Wasn't his Dad well in with the Russian Ambassador and others? One thing I feel sure about.... if he had been a working peasant (like Jesus?) then we would never have ever heard about him.
Jesus was related to John the Baptist in some way. John's father was a priest in the temple. There were priestly connections with those two. Everyday peasants they most certainly were not.
I don't imagine that Bahaulah's Dad trusted his son that much; he had got in with the wrong crowd and I reckon that being thrown in to prison with other offenders and to watch them being selected for execution each day may have been a kind of shock treatment for him...he certainly wasn't in danger of being executed himself.
Without his Dad's power and influence he would have been toast, imo.
His father died in 1839 (which was before the Bab's announcement), so he would have been unable to watch his son - a follower of the Bab - "being thrown into prison,"
@badger. Regardless of Baha'u'llah's high-ranking connections, he was still subjected to torture and imprisonment. Compare Baha'u'llah's lifestyle and treatment with, say, today's
Rich Kids of Tehran.
That is what the story is. Is there some evidence about it? Furthermore, Bahaollah was not being given a position of a Vazier. The most that he could have got is a regional position.
Baha'u'llah's father had the title of vizier for one of the sons of
Fath-Ali Shah Qajar. His father was stripped of his title by
the Grand Vizier, who, according to sources, still showed favor to Baha'u'llah after this heinous act. It was the Grand Vizier that offered Baha'u'llah the position that he eventually turned down. By evidence, I guess you mean a written document from the Grand Vizier to Baha'u'llah? I am unaware of any. Still, that's not proof the offer never happened. Looking at the evidence as a whole, Baha'u'llah's movements in his timeline, and what Baha'i sources say, it is likely.
It's not a question of whether or not he was offered this or that title in government, it is a question of a life of luxury versus a life without luxury. A fat ego loves luxury and seeks a path of ease rather than hardship. Why turn down a life of luxury and opt for heavy chains and imprisonment in the Black Pit if he was led by a fat ego as
@Aupmanyav would have us believe? It would be better for @Aupmayav to question Baha'u'llah's sanity instead.