Bahá’í World/Volume 19/The Persecution of the Bahá’í Community of Egypt 1985-1986

←Previous

The Bahá’í World Volume 19

Next→

[Page 283]

INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF CURRENT BAHA’I ACTIVITIES

283

3. THE PERSECUTION OF THE BAHA’I COMMUNITY OF EGYPT 1985-1986

A. SURVEY OF EVENTS FEBRUARY 1985-20 APRIL 1986

FOR over three decades, the small but firmly established Bahá’í community in Egypt has been increasingly subjected to restrictions dictated by two forces sweeping the Middle East and threatening many other parts of the world; nationalism, which had been slowly but steadily growing since World War I, has now been joined by an excessively zealous Islamic fundamentalism which rejects the least ‘deviation’ from the ancestral way of Muslim life. These two forces have given birth to a fierce fanaticism which has led to prohibitions affecting not only the normal local community life of the Bahá’ís in Egypt but also, internationally, their participation in the world-wide Bahá’í activities.

The Egyptian Bahá’í's, though unfailingly faithful to their nation and ever loyal to their country, have gradually seen their religious institutions dissolved, their meetings and Feasts banned, the teaching of their Faith outlawed, their social activities halted, their community properties confiscated, their religion publicly denounced, their beliefs ridiculed, their Bahá’í literature seized and destroyed, their private correspondence censored, their movements put under close surveillance, the registration of their civil marriages denied and their fundamental rights trampled upon. They were periodically put under police arrest, detained before trial and later harassed with calumnious criminal charges.

The most recent and by far the most important episode of this persecution began in Cairo in early 1985. Its opening note was struck at one hour after midnight on 23 February when a host of policemen entered the houses of more than forty believers. After a thorough search, all books, writings, notes, tapes, video cassettes and other objects suspected of containing any of the Writings or teachings of the Bahá’í Faith were taken away and forty-one believers, including some young women, were arrested. Over the next several days, those believers were sub jected to lengthy questioning by the Prosecution Office for State Security, an office specializing in investigating felonies affecting the security of the State. There the Bahá’ís had to answer, again and again, detailed questions about their religious beliefs and practices, the structure and functions of the institutions of their Faith, the principles and laws of their religion, the history of the Faith and its Central Figures, about the Universal House of Justice and their Holy Places located in Israel, the small gatherings they privately held in their own homes for the study of the Faith or for visiting with other members of the community, the names, activities and whereabouts of their coreligionists, and their attitudes and feelings towards other religions. At the closing of the initial questioning, as they were taken to their place of confinement, they were informed of the charges made against them. Ironic as it may sound, they were, this time, accused of membership in an organization whose aim is to counter the fundamental principles on which the system of government in Egypt is based and to spread extreme views which despise and belittle the divinely revealed religions. There followed a widespread press campaign in which these allegations were made against them. The arrested friends were gradually released over the next three weeks on their own recognizance, but the questioning continued until finally it was established beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Bahá’ís had not violated any law related to State security or committed any act harmful to the principles on which the system of government in Egypt is based. The matter should have ended there. Instead, new charges were laid against the Bahá’ís and their case was then transferred to the District Prosecution Office for South Cairo which pursued them for allegedly acting in defiance of the dispositions of a Decree signed by President Nasser in 1960. That decree, which dissolved the Bahá’í Assemblies, con [Page 284]284

fiscated their belongings and banned their activities in Egypt, also provided for the punishment of any organization or individual who performed any of the activities of the said Assemblies, by a minimum sentence of six months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding [Egyptian] £100.00.

The truth of the matter is that the Egyptian Bahá’ís carefully obeyed the provisions of that Decree regardless of their feeling about its unconstitutionality and unfairness. Nevertheless, they understood, and rightfully so, that Bahá’í families could still legally continue to exchange private and social visits. They also considered that by leaving out the administrative part of the Nineteen Day Feasts, they could legally be celebrated within the framework of such small private gatherings. These Feasts to which small numbers of Bahá’ís were invited to private homes among close friends and relatives were misconstrued and magnified to the level of an illegal activity performed by a prohibited organization in defiance of the aforementioned Decree No. 263 of 1960. In addition, the Prosecution Office laid the same charges against nine former members of the Egyptian Bahá’í community who no longer resided in Egypt. Despite the fact that some of these additional accused had not been back to Egypt since they legally left thirty years previously, they were described by the police and the press as ‘fugitives’. The others were either absent from Egypt because of their work or on account of their having married foreigners and moved to the country of their spouses.

Simultaneously with the questioning of the Bahá’ís, the Egyptian newspapers published front-page articles quoting extensively from selected extracts from the Preliminary Hearings, putting much emphasis on the fact that Bahá’ís believe in a new messenger from God who claims to have revealed a new Holy Book superseding the Qur’án. It was soon obvious that the publishing of the Preliminary Hearings was only a means to an end, as these articles turned out to be merely a prelude to what was to become a vast press campaign, the true target of which was the Bahá’í Faith itself. The overall tone of this widespread campaign, which gradually attracted the media in the entire Arab world was so filled with hostility and partisanship as to become a vehicle to misinform the public and justify the arrest of the Bahá’ís, purporting

THE Bahá’í WORLD

that this was an achievement by the authorities which uncovered a suspicious underground movement.

A review of the press campaign, mainly orchestrated by two fanatical Arabic newspapers based in London, a campaign regularly supplied by a fresh flow of heinous articles, some of which carried the names of generally well-known, respected personalities and famous writers, leads to the conclusion that a number of groups had been involved, but in pursuance of differing objectives.

The generally acclaimed twofold purpose of the press campaign was to put the population on its guard against what was called ‘Bahá’í sedition’ and to bring the misguided members back to their senses. However, none of the two hundred and twenty-four lengthy articles published during the period from 22 February 1985 to 21 April 1986, made a single objective study of the Bahá’í teachings. Besides the frequent misquotations of the Words of Bahá’u’lláh, hostile literature written either by Covenant-breakers or notorious opponents of the Faith were used for reference. On the few rare occasions where Bahá’í books were named, it was obvious that the writer either had not read them or had read excerpts for the sole purpose of selecting incomplete passages whose meaning could be distorted in an efi”ort to ridicule or misrepresent the Bahá’í teachings.

The journalists, writers and clergy who joined forces to sustain this campaign during the following two years caused many to misconstrue the underlying principles of the Bahá’í Faith and misjudge the motives of its persecuted followers. Amongst the Bahá’ís were outstanding individuals who, as victims of a wave of terrorizing prejudice, suffered material losses and experienced considerable moral damage and mental torture because of the cruel attempts made to force them to denounce their Faith. The press campaign portrayed the Bahá’ís as being damned souls sold to the devil. They were called heretics, atheists, renegades, apostates and infidels whose ultimate aim was the destruction of Islam. The fundamentalists presented the Faith as a fierce enemy whose goal was to destroy all that was holy and sacred in their religion. The principle of the unity of religions was misinterpreted as an artificial amalgamation of the teachings of various religions. The unity of the prophets was made out to

[Page 285]INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF CURRENT BAHA‘I ACTIVITIES

mean their physical reincarnation. The Bahá’í laws were presented as unlawful changes and abrogations of the Islamic laws. The removing of the veil and the Bahá’í principle of the equality of the sexes were denounced as immoral and licentious. The call raised for world peace by the Bahá’ís was condemned as an unpatriotic slogan intended to weaken the Islamic determination to strive to free Palestine from Zionism and to free countries like Egypt from the grasp of imperialism.

The advocates of Arab nationalism, on the other hand, focused on history in order to establish some connection between the Faith and those regarded as the twin enemies of the Arab nations——Zionism and imperialism. Inaccurate accounts, innovative interpretations and reports of events that disregarded their chronological sequence were used to distort not only the glorious events of the Heroic Age of the Faith but also its aims. Suspicions were cast on the appreciation expressed by some of the officials under the British Mandate for the humanitarian work carried out by the Master, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, for the poor population of ‘Akká and environs. Ignoring the fact that the Bahá’í Holy Places in Haifa and ‘Akká had preceded the establishment of the State of Israel, many writers seized upon their location as clear evidence of a Bahá’í/Zionist coalition, supporting the charge that the Egyptian Bahá’ís were disloyal to their people and nation.

Among the religious and secular journalists and writers, one or two, in the early days of the campaign, voiced their respect and admiration for the Bahá’ís, but alas were very quickly silenced by severe denunciations. Thus, the large majority of these writers ignored, or preferred to ignore, the truth about the Bahá’í Faith.

When the conclusions of the Prosecution Office for State Security exonerating the Bahá’ís from interference with the security of the state were announced and new charges were laid under Decree No. 263 of 1960, a wave of indignation rose among the Islamists who strongly expressed their dissatisfaction. They realized that crimes against State security were felonies, classified only as misdemeanours, and carrying less substantial punishments. ‘Is it logical that an act against the State be considered a felony but one against God and His Religion be regarded as a minor offence?’ was a question

285

raised in one of their articles.‘ Many others took advantage of this decision and the emotions it raised amongst the fanatics to renew their call to replace the statutory laws by the Islamic law (Shctrz"aI2) which punishes acts such as heresy and apostasy by death. A group of members of parliament known to have been members of the now banned Muslim Brotherhood prepared the draft of a bill proposing the imposition of harsh penalties on any person claiming to be a prophet, believing in such a claim or supporting it. The Committee for Religious Aifairs in the Egyptian parliament, in studying this proposal, decided to hold a public hearing in which men of religion and scholars would be invited to participate, with the discussion devoted to the most effective means of combating the ‘phenomena of new religions’ and prescribing penalties best calculated to suppress them. The hearings were held throughout the first two weeks of April 1986. The purpose of these meetings, unprecedented in the parliamentary life of Egypt, was to recommend a draft for a new bill to eradicate any new religion such as the Bahá’í Faith from Egypt.

In the midst of this agitated atmosphere the court hearings opened on 7 May 1985 before the Qasra’n—Nil Misdemeanour Court. The lawyer conducting the defence on behalf of the accused requested postponement of the hearings in order to allow him sufficient time to complete his study of the voluminous file. The record of the preliminary hearing alone took up approximately l,000 foolscap pages. The court fixed 7 October 1985 for the hearing. In the meantime, the press campaign against the Bahá’í Faith and the Bahá’ís continued. The deleterious influence it inevitably would have on the course of justice could not have escaped the professional journalists who pursued their biased campaign with increasing enthusiasm. Often, articles and news items gave a strong impression that they were being published for the sole purpose of influencing the opinion of the court. For example, on 5 October 1985, two days before the court hearings, the text of a speech given by the Egyptian Minister of Islamic Endowments (Awqdf) in a meeting held in the Islamic Centre of Kowloon while he was on a tour in Hong Kong, was published. The minister described the Bahá’í Faith as a ‘sect of apostasy and

‘Al-Ahram, 1 November 1985.

[Page 286]286

profanity alien to Islam’. He linked it with colonialism and declared that its Founder [Bahá’u’lláh] had ‘a fascination for theological matters and a love of controversy about them’. The Minister also mentioned that ‘Abdu’l-Bahá travelled to the West where He criticized the religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, claiming them to be ‘fanciful and superstitious’. He then concluded by saying: ‘This erroneous and misguided sect stands on the pillars of blasphemy, slander, atheism, heresy and apostasy’ and the Bahá’ís are ‘enemies of Islam’.‘

On the morning of the scheduled trial hearings, 7 October 1985, press reports were published covering the Fourth International Conference on the Prophet’s Life and the Islamic Traditions Derived from His Words and Practices. The condemnation of the Bahá’í Faith which was pronounced by the participants in that conference was given a predominant place in the press: ‘the sect [the Bahá’í Faith] owes its origin to imperialists . . . it is a political movement lurking behind heretical and scurrilous religious crazes it gives its support to the continued presence of colonialists and infidels [in the Muslim community] to the detriment of the Islamic States . . . it is the stooge of world Zionism’. The reports went on to say that the Bahá’í Faith was further held ‘to allow its followers to indulge in every vicious and forbidden act to the extent that they would not be acting correctly if they were to withhold their wives from their friends, for they claim that woman is the flower of this mortal life and that a flower should be plucked and smelled and embraced without stint’. Reportedly, the conference called for a publicity campaign to be launched against the Bahá’ís. Due to this unfair and biased campaign during which the press persistently refused to publish any comment or reponse in favour of the Faith or clearing the Bahá’ís, the defending lawyer again requested and obtained a postponement of the hearing until 3 February 1986.

The Islamic Research Academy at the Azhar University issued a lengthy formal announcement stating its opinion about the Bahá’í Faith and the Bahá’ís which was published in almost all of the Egyptian newspapers on 21 January 1986 and the following day. Considering the prestigious position and great respect which this

‘AI-Muslimoon, 5 October 1985.

THE Bahá’í WORLD

institution enjoys, the Bahá’í International Community believed it was its duty to comment on and refute the accusations of this document. The Commentary, which was communicated to the major Egyptian newspapers, was neither referred to nor published. The Bahá’í International Community then translated it into English and made it available, with the translation of the said Academy’s announcement, to all concerned outside Egypt?

Another provocative and uncalled for denunciation was made in the press by the AlAzhar which spread religious hatred against the entire Bahá’í community and pushed intolerance to its eXtreme.3 This highly placed Islamic institution, in strong and undignified terms, called on the Muslim population, i.e. the great majority of Egyptians, to boycott the Bahá’ís.

In the meantime, Bahá’ís in the free world, who had learned about the plight of their Egyptian brethren, were moved to take action to alleviate these persecutions. They appealed to their own governments and international organizations, including the United Nations, to appeal to the Egyptian Government for protection of the rights of the Bahá’ís. The stand adopted by the high-ranking Egyptian officials seemed unclear and evasive to say the least. The numerous queries addressed to them by international organizations devoted to the protection of human rights remained without any answer. Requests for explanation made by friendly governments of the European and North American continents met with vague answers empty of any firm commitment. A number of the National Spiritual Assemblies of the Bahá’ís in Europe, North America and including Australia, in co-operation with the offices of the Bahá’í International Community in New York, Geneva and London, pointed out that Egypt had an international obligation to grant and protect religious freedom for all on its territory, an obligation outlined in at least the following five international instruments:

1. The United Nations Charter, Article 1, Paragraph 3 which lists among the purposes of the organization ‘. .. to achieve international co-operation . . . in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental

2The entire text of the commentary, from which the allegations set forth in the Azhar’s announcement may be easily inferred, appears on page 288.

3A1-Muslimoon, 15 March 1986. Al-A/chbar, 15 March 1986.

[Page 287]INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF CURRENT BAHA’I ACTIVITIES

freedoms for all. . .’ The same Charter in Articles 55 and 56 records the pledge of the United Nations member states to take joint and separate action to achieve ‘(c) Universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all. . .’

2. The Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, contained in the Annex to Resolution 2625 (XXV) of the United Nations General Assembly adopted on 24 October 1970. The said resolution provided in sub-paragraph (b) that ‘States shall co-operate in the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, and in the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination and all forms of religious intolerance. . .’

3. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights that provides in Article 18 that ‘Every one has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.’

4. The Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination based on Religion or Belief Proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 25 November 1981-—Resolution No. 36/55, Declaration Article 4 of which provides that ‘I. All States shall take effective measures to prevent and eliminate discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief in the recognition, exercise and enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms in all fields of civil, economic, political, social and cultural life. All States shall make all efforts to enact or rescind legislation where necessary to prohibit any such discrimination and to take all appropriate measures to combat intolerance on the grounds of religion or other beliefs in this matter.’

5. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which provides in its Article 18 that ‘l. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private to manifest

287

his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching. 2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice. . .’

The aforementioned Bahá’í institutions further explained on a number of occasions to government officials in their respective countries that Egypt’s obligation to respect and enforce such provisions of international law is pre scribed by its own municipal law beginning with 9

its Constitution which, in Article 151,‘ provides that ‘treaties will have the force of law after their conclusion, ratification and publication in accordance with the prescribed procedures’. Therefore, the said International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which was ratified by that country on 14 January 1982 and officially published on 15 April 1982, had acquired force of law in Egypt at that date and consequently had abrogated any legislation conflicting with its provisions. Thus, the Decree of 1960, which banned the activities of the Bahá’í Assemblies in Egypt, became void at that date by the entry into force of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on the Egyptian territory, and no enforcement of that decree could take place without dishonouring Egypt’s obligations. Similarly, the proposed bill providing for harsh punishments for the Bahá’ís, pending before the Parliament, was against the spirit and the word of the said International Covenant. Such legislation could not be passed by the Parliament without discrediting the Egyptian Government as a reliable partner in international agreements.

In turning to their respective governments for help, the Bahá’ís of Europe and North America were seeking a preventive solution of the problem. They were careful not to cause any unnecessary embarrassment to the Egyptian Government, an inevitable situation if the proposed bill were to become law or the aforesaid decree were to be enforced by its courts. It was clear to these governments that all signatories of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights had the right and duty to see that other States which are parties to it were respecting its dispositions and implementing them in good faith.

‘The Constitution of the Arab Republic of Egypt, ll September l97l.

[Page 288]288 THE Bahá’í WORLD

B. A COMMENTARY ON AZHAR’S STATEMENT REGARDING ‘BAHA’IS AND BAHA’ISM’

This commentary is a refutation of a statement on ‘Bahá’ís and Bahá’í'sm’ issued by the Islamic Research Academy at the Azhar, Egypt, and published on 21 January 1986 in a number of newspapers in that and other Arab countries. The original Arabic document was sent on 19 June 1986 to religious and civil authorities as well as to the press in Egypt. No response was ever received from the authorities, and the article was never published. This translation was prepared for the information of oficials in the West and for the Bahá’í community. ( Quotations from the Qur’cin not otherwise ascribed are those of the translator of the commentary.)

The Islamic Research Academy at the Azhar University recently issued a statement about ‘Bahá’ís and Bahá’ísm’ which was published in a number of newspapers in Egypt and other Arab countries on 21 January 1986. The statement was, in effect, a denunciation of the Bahá’í Faith, which it described as a ‘false creed’.

The reasoning followed by the Research Academy in arriving at its conclusion of the ‘falsity’ of the Bahá’í Faith may be resolved into two basic trains of argument. The first line of argument is that it must be false since it is at variance with Islam in denying the Day of Judgement, the Resurrection, Heaven and Hell; in repudiating the Prophet Mul_1ammad’s station as Seal of the Prophets; in claiming that God became incarnate in the person of Bahá’u’lláh; and in altering the forms of worship ordained by Islam. The second line of argument seeks to demonstrate the falsity of the Bahá’í Faith by showing the opposition that it has encountered from Islamic society, whether this has taken the form of condemnatory religious and judicial pronouncements, of legal decisions adjudicating it to be a form of ‘apostasy’, or of the persecution of its followers through campaigns of execution and torture as has been happening in Iran. The Research Academy winds up its case by urging the legislative, judicial, and executive powers of government in Egypt to ‘extirpate’ from the country a small and disadvantaged group of peaceable citizens, and for no other reason than that they call themselves Bahá’ís.

It was obvious from the profuse amount of erroneous information contained in the Research Academy’s statement that it has placed its reliance on sources hostile to the Bahá’ís, sources that purvey to the public scurrilous misrepresentations of the Faith of the Bahá’ís that are as offensive to them as they must be to any Muslim. In consequence, the findings arrived at by the Research Academy stand in striking contrast to the true facts of the case, which could quite easily have been ascertained by the Academy had it referred either to the standard Bahá’í source books or

to the beliefs actually held by the Bahá’ís. Our

concern to make available to students of religion some basic information about the Bahá’í Faith, and an outline of its principles and teachings, was the chief consideration prompting the writing of this commentary, and our hope is that it may go some way towards dispelling the accumulated falsehoods and fictions that have obscured the true face of this Faith--a Faith which has been extolled by many eminent thinkers from both East and West, who have familiarized themselves with its beliefs, for the spirituality of its teachings and the loftiness of its vision.

The belief of the Bahá’ís in the Quran

The Bahá’ís believe in all the divine verses contained in the Book of the ‘Wise Remembrance’,1 whether these relate to the question of the ‘Seal of the Prophets’ or to such matters as the Day of Judgement, the Resurrection, the Afterlife, Heaven and Hell. The Bahá’ís, however, do not regard themselves as bound to follow the interpretations assigned to these verses by the scholars of former ages (particularly where the meaning is not clearly apparent), except in cases where such interpretations are fully in accordance with reason. The distinction between Text and interpretation is so clear that it would be superfluous for us to elaborate upon it here in detail: the one is the revealed Word of God, while the other is the

‘The Wise Remembrance: i.e. the Qur’án (from the Súrah of the family of Imrén, v. 58).

[Page 289]INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF CURRENT BAHA’I ACTIVITIES

production of His fallible creatures. The reason why we believe that our forefathers’ interpretations of the holy text cannot be accepted en masse without any discrimination on our part is that they suffer from certain limitations. Broadly speaking there have been two main schools of exegesis: the vast majority of Quranic exegetes placed exclusive reliance on the linguistic signification and outward meaning of the verses they were engaged in expounding, and their interpretative efforts are therefore marked by strict adherence to a literalistic understanding of the text. (Needless to say, were the meanings of the Qur’án really to be confined to these outward significations, it could hardly be said to contain those ‘figurative’ verses, of which, together with the ‘perspicuous’ verses, it is, by its own testimony, composed)‘ The other school of exegesis overlooked the outward sense of the words and placed such store on their inner meanings that they sometimes assigned to the scripture interpretations which it could not, under any construction, be made to bear. The Bahá’ís regard these two different approaches as each, in its own way, unbalanced. The Bahá’í approach to the interpretation of the Qur’án is marked by its moderation, and by its blending of elements from both schools of exegesis, without accepting unreservedly the premisses of either. On this basis the Bahá’ís have been able to develop an understanding of the holy text which they consider to be at once deeper and more balanced than that expounded by the exegetes, and more in harmony with the exigencies of sound logic and the findings of modern science; and that takes full account of the rich profusion of hidden meanings contained in the metaphors, similes and allusions with which the verses of all the holy Books abound.

The truth of the matter is, that the Bahá’ís are proponents neither of the ‘inward’ nor the ‘outward’ exegesis of the Qur’án; or, put another way, they are proponents of both these schools together. Bahá’u’lláh has expressed this idea in the following words: ‘Truly wise is he who understandeth the inward meaning in the light of its outward form.’2 To illustrate the sort of area in which the Bahá’í approach to the

‘See Qur’2'1n, Súrah of the Family of Imran, V. 7: ‘It is he who hath sent down unto thee the book, wherein are some verses clear to the understood [i.e. ‘perspicuous’], they are the foundation of the book; and others are parabolical [i.e. ‘figurative’].’ (George Sale’s translation; our italics.)

289

interpretation of scripture provides the student with an appreciation of its deeper levels of meaning, let us look briefly at the two terms ‘life’ and ‘death’, which occur quite frequently in the Qur’án, and see how the Bahá’í approach affects our understanding of them. The Bahá’ís do not restrict the meanings of these words to their immediately obvious denotations of physical existence and non-existence, but add to them the further senses of spiritual life and death (always providing that they are not, by so doing, ‘straining the context’): they are thus afforded fresh insight into such verses as ‘Shall he who hath been dead, and whom we have restored unto life, and unto whom We have ordained a light, whereby he may walk among men, be as he whose similitude is darkness, from whence he shall not come forth?” where it is the spiritual connotations of ‘life’ and ‘death’ that appear to accord more nearly with the logical flow of the passage than the exclusively literal senses of these words. The same observations hold true for the interpretation of the holy verse ‘Thou shalt in no wise reckon those who have been slain at Ohod in the Cause of God, dead; nay, they are sustained alive with their Lord.’4 In this manner, and with this same moderate, reasonable approach, the Bahá’ís also arrive at their interpretations of Resurrection, the Afterlife, the Day of Judgement, and Heaven and Hell.

Unfortunately, objectors to this method of studying the Qur’e'1n, instead of explaining the reasons they have for being opposed to it, have taken the easier course of branding its followers as ‘infidels’ and ‘unbelievers’ and flinging at them other similarly opprobrious terms that one associates more with the extreme language of demagoguery than the measured and dispassionate reasoning of a scientific discourse.

T he Seal of the Prophets

As regards the ‘Seal of the Prophets’, the difference between the Bahá’í and the Muslim stances on this matter goes beyond questions of interpretation and the validity of one school of exegesis as against another; for the Bahá’ís

2Majmzi‘iy-i-Alvd/2—i—Mub(iI'a/cilz, edited by Muhyi’d-Din Kurdiy—i—Sanandajiy—i-Kanimiflkéni, Cairo, 1920, p. 11.

3 Qur’án, Súrah of the Cattle, v. 122 (Sale’s translation).

“Qur’án, Súrah of the Family of Imrén, v. 169. (Sale’s translation).

[Page 290]290

hold that Muhammad was indubitably the Seal of the Prophets, for such was the explicit designation given him in the fortieth verse of ‘the Súrah of the Confederates in a manner that precludes any further debate: ‘Mohammed is not the father of any man among you; but the apostle of God, and the seal of the prophets. . .’ The Prophetic Traditions further make it unmistakably clear that there will be no prophet after Muhammad, and the truth of this assertion is likewise not open to question. Nowhere in his writings did Bahá’u’lláh attribute to himself the station of prophethood; on the contrary, he declared on numerous occasions that prophethood had been sealed with the advent of ‘him who cast his radiance over Yamrib‘ and Al-Batha” and all the denizens of the world of creation.3 The son of Bahá’u’lláh assumed the title of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá——-‘the servant of Baha’at once to dispel all doubt as to the nature of his position and to proclaim to the world that, in his inward and outward reality, he was no more than the selfless servant of his father’s Cause: this was his true mission; this was the role to which he aspired; and he made no pretence, nor laid any claim, to a station beyond this. It is in these terms that every Bahá’í forms his or her conception of the station of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá.

From the foregoing it is clear that the Muslims and Bahá’ís are at one in regarding Muhammad as uniquely entitled to the style ‘Seal of the Prophets’. The respect in which the two Faiths differ is the contrasting sets of conclusions they derive from the initial shared premiss that Muhammad is the Seal of the Prophets; for while the preponderating majority of Muslim divines take the view that Muhammad’s stations as Seal of the Prophets necessarily implies the end of revelation——that there should be no further dispensation of divine inspiration to mankind thereafter—and so exclude the possibility that another messenger“ should be sent by God after Muhammad, or a new religion appear amongst men after Islamthe Bahá’ís do not infer the same consequences. In their view, it has been God’s way in the past to provide His creatures, through His revealed

'Yamrib: Medinah.

2A1-Batha: a designation of Mecca (lit.: ‘the level plain’).

3 Majmti ‘iy-1'-Alvdlz-i—Mubtirakih, p. 407.

‘The Arabic language makes a clear distinction between the word for ‘prophet’ (nabi, an active derivative of the

THE Bahá’í WORLD

word, with dispensations of divine guidance, and ‘Thou shalt not find any change in the way of God; neither shalt thou find any variation in the way of God.” They believe, moreover, that the verse ‘O children of Adam, verily apostles from among you shall come unto you, who shall expound my signs unto you: whosoever therefore shall fear God and amend, there shall come no fear on them, neither shall they be grieved” leaves the door open for the advent of further bearers of religious messages from God in the future.

The Bahá’ís have a number of theories to reconcile the idea of Muhammad as the Seal of the Prophets with the concept of progressive divine revelation. Of these, one will be sufficient to our purposes, namely that of religious cycles. According to this theory, just as there are natural cycles in the physical world, so too in the spiritual world there are cycles, each of which is initiated by the coming of a new religion, and continues for the duration of the civilization to which it gives rise. Is it conceivable, the Bahá’ís say, that the spiritual side of man’s life, which is after all the core and basis of his existence, should be subject to a less consummate and precise ordering than the material, non-essential side of his life? Each of these cycles has its own aims, its own distinctive features; taken together they are like courses of academic instruction in which the student progresses from the preparatory, through the intermediary to the university stage, all the while expanding his knowledge. The cycle initiated by Adam--the aim of which was to inculcate into man belief in God’s unity, and one of the hallmarks of which was the prominence accorded during it to parables and prophecieswas brought to an end by Muhammad the son of ‘Abdu’lláh. In the light of this understanding, then, ‘Seal of the Prophets’ means no more than that with the Prophet Muhammad came to a close one great phase in the spiritual develop root/naba’a/ which, in other of its patterns, provides the Arabic equivalents for ‘prophecy’/nubd’a/z/ and ‘to prophesy’/tanabba’a/) and ‘messenger’ (raszil, a passive derivative of the root/rasaIa/ whose senses revolve in large part around the idea of ‘to send’. Both the terms nabz’ and raszil are used in the Qur’án to refer to Muhammad, but the quoted verse 40 from the Súrah of the Confederates states only that Muhammad was the ‘seal of the prophets’, using the plural of the word nabi.

5 Qur’án, Súrah of the Creator, v. 43.

6Qur’2'1n, Súrah of Al Araf, v. 35 (Sale’s translation).

[Page 291]INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF CURRENT BAHA’I ACTIVITIES

ment of humanity. The coming of Bahá’u’lláh signals that humanity has entered upon the next great phase in its development, a phase which, although differing from its predecessor in its distinguishing features, aims and approach, yet remains connected to it by the closest of ties. If the Bahá’í Faith does not appear to address itself to long and detailed vindications of the principle that God is One, the reason is that it regards this as an established fact, and one that was fully demonstrated and proven in the previous cycle. The Bahá’í Faith does not deviate to the extent of a needle’s breadth from the principle of the oneness of God, and from a recognition that it lies at the heart—and is one of the fundamental verities~—of every religion. To believe otherwise would be to turn back the clock and oppose the tide of man’s spiritual progress.

God is Exalted above Incarnation

According to the Bahá’í belief in the oneness of God, God, in His essence, is exalted above all outward appearance, ascent or descent, egress or regress. There is nothing in the Bahá’í' teachings to indicate that God became incarnate in the person of Bahá’u’lláh; on the contrary, Bahá’u’lláh himself has said: ‘No tie of direct intercourse can possibly bind Him to His creatures. He standeth exalted beyond and above all separation and union, all proximity and remoteness. No sign can indicate His presence or His absence; inasmuch as by a word of His command all that are in heaven and on earth have come to exist, and by His wish, which is the Primal Will itself, all have stepped out of utter nothingness into the realm of being, the world of the visible.‘ ‘Abdu’l-Bahá further elaborates: ‘Ascent, descent, egress, regress, and incarnation are properties of physical bodies, not immaterial spirits. How then must be the case with the Divine Reality, the Everlasting Being? Vastly exalted is He above all such ascriptions!” It is true that readers who are not familiar with the style of the Bahá’í writings may be confused to find them phrased in such a way as to have the appearance in some cases of emanating from God Himself. The Bahá’ís,

'Kiz‘a'bu’l-Irqdn, translated into Arabic under the auspices of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of Egypt, Cairo, 1934, p. 75. (The English wording is taken from the translation made by Shoghi Effendi, Guardian of the Bahá’í' Faith from 1921 to 1957.)

291

however, do not interpret such passages as indicating that God became incarnate in Bahá’u’lláh, or as inferring a claim to Godhood on the part of Bahá’u’lláh. In fact they understand the tenor and spirit of these utterances no differently from those of similar statements made by the Prophet Muhammad, whether in the Qur’án: ‘Verily they who swear fealty unto thee, swear fealty unto God’,3 and again: ‘Neither didst thou, O Mohammed, cast gravel into their eyes, when thou didst seem to cast it; but God cast it"‘ or in the Traditions: ‘Manifold and mysterious is my relationship with God: I am He, Himself, and He is I, myself, except that I am that I am and He is that He is.’5

Just as the Bahá’ís do not claim that God became incarnate in the person of Bahá’u’lláh, they similarly do not claim that Bahá’u’lláh was ‘more excellent’ than Muhammad: both are, in their estimation, exponents of the will of God, precisely as were all the other divine messengers. Bahá’u’lláh himself has said in this regard: ‘Beware lest ye be tempted to make any distinction between any of the Manifestations of His Cause, or to discriminate against the signs that have accompanied and proclaimed their Revelation. This indeed is the true meaning of Divine Unity. . .’6 The differences that are to be observed between the laws and teachings of different religions are not attributable to any inherent disagreement between the messages of those Prophets of God who enunciated them, but rather to the differing needs of the ages in which they taught, and the varying levels of capacity and preparedness of the people amongst whom they lived-—the greater was their level of preparedness, the larger was their allotted portion of divine grace. In the View of the Bahá’ís, the Manifestations of God, one and all, derive their inspiration from one heavenly source, speak the will of one celestial Father, and shine upon all men with one divine light.

2 K/mtabu ‘Abdu’l-Ba/1(ifz' Urubbd wa Amrikd, published under the auspices of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of North-East Africa, Addis Ababa, n.d., p. 62.

3 Qur’án, Súrah of the Victory, v. 10 (Sale’s translation).

‘Qur’án, Súrah of the Spoils, v. 17 (Sale’s translation).

5Quoted in Majmzt‘iy-i-Alvri/1~i-A/Iubdra/ci/2, p. 340. (The English wording is taken from the translation made by Shoghi Effendi.) ,

"Mzmtak/mbciti a: AI/2dr-i-Hadrat-i—Ballri’u’llcih, Bahá’í Verlag GmbH, Hotheim-Langenhain, 1984, p.46. (The English wording is taken from the translation mady by Shoghi Effendi.)

[Page 292]292

It is incorrect to assert, then, that the Bahá’ís ‘make distinctions’ between any of God’s messengers.

The Bahá’í Faith Does Not ‘Change’ the Laws of Islam

Nothing could be further away from the true purpose of the Bahá’í Faith than to wish to interfere with Islam (or any other religion for that matter) by changing its laws or altering its forms of worship. The Bahá’í Faith—as an independent religion existing in its own rightdoes indeed possess those same features that characterize any other religion: to wit, its own scriptures, code of laws and forms of worship. However, it would be quite unwarranted to assume from this that it is thereby ‘changing’ or ‘altering’ the laws of the other religions in the sense that the Bahá’ís are calling on Muslims not to follow the laws of their own Faith. The Muslims are free and indeed obliged to follow the laws of their Faith, as are the Christians to follow their own practices. The Bahá’ís are merely claiming for themselves the same right. The Bahá’í laws concern none but the Bahá’ís; they obligate none save those Who, of their own volition, wish to follow them and to subject themselves to their prescriptions; and as such they involve no encroachment on the domain of any other religion. Has not every individual who has attained the age of maturity the right to determine for himself the course he will pursue in worshipping God? Did not every religion initially depend for its growth on the exercise of that personal freedom that some would have us replace by coercion and force? Heaven forfend that religion should ever be inculcated into people through intimidation and threats, and that their hearts should remain empty of genuine faith or commitment!

Opposition to the Bahá’í Faith

The second train of argument followed by the Research Academy in its statement was that the Bahá’í Faith must be false on account of the resistance and opposition that it has encountered from Islamic society. This line of reasoning is basically unsound because it relies on a false premiss: namely, that the truth must unfailingly meet with the unhesitating acceptance of the general public, and that the mass of the people will eschew only falsehood. This premiss is one that is consistent with neither

THE Bahá’í WORLD

logic, history nor reason. On the contrary, there is in man a strong tendency to preserve his inherited culture, and to resist any new set of ideas that appear to impinge too drastically on the beliefs with which he is familiar. The same phenomenon may be predicated of man’s corporate activity as a society; for society will always tend to oppose any behaviour which is perceived as being widely at variance with the accepted norms. It is a matter of common knowledge that most important scientific breakthroughs and discoveries were greeted with deprecation and ridicule at the time they were made by none other than the scientific establishment itself, and only later were they vindicated—and their benefit to mankind demonstrated—by the efforts of impartial investigators. It is, likewise, a historical fact that all the divine religions met with the people’s scorn and enmity when first they appeared amongst them, and only after their followers had been subjected to divers kinds of persecution and torture did their teachings gain currency, their laws come into effect, and their holy reality shine forth. Time and time again the stories contained in the ‘Wise Remembrance’ bear witness to this historical fact and present to us their salutary testimony for our improvement and admonishment: ‘The people of Noah, and the tribe of Ad, and Pharoah the contriver of the stakes, and the tribe of Thamud, and the people of Lot, and the inhabitants of the wood near Madian, accused the prophets of imposture before them: these were the Confederates against the messengers of God. All of them did no other than accuse their apostles of falsehood: wherefore my vengeance hath been justly executed upon them.” Any analytical survey of the period of transition through which our modern world is passing, and the concomitant vast flood of baleful trends that have swept across it, shaking its established systems of values to their very core~—the upsurge in materialistic ideologies, the breakdown in morals that is approaching crisis proportions, the resurgence of patterns of behaviour reminiscent of the pagan ‘Time of Ignorance’ preceding the advent of Muhammad-—a dispassionate survey of this period and its attendant phenomena cannot but demonstrate the failure both of clerical authority and of religious belief to stem

'Qur’án, Súrah of S [Sad], vv. 12-14 (Sale’s translation).

[Page 293]INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF CURRENT BAHIIVI ACTIVITIES

the high tide of decay. Pre—eminent among the reasons for this impotence is that many of the heads and leaders of religion—-—we do not say all of them——have been overwhelmed by the sheer enormity of the task of countering these adverse trends and have submitted to accommodating themselves to existing conditions. Few indeed are those who are prepared to face up to the truth, to confess their subservience to the spirit of the age, and to admit their efforts to bring religious principle into line with temporal interest and to compromise the former for the sake of the latter. It is times like these that occasion the growth of movements of reform and give rise to the birth of religions; but how few again are those who are prepared to surrender positions of influence, to sacrifice wealth and rank, to relinquish stations of eminence and respect—all for no other reason than to devote themselves to the championing of principles which are diametrically opposed to the natural inclinations of the vast majority of the people, and, as such, can hardly avoid coming up against the obdurate hostility of all those who, for one reason or another, have an interest in preserving the status quo! It is against the background of reflections such as these that we may appreciate in its correct perspective the opposition that the Bahá’í Faith has so far encountered: these are what lie at the heart of the adversities it has sustained; these are what constitute the mainspring of the accusations and threats with which it has been assailed; these are what provide the true explanation of the harrowing persecutions it has been, and is still, undergoing.

Some Bahd’z' Principles

There is no doubt at all that much of the socalled ‘opposition’ to the Faith has sprung from ignorance of the fundamental verities of the Bahá’í Faith and of the true nature and essence of its teachings. The Bahá’í Faith is not—as the Islamic Research Academy’s statement seems to imply—a mere movement founded by a group of reformers with the object of working towards religious rapprochement and reconciliation. Rather, the Bahá’í Faith is (and this is the steadfast conviction of every one of the several million Bahá’ís residing throughout this planet who stem from every race, colour and creed) a new divine summons to mankind, a heavenly God-inspired Faith. Its books, its

293

laws, its teachings, they hold, have been revealed to man from the exalted heaven of God’s will and good-pleasure. Its founder, Bahá’u’lláh, is, they believe, the bearer of His holy mission in this day, chosen by the All—Merciful—as He chose His messengers aforetime—to be the trustee of His message and the repository of His revelation.

The Bahá’í Faith does not harbour enmityfar less a hostile intent!-«towards any of the other religions. Its holy writings forbid the Bahá’ís to entertain other than feelings of goodwill for the followers of different faiths or to deal with them other than with sincerity and kindness. They explicitly state that the relationship between the Bahá’ís and the followers of other religions is one of fellowship, amity and respect. Bahá’u’lláh says, for example:

O people of Bahci! Ye are the dawning-places of the love of God and the daysprings of His loving-kindness. Defile not your tongues with the cursing and reviling of any soul, and guard your eyes against that which is not seemly. Be not the cause of grief much less of discord and strife. The hope is cherished that ye may obtain true education in the shelter of the tree of His tender mercies and act in accordance with that which God desireth. Ye are all the leaves of one tree and the drops of one ocean.’

The Bahá’í Faith believes that all the religions enshrine one truth. In fact, the whole purpose of the Bahá’í Faith is to explain their teachings, reassert their truths, and revive their messages; to unite their followers and demonstrate the essential harmony of their objectives; and to encourage people to cleave to them, to deepen in their understanding of them, and to work towards fulfilling their highest aspirations. The Bahá’í Faith has no other wish than to uproot the tares of hatred and animosity from amongst mankind, and in their place to sow the seeds of harmony and good will.

The Bahá’í Faith is most certainly not a movement that countenances licentiousness and immorality. Its teachings on the role of women

‘Majmt2'atun min Alwahi Hadrati Balui it 71:21: Nuzzilat ba’da 'Kitáb-i-Aqdas’, Maison d’Editions Bahá’íes, Brussels, 1980, p. 28. (The English wording is taken from Tablets of Balui ’u 71¢:/2 Revealed after the ‘Kitáb-i-Aqdas’, translated by Habib Taherzadeh [Habib Tahirzadih] with the assistance of a committee at the Bahá’í World Centre, Haifa, 1978, p. 128.)

[Page 294]294

are concerned to place her on an equal footing with men in such areas as educational opportunity and to grant her full participation in the task of mapping out the future course of society. If these teachings were implemented, the latent potential of one half of the world’s population could be harnessed to the service and betterment of mankind. Bahá’ís believe that it is God’s will that, in this age, women should achieve equality with men and receive the heavenly recompense for undertaking those great works that previously fell exclusively in the preserve of men.

The Bahá’í Faith is opposed to the idea that religion should be passed down from father to son—without any heart-searching or investigation on the part of the recipient—as though it were a chattel to be disposed of through inheritance. The Faith requires of every mature and rational person to examine the truth for himself and to found his belief on firm conviction and accurate understanding, not on the flimsy basis of blind fanaticism and downright ignorance. In this way, according to the teachings of the Faith, will men be enabled to view things with their own eyes, not through the eyes of others, and to be guided in their affairs by their own judgement, not by the judgement of any other party.

The Bahá’í Faith regards religion as the staunchest foundation for ensuring the lasting peace and stability of society. Religion is far more than a mere auxiliary of the law: it is its champion protector; for the sanction of the law is brought to bear only after an offence has been committed, whereas a man who has been schooled in religious values will be deterred from all nefarious behaviour, criminal or otherwise, by the workings of his conscience. Religion is, then, the true educator of mankind; it is a skilled moral preceptor, and a firm guarantor of the health and happiness of society. By ‘religion’, however, is to be understood the spirit and teachings that lie at the core of every religion, and whose acceptance by their followers is a matter of genuine conviction, not spineless imitation.

The Bahá’í Faith believes in the necessity of harmonizing science and religion, and of bringing the two into collaboration so that they can both serve mankind. They are, after all, both ways leading to a greater understanding of the truth; and the truth is one, and, as such, not susceptible of division. Science and religion are

THE BAHA’l WORLD

like twins between whom no disagreement should exist and whom it would be quite inadmissible to part. Research and investigation are the means that will demonstrate the full extent of their correspondence, Bahá’ís believe. The Bahá’í writings compare science and religion to the two wings of a bird, by which the world of humanity may be enabled to soar ever higher in the realms of material and spiritual attainment: unless these two wings be commensurate with each other, man will inevitably either fall a victim to materialism—stifling alike to his moral endowment and true inner nature—or he will become a prey to superstitious and fanciful beliefs that stultify his intellect and becloud his vision.

The Bahá’í Faith affirms that all the religions that have been divinely revealed to mankind throughout successive ages have had as their object to teach men to be kind, loving and compassionate with one another, and to be governed in all their mutual dealings——whether these be at an individual or community levelby amity, concord and unity. That the light of religion should turn into darkness and gloom, that it should become a source of rancour and dissension, a cause of enmity and hatred—this, in the eyes of the Bahá’ís, is a negation of all that religion stands for.

The Bahá’í Faith is not a political party or organization, and consequently does not favour one nation above another, champion one particular group, or promote the interests of one party against the general good. It is a movement neither of the East nor of the West. It is, in the belief of the Bahá’ís, nothing less than the fulfilment of God’s promises to man since ancient times, promises that have been reiterated across the ages by all His prophets and messengers. It is the ‘great news of the resurrection about which they disagree’.’ It is the ‘true call” of God, exalted be His glory, by which He is summoning his faithful servantsin whichsoever country they may reside, and to whatsoever race or religion they may belongto come together and join forces in the great work of rescuing humanity from the slough of corruption and decay into which it has foundered, and of preserving it from the fearful hazards and dangers that surround it on every

‘Qu1"an, Súrah of the News, vv. 2-3 (Sale’s translation). 2Qur’án, Súrah of the Thunder, V. 14.

[Page 295]INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF CURRENT BAHA’I ACTIVITIES

side, from the fanatically intolerant partisan spirit that besets every phase of its life, and from the impending ruin and devastation that momently threaten it with extinction. Among the nations the Bahá’í Faith raises its call to all peoples: ‘Hasten ye to peace and reconciliation! Hasten ye to virtue and prosperity!’ ‘Set your reliance on the army of justice, put on the armour of wisdom, let your adorning be forgiveness and mercy and that which cheereth the hearts of the well-favoured of God.”

Our purpose in writing the foregoing summary account of the Bahá’í Faith (which can hardly provide more than the most general outline of the subject) has been to place at the disposal of the public the truth about this religion. The Bahá’í Faith is, to its followers, a fresh outpouring of divine guidance to men, that all are free to accept or reject according to their own free will. It is a reaffirmation of all previous revelations and an assertion of the oneness of their origins, spirit and aims. It does not detract from the sacred verities of any of the other religions, and only desires to bring together their followers so that, unitedly and harmoniously, they can set about remedying the grave problems that confront humanity and work towards building the world of the future.

There has been a Bahá’í presence in Egypt for more than one hundred and ten years. The Egyptian press has reported at length on the principles and teachings of the Bahá’í Faith ever since the close of the last century; Bahá’í books have been published in Egypt from the early years of the present century; and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá was himself acclaimed and feted by the country’s leading lights and religious dignitaries during the second decade of this century. Among these figures were such illustrious names as flaykh Muhammad Baflit, the Grand Mufti of Egypt, the Imam Muhammad ‘Abduh, and others, all of whom lavished praise on him, and treated him with a quite unexampled degree of veneration and respect. These facts are amply testified by the record of the publications and journals of the period, and we hope to be able to explore this theme in greater detail in a future

‘Quoted from Bahá’u’lláh’s Law/zu’l-Hikma/I [Tablet of Wisdom], included in Majmziatun min Alwa/Ii Hadrati Ba/id ‘u ’ll(i/1, pp. 1 l8—l 9.

295

study. What concerns us here is to note that the Bahá’í presence in Egypt is of long standing, and that there has never been any conflict between this presence and the maintenance of public order and the rule of law.

Those who presume to denounce the Bahá’í Faith without obtaining from its adherents an accurate account of their beliefs should know that their pronouncements are made in ignorance of the true nature of this religion and are unsupported by any clear proof. The teachings of the Bahá’í Faith are new, and it may be that their very newness causes them to appear—when viewed superficially—alien to the tenets of other religions, standing out as they do in contrast to the generally accepted understanding of these tenets. Be that as it may, ever since the inception of this Divine Cause its followers have had to suffer hearing it condemned, as did its founder himself, without their testimony being solicited. Bahá’u’lláh alluded to this trend in a letter that he wrote from Turkey, where he was living in exile, to Nasiri’dDin flah, king of Persia, in which he exhorted him to judge fair-mindedly:

Look upon this Youth, 0 King, with the eyes of justice; judge thou, then, with truth concerning what hath befallen Him. Ofa verity, God hath made thee His shadow amongst men, and the sign of His power unto all that dwell on earth. Judge thou between Us and them that have wronged Us without proof and without an enlightening Book. They that surround thee love thee for their own sakes, whereas this Youth loveth thee for thine own sake, and hath had no desire except to draw thee nigh unto the seat of grace, and to turn thee toward the rig/1 t-hand of justice. Thy Lord bearet/1 witness unto that which I declare?

Bahá’u’lláh pursues this theme in the same Tablet, though in the Persian language (here translated into Arabic [i.e. in the Arabic original of the present document]), saying:

0 would that the world-ordering judgement of the King might decide that this servant should meet those doctors, and, in the presence

3 At/tar-Il Qa/am-1'-A ‘Id: Kit(ib—i-Mubin, rep1‘inted from a mauscript copy written by Mulla Zaynu’l-‘Abidin-i-Najaf-Abadi (‘Zaynu’l-Muqarrabin‘), ML1‘assisiy-i-Milliy-i-Matbu‘at-iAmri. Tihrán, 120 B.Bahá’í Era), [1963], p. 68, 1. 14. (The English wording is taken from the translation mady by Shoghi Effendi.)

[Page 296]296 THE BAH/Vi WORLD

of His Majesty the King, adduce arguments and proofs! This servant is ready, and hopeth of God that such a conference may be brought about, so that the truth of the matter may become evident and apparent before His Majesty the King. And afterwards the decision is in thy hand, and I am ready to confront the throne of thy sovereignty: then give judgement for me or against me.‘

This simple request of Bahá’u’lláh’s, so self-evidently indispensable to the formation of a just verdict, was refused by the divines of the age, who, in ignorance of His Cause, and lacking the support of any clear proof, nevertheless chose to condemn it~—~‘and how like is tonight to yesternight!” At this critical juncture in the fortunes of our great nation, we address ourselves to all the powers of government——executive, legislative, and judicial——and call upon them to uphold ‘/it/1cir—i-Qalam-i-A‘la: Kitab~i—Mubin, p.79, 1. 6. (The English translation is taken from A Traveller ’s Narrative Written to Illustrate the Episode of the Báb, Edward G. Browne, M.A., M.B., F.B.A., F.R.C.P. (Bahá’í Publishing Committee, New York, 1930, p. 121.)

2A well-known Arabic proverb signifying ‘how little have circumstances changed despite the passage of time!’

the individual rights of the populace, and to guarantee to every citizen in this country the freedom to think and investigate of his own accord, and to decide—by himself and for himself~—on those matters of conscience that are, before all else, his own private concern, whether these affect his personal or his spiritual life. In this way, we believe, will the Egyptian people retain their hard—won position amongst those countries whose names have become, by common consent, bywords for intellectual freedom, religious tolerance and political maturity. Nations do not attain to greatness and political leadership on the international scene through extirpating and repressing groups of minorities: prestige, standing and respect in the world community are rather the portion of those nations whose territories are the preserve of freedom; whose air is instinct with the spirit of tolerance; in which the rule of law has been firmly established, and equality granted to all citizens; and in which final authority in any disagreement is always accorded to considerations of principle, to humane and enlightened values, and to the highest standards of moral sensibility and awareness.