Review of: Symbol and Secret: Qur'an Commentary in Bahá'u'lláh's Kitab-i Iqan (Studies in the Bábí and Bahá'í Religions, volume 7)
Written by: Christopher Buck
Published by: Kalimát Press, Los Angeles, 1995
Review by: Jonah Winters
Review published in: Journal of Bahá'í Studies 9:3 (1999), pp. 69-75
Christopher Buck's
Symbol and Secret: Qur'an Commentary in
Bahá'u'lláh's Kitáb-i Íqán (Studies in the
Bábí and Bahá'í Religions, volume 7) can be seen as a work of
genius: it is groundbreaking—daring, innovative, and even brilliant—and yet it can
be frustratingly opaque.
Juan Cole's introduction states that this is "the first book-length academic study devoted
entirely to a major work of Bahá'í scripture." (xi)1 This aside,
there is another area in which Symbol and Secret breaks ground. Based on the author's
1991 master's thesis under Islamicist Andrew Rippin, Symbol and Secret broaches
topics which, though crucially important to Bahá'í scholarship, have largely
been ignored by the Bahá'í community: namely, Islam and its relation to the
theology and scripture of Bahá'u'lláh.2 While the sheer youth of
Bahá'í scholarship in the West is doubtless the chief culprit in this academic
oversight, there is also a certain timidity to discuss things Islamic in the general
Bahá'í community in the West.3 To anyone who studies the early
history of the Faith or the symbolisms and cultural influences in the writings, however, the
need for a thorough understanding of Islam becomes apparent. "Bahá'u'lláh was,
after all, a Muslim," Buck points out in speaking of Bahá'u'lláh's cultural
heritage. (87) It is only through investigations into Islam that certain textual allusions,
metaphors and symbolic representations, technical terms, cultural assumptions, and even
writing styles in the earlier Bahá'í scriptures can become transparent.
The Kitáb-i-Iqán is the text which Shoghi Effendi singled out as "...the
most important book written on the spiritual significance of the Cause" (The Light of Divine
Guidance, volume 1, 37), and can be seen as the central book of Bahá'í
theology. It stands in a unique historical position. Ostensibly a book written by a
Bábí, for Bábís, and in defense of the Báb, it was revealed
on the eve of Bahá'u'lláh's official declaration of 1863 and soon came to be seen
as a book written by a Bahá'í, for Bahá'ís, and in defense of
Bahá'u'lláh. As such, the Íqán fulfills three roles: it is a defense of
and theological exposition on both Babism and the Bahá'í Faith, and it serves to
bridge and coordinate the two religions.
The title of Symbol and Secret derives from the above two considerations. First,
the book examines the treatment of Islamic symbolism in the Íqán, and even
explains how the Íqán is itself an example of Qur'anic exegesis. The
Íqán can even be seen as residing within—though transcending and
reshaping—a textual tradition of Islamic works of exegesis. Here Symbol and
Secret is in not-too-unfamiliar territory, for both the Islamic exegetical tradition and
Western scholarship on the same are coherent, respected, and active genres of scholarship.
Second, Symbol and Secret examines the theological underpinnings of the
Íqán: was it written by a Bábí, or by He Whom God Shall Make
Manifest? What was the state of Bahá'u'lláh's "messianic consciousness" at the
time of its writing? And to what extent was Bahá'u'lláh disclosing his own secret,
i.e. the fact that he himself was the promised Manifestation? Here Buck is on unexplored
territory for, while the nature of the Báb's evolving messianic consciousness has been
explored in print, the topic has barely been addressed within published Bahá'í
studies. Much of the book examines to what extent the Íqán conceals or alludes to
the "secret" harboured by its author and whether it was meant to foreshadow the imminent
annunciation of the secret. Symbol and Secret thus examines the symbol, the identity of
the Íqán as an exploration into Qur'anic and Islamic symbolism, and it explores
the secret, the nature of Bahá'u'lláh's true identity at the time. Along the way the
book touches on many other, usually related, issues, such as the manuscript and publication
history of the Íqán, Shí`í notions of the Mahdi, and
Bahá'u'lláh's agenda of social and religious reform.
As the book sometimes lacks a sufficiently well-ordered structure (see below), its
strengths can be addressed by discussing it section by section. After a somewhat meandering
introduction, Buck launches into a critical analysis of the history of the Íqán in
chapter one. The early history of the Íqán is first examined, from the date of its
revelation to its dissemination and the history of the original manuscript. Next he devotes
nineteen pages to its publication history with a depth and assiduousness that should be regarded
as a model for future textual scholarship. Buck clearly conducted diligent investigative work,
examining both common and obscure books and journal articles, the work of contemporary
scholars and historians, comparative analysis of manuscripts, letters to and from the Research
Department of the Universal House of Justice, and analysis of the statements of certain
individuals hostile to the Bahá'í Faith, all carefully footnoted. The import of this
study surpasses simply the publication history of the Íqán, for it touches on the
dating and dissemination of other key Bahá'í texts, proposes solutions to certain
historical dilemmas, and responds to critical charges made by early opponents of the Faith. The
diligence and concentration Buck devoted to this early section offers great promise for the rest
of the book to follow.
The primary focus of chapters two and three, "Exegesis and Ideology" and "Beyond
Islam," is Bahá'u'lláh's tactical approach to overcoming the primary theological
obstacle to post-Islamic revelation: the nature of the Qá'im, or Mahdí, and the
meaning of "Seal of the Prophets," which Buck isolates as the "single verse [standing] as the
most formidable doctrinal obstacle facing Bahá'u'lláh." (57) Buck demonstrates
and explains Bahá'u'lláh's brilliant device of, rather than negating certain
statements in prior scriptures by claiming a new and higher authority, using theological
symbols in the older scriptures against each other to reinterpret themselves. This technique
allowed Bahá'u'lláh to reject the common understandings of certain key themes in
prior scriptures and invest central symbols with new meaning, while yet retaining the
authority of these texts. "With Bahá'u'lláh, the Qur'an is indeed confirmed, but
relativized." (89) This chapter concludes (in a section that should perhaps belong in the next
chapter) with a discussion of some technical terminology: Bahá'u'lláh's use of the
terms symbol (ramz), secret (sirr), implication
(talwíh), and allusion (ishára).
Chapter four, "Exegetical Techniques in the Book of Certitude," which at 123 pages
occupies over one third of Symbol and Secret, is the most technical and weighty section of
the book. Here Buck delves into the heart of his project: a demonstration that
Bahá'u'lláh's agenda at this point in his mission is prosecuted through innovative
Qur'anic exegesis, tafsír. Buck examines many types of exegetical innovation
pioneered by Bahá'u'lláh, only a few of which will be highlighted here.
Among the innovations Bahá'u'lláh introduces into the tafsír
tradition is "interscriptural exegesis," i.e. explaining the symbolism in the scripture of
one religion through recourse to the scripture of another religion, in this case explaining the
Qur'an through the New Testament. This is a type of exegesis which would not have been
considered prior to the Bábí/Bahá'í religion, because
traditionally Muslims regard the Bible as having been corrupted and see the Qur'an as having
been sent to restore scriptural purity. To Bahá'u'lláh, though, both scriptures
are authentic, and hence can be used to explain each other. Using this new type of
tafsír, Bahá'u'lláh is able gradually to chip away at the obstacle to
new revelation presented by "Seal of the Prophets." Another innovation is
Bahá'u'lláh's extended appeal to rationality. Buck shows how the
Íqán consistently points out that literal interpretations of some symbols would
be pointless, of no profit to God or humankind. For example, in speaking of Qur'an 39:67, "The
whole earth shall on the Resurrection Day be but His [God's] handful, and in His right hand shall
the heavens be folded together," Bahá'u'lláh says "And now, be fair in thy
judgment. Were this verse to have the meaning which men suppose it to have, of what profit, one
may ask, could it be to man?" (215-216, quoting Íqán 47-48 [cf. Symbol,
248-251]) Partly through such appeal to rationality and exposing the absurdity of certain
literalistic readings of the Qur'an, Bahá'u'lláh prepares the reader of the
Íqán to transcend traditional interpretations and become more receptive to a new
message, a new religion. A final strength of this chapter is Buck's adaptation of the
tafsír typology elaborated by Islamicist John Wansbrough. While Wansbrough's
work is not without its detractors—a common complaint being that it is little more than
Orientalist reductionism4—Buck's application of his hermeneutical typology
to the Íqán is highly instructive. Wansbrough adduces twelve exegetical
techniques used in traditional tafsír, such as "variant readings," "proof texts,"
"grammatical explanation," "rhetorical explanation," "analogy," etc. Buck finds ten of
Wansbrough's twelve techniques in the Íqán and discusses each in turn, usually
providing and analyzing examples from the text. This section is among the most focused
examinations of Bahá'í scripture published in English and, even if a reader might
disagree with some of Buck's analyses, the endeavour itself is to be applauded.
Symbol and Secret's conclusion, "The Other Side of the Bridge," uses the above
discussions of Islamic context and content in the writings of Bahá'u'lláh and his
reinterpretations of Qur'anic symbolism to extrapolate into the realm of Bahá'í
theology. Here Buck examines the implications of Bahá'u'lláh's exegetically-founded break from Islam for issues such as post-Qur'anic revelation, religious and social
reform, rational vs. metaphorical approaches to scripture, the Bábí reception of
the Íqán, and Bahá'u'lláh's "messianic consciousness." This
chapter contains some of the most enlightening and useful discussion in the book, and Buck quite
successfully conveys the sense of urgency and potency infusing the Íqán and the
state of the early Bahá'í community.
As the above discussion has been somewhat technical, there is danger of the forest being
lost for the trees; the innovativeness and relevance of Buck's work must be re-emphasized. The
Bahá'í writings can in large part only be understood when the literary, cultural,
and theological traditions from which they sprang are examined, and the influences of one are
traced through the other. Familiarity with the Islamic and Persian contexts is crucial for two
reasons: one, Bahá'u'lláh reflects it; two, Bahá'u'lláh builds upon
it. When an Islamic or Persian symbol, metaphor, or teaching is reflected in a later
Bahá'í one, an understanding of the former is a clear prerequisite for a full
understanding of the latter. Conversely, when Bahá'u'lláh modified, built upon,
or re-interpreted familiar symbols and teachings, an understanding of their old meanings is a
prerequisite for an understanding of how Bahá'u'lláh built new ones. As
Symbol and Secret is the first work written in English to examine Bahá'í
scripture and hermeneutics in any analytical depth, Buck's work can without exaggeration be
declared seminal.
Given the importance of the topics Buck addresses and the skill with which he examines
them, it is regrettable that some readers might find Symbol and Secret impenetrable.
There are two main obstacles in approaching this work: the opacity of Buck's prose, and the
occasional disorderliness of the book's content. These problems permeate the book, but a detailed
accounting would serve only to harp on them. Therefore, only a few examples will be given.
The difficulty of Buck's prose is perhaps the more superficial of these two criticisms,
and will be addressed first. This can be isolated into two main criticisms: an infelicitous
mixture of the poetic and the academic, and Buck's predilection for lengthy words and disjointed
paragraphs.
Buck has striven here to maintain a balance between the academic and the confessional,
between an approach rooted in objective impartiality versus one rooted in faith-based
apologetics. Since scholars of religion in general and Bahá'í scholars in particular are often
called upon to strike such a balance, Buck's attempt is to be defended in principle. Did
Muhammad "write" the Qur'án, or did God "reveal it through him"? Did
Bahá'u'lláh gradually "become aware of his messianic consciousness," or did he
carefully plan the gradual revelation of a mission of which he himself had been fully aware
since 1853? Buck has succeeded well at balancing on this particular fine line, for he has
written a lengthy objective work thick with obscure technical jargon which yet manages to
convey a warm sense of commitment to and respect for his field of inquiry often lacking in
scholarly books on religion.
However, whether due to his personal writing style or as a conscious literary device, his
writing can in places read as an unsuccessful juxtaposition of poetic and academic styles. For
example, his extended analogy of "fleshing" symbols on page 92 does add colour to his
presentation, but it is a colour which clashes. Buck displays a fondness for polysyllabic
alliteration, as in "pestilential pit" (xxx), "artifice of ambivalence" (6), "vituperative
vaticination" (84), "arcanely augured" (86), or "extraordinary extemporaneity." (294) With
shorter words, or less obscure ones, such a device can nicely spice up any prose. In this book,
however, they might serve only to bog down the reader or, worse, bemuse him. As well, he
sometimes fails to remember that clarity is more important than technicality. Why "variae
lectiones," (139) when "variant readings" carries exactly the same semantic value? Why "loci
probantes," (141) a phrase not even found in the Oxford English Dictionary, when "proof-texts" is a common and equivalent phrase?5 Finally, some of the writing suffers
from prolixity. For example, Buck states that "Shoghi Effendi...provides a periphrastic
rendering of the verse in translation" (176), which could equally be rendered as "Shoghi
Effendi...periphrases the verse." ("To periphrase" is to express the meaning of a phrase by
many words instead of by few, of which this sentence is itself an unfortunate example.)
A more problematic aspect of Symbol and Secret is its somewhat chaotic form. It
lacks some coherence both in formatting and in content; internal evidence could give the
impression that it was composed in numerous parts which were combined into a somewhat
haphazard whole for publication. Formatting inconsistencies include both the appearance of
words, such as "tafsír" appearing both in italics and in roman on the same page (84),
the use of diacritics, such as "Qur'an" and "Qur'án" appearing on the same page (129) or
even in the same sentence (130), and the decisions as to which words were unfamiliar enough to
require diacritics: why "Islam" but not "Islám," when the text has "Muhammad"
but not "Muhammad"? Why "ulama" but "hadíth"? The implication is that
"Islam" and "ulama" are in common English usage, whereas "Muhammad" and
"hadíth" are not. Such inconsistency is no more than an occasional
distraction, but it does indicate a certain lack of editing—as do the few dozen
typographical errors occurring throughout the book.
Other indications of insufficient editing are that citations are treated inconsistently.
Many authorities are cited just by last name, e.g. "According to McAuliffe..." (82) versus "...by
Irish Islamicist Denis MacEoin..." (xxii) Identifying MacEoin as an "Irish Islamicist" does not
impart any significant meaning which is lacking in not identifying McAuliffe, but the
implication given is that the reader is expected to recognize the unidentified names. Conversely,
some authorities are identified repeatedly, e.g. "...Sa`d al-Dín al-Taftázání (d. 1389 or 1390 C.E.)..." (91), "...the authoritative
rhetorician al-Taftázání..." (161), and "...al-
Taftázání (d. 1389 C.E.)..." (252). Foreign words can also be
inconsisently defined: e.g. "imámí akhbár" is first used on page
128 but not defined until page 132, while "Akhbárí" had been defined on page
127. This interrupts the reader's concentration as he or she skims forward and backward
trying to find out what he or she missed. These and other similar examples — such as
works cited in the footnotes but missing from the bibliography, or footnotes missing from the
text—indicate that the text might not have been written systematically and was not edited
closely enough.
Were such inconsistencies confined to the technical sphere the above would be simple
nitpicking, but the content of the text can also be disorderly. The numerous sections are
formatted as if belonging in the same hierarchical level—they are distinguished usually
by headers in capital letters—when their content is actually of varying levels. For
example, "Wansbrough's Tafsír Typology" (134), "Procedural Devices in the
Book of Certitude" (136) and "Variae Lectiones" (139) are three sequential sections, each one
seemingly a sub-section of the previous, but are formatted with identical headers. At minimum,
the presentation of the twelve devices, each one granted its own section, should have been
numbered. As some chapters have up to a dozen such sections, and chapter four has twenty-two,
the reader can quickly become lost.
The topics examined in the text can be jumbled, with unrelated sentences, paragraphs,
and whole sections inserted in the middle of otherwise coherent presentations. For example, the
short paragraphs on Bábí messianic fervour on pages 110-111 seem to bear
little relation to the definition of tafsír immediately preceding them nor to the
paragraphs on New Testament apocalyptic immediately following. Conversely, topics that should
be presented coherently can be found scattered across the book. For example, the issue of
Bahá'u'lláh's messianic secret, which the title of the book implies is one half of
the book's content, is picked up and then dropped in ten places, none of which represents a
single, unified treatment. Buck appears to discuss and settle the question in 64-73, where he
examines Bahá'u'lláh's self-consciousness, Bábí messianic
expectations, and the techniques Bahá'u'lláh used both to hide and to reveal his
"secret." When all of the same topics are then addressed in pages 257-275, albeit in greater
detail, one wonders why the two sections are half a book apart. One further wonders what
organization guided the layout of Symbol and Secret when the book ends, not with a tight
summary of ground covered, but a discussion of Bahá'u'lláh's agenda of socio-
religious reform which does not seem to bear direct relevance to the preceding book and reads
more as the introduction to a new, unrelated book. It is curious that, though admitting that this
section is "outside the scope of this study," (282) Buck devotes ten pages to it.
Given the number of topics covered and the somewhat random way in which they are
treated, the book should have a more detailed table of contents and an index; in the age of
computerized word processing where a minimal index can be created in a day, the lack of one is,
to be blunt, inexcusable and hampers the book's utility as a resource tool.
The above criticisms of the book are offered, not in the spirit of complaint, but in regret
that such a valuable work as Symbol and Secret is marred by flaws as soluble as re-ordering, more careful writing, and further editing. Buck has undertaken a project that is to be
commended on many fronts. First, this study is daring in that it is the first extended analysis of
the Islamic context and content of Bahá'u'lláh's thought and writings. Buck's
tangential self-defense on pages 260-261 indicates that he, too, is well aware of the daringness
of the topic and of his academic approach to it. Second, the rigour with which Buck has treated
his topics is a model for anyone engaging in textual scholarship: his research is broad, his
attention to detail thorough, and his coverage of the topics exhaustive. Finally, many of his
conclusions, the light he throws on the Íqán and its content, and in places even
his methods are frankly brilliant. Though the potential reader must be warned that Symbol
and Secret can be a frustrating and opaque text which is difficult to penetrate, it is a
phenomenal study which will well repay the diligent reader.
Notes
1 To be correct, Cole's statement should have read that Symbol and Secret is
the first published book-length academic study; it was preceded by Diana Malouf's 289-page dissertation The Hidden Words of Bahá'u'lláh: Translation Norms Employed by
Shoghi Effendi (State University of New York at Binghamton, 1988).
2 To date, only one book and perhaps ten articles have addressed the Bahá'í Faith and
Islam. See bibliography in Robert Stockman and Jonah Winters, A Resource Guide for the
Scholarly Study of the Bahá'í Faith (Wilmette: United States
Bahá'í National Center Research Office, 1997), 101-102.
3 This reticence can in part be traced to guidance such as the following from the
Universal House of Justice to the National Spiritual Assembly of Canada: "...it should be stressed
to the Iranian Bahá'ís that...they should not normally seek out Iranian Muslims in order to
initiate friendly contacts with them or teach them the Faith" Lights of Guidance, third
edition (New Delhi: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1994), 430.
4 See, for example, apologist Fazlur Rahman's Major Themes of the
Qur'án (Minneapolis: Bibliotheca Islamica, 1994), xiii-xiv.
5 Or, as Hans Wehr translates the term in question, shawáhid,
"quotation[s] serving as textual evidence." (Hans Wehr, Arabic-English Dictionary
[Ithaca: Spoken Language Services, 1976], s.v. "sháhid."