that you have now understood clearly what is at stake and that you will resolve, unambiguously and at once, to abandon the course you have, alas, been pursuing."

Letter from the Universal House of Justice to Kalimat, 1999

Transmitted by email

Dear Bahá'í Friend,

The Universal House of Justice has reviewed the letter of 8 May 1999 to the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of the United States, signed by you on behalf of Kalimat Press and copied for the House of Justice, on the subject of the manner in which Kalimat has promoted to Bahá'ís Juan Cole's book, Modernity and the Millennium. We have been asked to write as follows.

A good deal of the work of Kalimat Press, which you have ably directed during the twenty or so years of the firm's existence, has constituted a significant contribution to the advancement of the Cause we all love and seek to serve. It is clear, too, that, beyond the administration of Kalimat's activities, this valued contribution owes a great deal to your own creativity and professional talents. These circumstances move the House of the Justice to share with you candidly the deep concern it feels regarding your relationship with the Bahá'í Faith.

As you are aware, such concern prompted earlier efforts, including those made by Counsellor ___ and ___, a member of the Auxiliary Board, in their interview with you and your wife, Dr. ___, in May of 1996, to draw to your attention the serious dangers of the course you have long been following. At that time, you expressed to Mr. ___ your deep regret over actions on your part that were seen by the House of Justice to be clearly in conflict with the beliefs you profess as a follower of Bahá'u'lláh, as well as your firm assurance that your actions would not again give cause for such intervention.

It is impossible to reconcile professions of this kind with the arguments made by you in the 8 May letter. The inappropriateness of the promotional statements and of the approach taken in the letter serves as an illustration of the attitude and behavior on your part that have long been a source of difficulty. It is these personal elements that the House of Justice has asked us to address.

Clearly, no one would dispute the right of Dr. Cole to write and publish whatever work a publisher is prepared to handle. Nor has anyone questioned the right of a Bahá'í who is interested in such a book to purchase it. To suggest that the House of Justice is saying otherwise would be to seriously misconstrue the nature of its concern. The book itself is incidental to the problem of attitude on your part that the National Assembly was asked to raise with you. As a participant in various Internet discussion groups over the past five years, and particularly in the last year or two, you cannot but be aware from these exchanges that Dr. Cole has embarked on a deliberate assault against the Bahá'í Cause, in which he has not hesitated to attack its institutions, to misrepresent its fundamental teachings, and to abuse the trust of Bahá'ís who had been led to believe that they were engaged with him in a detached and scholarly search for the truth. These same Internet exchanges exposed you, like other participants, to a flood of calumny and invective against a great many of your fellow believers, on the part of Dr. Cole, that is scarcely credible in rational discourse.

Had such a book as Modernity and the Millennium been written by a disinterested non-Bahá'í scholar, its misconception of the nature of Bahá'u'lláh's Mission and its other shortcomings would have represented no more than understandable weaknesses of an honest attempt to explore a religious phenomenon as yet little understood in the West. Indeed, in this context, such an attempt to make the Bahá'í Faith comprehensible to the Western academic mind, however inadequate it might appear to knowledgeable Bahá'í scholars, would surely have earned its author a measure of genuine Bahá'í appreciation for the writing and research skills deployed in devising it.

As you — like other participants in certain Internet discussion groups — are well aware, however, the book's author is not a disinterested scholar. Rather, he is a deeply embittered individual who, as his book was in preparation, had just denounced in the most intemperate language an apparent twenty-year allegiance to Bahá'u'lláh, in the wake of a failed attempt on his part to impose his private ideological agenda on the Bahá'í community's study of Bahá'u'lláh's Message. Modernity and the Millennium represents an effort to provide the current stage of this long-running scheme with the underpinnings of scholarly rationalization.

What is this rationalization? Although distorted by its evasion of Bahá'í Texts that contradict its main assertions, and blurred by reliance on speculations peculiar to its author's purpose, the thesis appears to run somewhat as follows: Bahá'u'lláh's work and Writings represent essentially one of several efforts by Middle East thinkers to work out a "response" to the challenges posed by European modernity in the form of rationalism, revolution, nationalism, economic upheaval, feminism and other contemporary developments.

Although Oriental in origin, this particular "response", in contrast to various others, was unusually "progressive", "liberal", "idealistic", even "radical". Because it "grew up" in a congenial modernist era, its Author was able gradually to adjust and revise the ideas with which He had been "grappling", through benefiting (in a manner generally insinuated rather than explicitly stated) from successive interactions with other thinkers and movements. By 1862, apparently in order to deal with the problem of religious exclusivity in the Muslim world, and in response to some form of "private mystical experience", He "decided to make a prophetic claim of his own".

As mentioned above, if such a view had represented the interpretation of Bahá'u'lláh's Mission arrived at by a non-Bahá'í as the result of his objective study of the sources, no Bahá'í institution could have an objection. Its relevance to the concern of the House of Justice about your behavior arises rather from your long-standing and widely recognized involvement with a few present and former members of the Faith who seek to foist this caricature of the Cause on the Bahá'í community, and your perceived identification with their purpose.

The Covenant, the distinguishing feature of Bahá'u'lláh's Revelation, has been made the central target of this effort (a maneuver that Dr. Cole's book is at particular pains to shore up). Although forced to acknowledge the appointments of `Abdu'l-Bahá and the Guardian as Interpreters of Bahá'u'lláh's Message, every effort has been made to call such authoritative interpretation into question wherever it presents a problem for the notions being promoted. Similarly, although ostensibly acknowledging that the Universal House of Justice is Head of the Bahá'í Faith today, this opposition has tried by every means possible to undermine the broad authority conferred in Bahá'u'lláh's own words and emphasized in the Master's Will and Testament. (In Dr. Cole's book, this agenda makes its appearance in the conclusion: namely, that the Faith founded by Bahá'u'lláh has failed in its mission because, like "the Khomeinist state in Iran", it has been somehow captured by "fundamentalists", by which term Dr. Cole has repeatedly characterized the members of the Universal House of Justice.)

Why would a Bahá'í or a Bahá'í publisher who is genuinely devoted to advancing Bahá'í scholarship and to encouraging confirmation of believers in Bahá'u'lláh's Covenant seek to persuade his Bahá'í readers that a device intended as the mainspring of an attack on their Faith is "an indispensable book for any serious student of Bahá'í history"? How could an effort to represent to the Bahá'í community such a work as "a brilliant, scholarly analysis of the life and teachings of Bahá'u'lláh" serve the Cause of God? What moral benefit do you imagine a Bahá'í reader could conceivably derive from taking seriously the theories of an individual whose apparently ungovernable malice has made his activities the focal point of contention and disharmony among any believers unwise enough to be influenced by him?

Indeed, what relevance do Dr. Cole's academic credentials, so strongly emphasized in your letter of 8 May, have to the moral and spiritual issue raised in the letter from the National Spiritual Assembly? Clearly, no reader, Bahá'í or otherwise, would be interested in reading a supposedly scholarly study whose author lacked the relevant scholarly qualifications. Nor, presumably, would any publisher, Bahá'í or otherwise, promote a work from such an unqualified source. It is both meaningless and disingenuous to argue that these qualifications, however valid in themselves, assure that a publication meets the moral and spiritual standards that are made explicitly clear in the Writings of the Faith whose interests Kalimat's activities are ostensibly designed to serve.

The assumption of Bahá'í institutions is that the purpose motivating a group of believers to create a publishing house that enjoys privileged access to the Bahá'í community is in order to promote the advancement of the Bahá'í Cause. The House of Justice has always assumed — as is no doubt the case with Bahá'ís generally — that this was the desire that motivated you and your associates to create Kalimat Press. If some different conception of purpose underlies the Kalimat enterprise, then it is essential that you advise the United States National Spiritual Assembly of the facts of the situation, frankly, unequivocally, and without delay.

The House of Justice calls on you to meditate profoundly on the questions raised in the foregoing, as these issues bear directly on the relationship that binds you to your Lord. Does not the Master in His Will and Testament itself, specifically warn: "According to the direct and sacred command of God we are forbidden to utter slander, are commanded to show forth peace and amity, are exhorted to rectitude of conduct, straight-forwardness and harmony with all the kindreds and peoples of the world"? Does He not, in that same foundation document of the Cause, counsel all of us: "O ye beloved of the Lord! Strive with all your heart to shield the Cause of God from the onslaught of the insincere, for souls such as these cause the straight to become crooked and all benevolent efforts to produce contrary results"?

The impressive services that you have rendered the Faith, with ___'s loving support, represent for you a spiritual treasure. God forbid that so precious a capital should be squandered. While there is yet time, the House of Justice earnestly appeals to you to turn away from the course on which you have long been set, a course that has been marked by steady spiritual deterioration and that will lead to grievous loss in both this world and the next. As you will recall, because the matter was of direct concern to her, ___ asked urgently to be included in your discussion with ___ and ___. Because these issues continue to bear so immediately on the well-being of your family, you need to recognize your moral obligation to take her fully into your confidence also on the contents of this present letter.

In the past, you have expressed bewilderment that your actions should have required the intervention of senior Bahá'í institutions. The House of Justice expects that you have now understood clearly what is at stake and that you will resolve, unambiguously and at once, to abandon the course you have, alas, been pursuing.

The House of Justice will pray ardently at the Holy Threshold that you will be granted the courage and will to meet the spiritual challenge you face.

With loving Bahá'í greetings, 

Department of the Secretariat 

July 28. On this date in 1966, the Universal House of Justice stated "A publishing trust has the right to refuse publication of any particular title, and a National Assembly has the right to review any proposed Bahá'í publication for accuracy and propriety. But no publisher has the right to alter or change an author's manuscript without his knowledge and consent." Many Bahá'í books have had significant edits, deletions, and additions since their authors' deaths for various reasons, including failed prophecies.

July 28. On this date in 1966, the Universal House of Justice stated "A publishing trust has the right to refuse publication of any particular title, and a National Assembly has the right to review any proposed Bahá'í publication for accuracy and propriety. But no publisher has the right to alter or change an author's manuscript without his knowledge and consent."

Many Bahá'í books have had significant edits, deletions, and additions since their authors' deaths for various reasons, including failed prophecies.

359. No Publisher Has the Right to Alter Author's Manuscript

"A publishing trust has the right to refuse publication of any particular title, and a National Assembly has the right to review any proposed Bahá'í publication for accuracy and propriety. But no publisher has the right to alter or change an author's manuscript without his knowledge and consent."

(From a letter of the Universal House of Justice written to the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States, July 28, 1966)

Many Bahá'í books have had significant edits, deletions, and additions since their authors' deaths for various reasons, including failed prophecies.

George Townshend was an Irish Anglican clergyman who had renounced his orders to the Anglican Church in 1947, at the age of 70. Shoghi Effendi designated him a Hand of the Cause of God in 1951 and once said of George Townshend that he feels "Mr. Townshend's services to the Faith can best be rendered by his writing about it, as he obviously has an outstanding ability in this direction..." Of the books that Townshend wrote, Christ and Bahá’u’lláh is notable for the changes made from the original publication to subsequent editions published after the passing of Shoghi Effendi. For example, a statement about the "first and present Guardian" has been removed and a section discussing "the lineage of succeeding Guardians" has been replaced with a section discussing "divinely guided institutions" in general.

John Esslemont's book Bahá'u'lláh and the New Era remains an important text that has been used in Bahá'í missionary activity. However, from in its initial publication to later editions, Bahá'u'lláh and the New Era has been significantly edited, with references to Avarih removed in subsequent editions published after Avarih's apostasy from the Bahá'í Faith.

Other significant edits include...

Perhaps the most important change in Bahá'u'lláh and the New Era was made on page 212 of the 1923 edition. Recorded as a Bahá'í prophecy (59) concerning the "Coming of the Kingdom of God," Esslemont cited Abdu'l-Bahá's interpretation of the last two verses of the Book of Daniel from the Bible. He stated that the 1335 days spoken of by Daniel represented 1335 solar years from Muhammad's flight to Medina in 622 A.D., which would equal 1957 A.D.. When asked "'What shall we see at the end of the 1335 days?'," Abdu'l-Bahá's reply was: "'Universal Peace will be firmly established, a Universal language promoted. Misunderstandings will pass away. The Bahá'í Cause will be promulgated in all parts and the oneness of mankind established. It will be most glorious!'" (60) In editions published after his death, Esslemont's words have been changed to say that Abdu'l-Bahá "reckoned the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy from the date of the beginning of the Muhammadan era " (61) and one of Abdu'l-Bahá's Tablets is quoted on the same subject in which he writes, "'For according to this calculation a century will have elapsed from the dawn of the Sun of Truth....'" Esslemont appears to conclude that Abdu'l-Bahá was referring to the year 1963 and the one hundredth anniversary of Bahá'u'lláh's public claim to be a Manifestation of God. (62) These words, however, were never written by the author, but were added posthumously. And, it should be noted that the phrase "'the dawn of the Sun of Truth'" is not a reference to a particular year, in this case 1863, but to a period of years when the Bab and his followers were preparing the way for the Manifestation of Bahá'u'lláh. Hence, they are commonly referred to as the "Dawn-Breakers." (63) Further, in another quotation which originally appeared on the same page, but was also removed from later editions, Abdu'l-Bahá plainly stated, "' This is the Century of the Sun of Truth. This is the Century of the establishment of the Kingdom of God upon the earth.'" (64) Esslemont recorded Abdu'l-Bahá as declaring explicitly that the prophecy was to be computed from the Hijra or 622 A.D. and that specific conditions would exist in the world upon it's fulfillment in 1957. When it became apparent that this Bahá'í prophecy would not be fulfilled, it was replaced with the ambiguous material which has remained in the text to the present. This is evident from the fact that, although Esslemont's other eyewitness accounts were removed in the 1937 revision, the record of Abdu'l-Bahá's prophecy was left intact by the American National Spiritual Assembly and Shoghi Effendi. It was not changed until after 1957. (65) Also, Abdu'l-Bahá's conviction that all of these events would take place in this century have been expressed in other writings and it is evident that Shoghi Effendi shared his optimism as well. (66)