Attitude of Baha'is towards Persian Politics

by Abdu'l-Bah�

From E.G. Browne, The Persian Revolution of 1905 -1909, Cambridge University
Press, 1910, from the notes on pages 424 -429. The original includes the Persian
text of the letters that are translated.

NOTE 16 (on p. 168). ATTITUDE OF BAHA'IS TOWARDS PERSIAN POLITICS.

The attitude adopted by the B�bi, or rather the Bah�'�, leaders towards the
Constitutional Movement in Persia is a matter on which I have not been able to
satisfy myself. I have heard three views advanced, the first by a brilliant
English diplomatist who has generally shewn an unusual understanding of and
sympathy with the Persians; the second by a singularly sympathetic and discerning
journalist who spent a considerable time in Persia; the third by a captain of the
National Volunteers who was a fugitive in England after the coup d'�tat of June,
1908. These divergent views are briefly as follows:
(1) That `Abb�s Efendi (or `Abdu'l-Bah�, as he is now generally called) strictly
enjoined on his followers that they should refrain from

[p 425]
taking any part whatsoever in the struggle, firstly because their aims should be
wholly spiritual, not political, and secondly because their support of the
Constitution, if it became known, would tend to prejudice it in the eyes of the
orthodox Sh�a, and especially the mull�s.
(2) That not only the Constitutional Movement in Persia, but the general awakening
of Asia, was the direct outcome of this new spiritual force known as B�b�ism or
Bah�ism.
(3) That the Bah�'is were opposed to the Constitution, and continued until the end
to encourage and support the Sh�h, partly because they thought he would eventually
triumph and were anxious to win his favour; partly because they hated the
mujtahids and mull�s, who, as we have seen, generally supported the popular party;
and partly because of their gratitude to Russia, who had shewn them various
favours, and had allowed them to make `Ishq-�b�d (Askabad) one of their principal
centres, and to build there one of their few existing places of worship.
I am not sure which of these three theories is the true one, but I have often
asked this question of my Persian friends: "If a convinced and enthusiastic Bah�'�
had the choice of seeing Persia a strong and independent country with Isl�m as the
established religion, or a Russian province with Bah�'ism as the established
religion, which would he choose?" In almost all cases the answer has been that he
would choose the second alternative. The very universalism of Bah�ism does not
tend to encourage a passionate patriotism, and the following is a well-known
utterance of Bah�'u'll�h:
"Pride is not for him who loves his country, but for him who loves the [whole]
world " --- an admirable sentiment, but not, perhaps, one which is likely to be of
service to the Persians in this crisis of their history.
Fortunately some positive evidence as to the attitude enjoined by `Abdu'l-Bah� on
his followers is afforded by a series of letters (ten in number) written by him to
various Bah�'�s and communicated to me by M. Hippolyte Dreyfus, whose works on
B�bi and Bah�'� theology are so well and so favourably known. From these it
appears:
(1) That the "Yahy�'�s (i.e. the followers of Mirz� Yahy� Subh-i-Azal) had put it
about that the Bah�'�s were supporters of the Sh�h and opponents of the
Constitution.
(2) That as a matter of fact the attitude enjoined on and adopted by the Bah�'is
was one of complete abstention from politics.
(3) That the persecutions which they had endured at the hands of certain
reactionary mull�s shewed that they were not regarded as friends of the Reaction.
The letters are too long to translate in full, and, moreover, repeat themselves to
a certain extent, but the following extracts will suffice to give an idea of their
purport.

[p 426]
1.Addressed to Muhammad `All Kh�n of Tihr�n.
"As regards what you wrote touching the intervention in the affairs of Persia of
the neighbouring States, time upon time it bath been declared by the Pen of the
Covenant that the Government (Dawlat) and the People (Millat) should mix together
like honey and milk, else the field will be open for the manoeuvres of others, and
both parties will regret it. But alas! the two parties would not give ear, but
have brought matters to this perilous pitch !"
2. Addressed to "Ibn Abhar" at Tihr�n.
"As to the matter of our ill-wishers amongst the Yahy�'�s [i.e. the Az�l�s], who
accuse the Friends [i.e. the Bah�'�s] of sympathy with the Court [or Government,
Dawlat], it is certain that the truth of the case

[p 427]
will become plain and evident, and you should peruse the letters sent by this post
to M�rz� `Abdu'll�h Sahih-furh�sh. We have no connection with any party: we are
neither partisans of the Victorious Government nor do we share the opinions of the
Glorious People. We stand aside from all strifes, wish well to all, and offer our
prayers and supplications at the Throne of God that He will reconcile these two
honourable elements with one another, so that they may become one element, and may
work together for the glory and advancement of both Government and People. Praise
be to God, by God's Grace we strive to be at peace and on friendly terms with all
parties in the world; we shew friendship and affection to all, seek after
righteousness, and spend ourselves in this Path."

[p 428]
3. Addressed to H�jji Mirz� `Abdu'll�h Sahih-furh�sh.
"You wrote that it had been stated in the Hablu'l-Mat�n published at Rasht that
the Bah�'�s were partisans of the Autocracy, and at Zanj�n had collected aid for
the Royalist Cause. One of the `Friends' must write to some other newspaper, or it
must be spread abroad amongst the people, that this is a calumny concerning the
Bah�'�s [emanating] from the Yahy�'� [i.e. Azali] B�b�s, for these men are the
enemies of the Bah�'�s. The aim of the Bah�'�s is the reformation of the world, so
that amongst all these nations and governments a reconciliation may be effected
and strife and war may be abolished. Therefore they hasten onward with heart and
soul and spend themselves that perchance the Court and the Nation, nay, [all]
parties and peoples, may be united to one another, and that peace and
reconciliation may enter in. Hence they have no part in such quarrels. And a clear
proof and conclusive argument as to the falsity of the accuser, which leaves no
opening for doubt, is the decree of the mujtahid Mull� Hasan of Tabriz for the
slaughter of the Bah�'�s, and also the slanderous proclamations of the muftahid
M�rz� Fazlu'll�h of N�r and Sayyid `Ali Akbar, which were posted on the walls in
all the streets and b�z�rs of Tihr�n. But the Yahy�'� [i.e. Azali] B�b�s, who are
the enemies of the Bah�'�s, and who keep themselves in concealment, tell the
Nationalists that the Bah�'�s are the partisans of the Court, while telling the
Royalists that they are ready to lay down their lives for the Nation, in order to
stir up both sides against the Bah�'�s and make them their enemies, that perchance
they may seduce certain souls on either side. This is the truth of the matter;
therefore it behoves that some just men should investigate the question of the
[alleged] help [given to the Royalists] at Zanj�n. If such a thing hath been done
by the Bah�'�s we will believe and admit [the charge]. Glory be to God! This is an
awful calumny! From the very beginning of the Revolution it was constantly
enjoined that the Friends of God should stand aside from this strife and struggle
and war and contest, and should seek to reconcile the Court and the Nation, and
should spend themselves so that Court and Nation should

[p 429]
mix with one another like milk and honey: for safety and success are unattainable
and impossible without [such] reconciliation. Now when they who wish us ill utter
calumnies, the `Friends' are silent, wherefore these our foes each day boldly
enunciate some [new] slander.
"Upon thee be the Most Splendid Splendour (al-Baha'u'l-Abizd). `A. `A." (i.e.
`Abb�s `Abdu'l-Bah�).
Space will not allow the citation of further extracts. One of the remaining
letters is addressed to "the Friends of God" in B�k�, and here also emphasis is
laid on the enmity of Shaykh Fazlu'll�h and Sayyid `Ali of Yazd, and their
assertions that the Bah�'�s supported and had even originated the Constitutional
Movement, in reply to which `Abb�s Efendi says that the Bah�'�s were absolutely
forbidden to discuss political matters in their assemblies, and were told to
regard "the differences and strife now existing in Persia as like children's toys,
having no importance," and an appeal is made to the judgement of European and
American investigators of the Bah�'i doctrines and ethics. In a fifth letter,
again addressed to "Ibn Abhar," he is bidden to recommend the Bah�'�s "every night
and day to concern themselves with that which will conduce to the Eternal Glory of
Persia." i.e., apparently, the diffusion of the Bah�'� faith. The remaining
letters contain nothing worthy of special note.
This much at least seems clear, that from the Bah�'�s little active support or
sympathy can be expected by the Persian Nationalists, while certainly in the past
(as in the case of Shaykh Ahmad "R�h�" of Kirm�n) and probably in the present the
Azal�s have identified themselves to a much larger extent with the popular cause.