Bahá’í World/Volume 3/Survey of Current Bahá’í Activities in the East and West

←Previous

The Bahá’í World Volume 3

Next→

Proofread once

[Page 28]

SURVEY OF CURRENT BAHÁ’Í

ACTIVITIES 1928-1930

BY HORACE HOLLEY

IN Volume Two of THE BAHÁ’Í WORLD, covering the period 1926-1928, an attempt was made for the first time to survey the diversified activities of the Cause and trace the stream of its progqress in terms of its international following. Working over the mass of correspondence and reports from which that brief summary was made, the editor felt deeply conscious of the fact that conditions and events conveying profound significance to members of the Bahá’í Movement could not be expected to give the same impression to non-Bahá’í readers who inevitably share different values and possess a different perspective.

In order to create a bridge across this chasm of interest some means must be found to translate Bahá’í activities into meanings and values which correspond to the average intellectual outlook of the present day.

It seems advisable, therefore, to point out that Bahá’í action represents a distinct quality essentially different from that which motivates human activity in other fields. This quality reveals the operation of a directing and sustaining power accomplishing certain definite aims and purposes above and beyond the human capacities of the individuals directly concerned. Bahá’í history, in brief, is the visible working out in human affairs of the providential order created in the teachings of Bahá’u’lláh. Without knowing the end and aim of this order it would be difficult to attribute any special importance to the outwardly weak and obscure activities of the Bahá’í Cause at this stage of its existence. We must assume the continuity of a spiritual power flowing through its own invisible channel, on the surface of which the world-wide Bahá’í community is steadily borne by a force not resident in the members themselves and of which they are, in fact, only partially conscious. The flowing of this spiritual stream may be likened in its effects to the irrigation of a desert waste by the periodic overflowing of the Nile. Hence has come to the modern world the understanding of international peace and the will to establish it as the law of the new age; hence has come that clarity of inner vision which enables not merely the scholar but also the humble peasant to recognize the oneness of purpose and power in the founders of all religions; hence has come that profound fertilization of the inner life of men which already insists upon a new character of human relationships, substituting the law of brotherhood for the animal struggle for existence; hence has come the awakening of submerged groups and races and their insistence upon a status of human dignity and equal worth. The stream itself flows through all human affairs and is the source and cause of those mass movements which in a generation have already brought mightier changes than the world had witnessed in thousands of years; but whereas the non-Bahá'í responds to one aspect of this divine will and knows not its reality save as confined to the horizon of his own mind and heart, the Bahá’í is conscious that the stream of events is the outward manifestation of the divine will expressed in its fulness through the life and teachings of Bahá’u’lláh. The Bahá’í, therefore, lives within a community founded by Bahá’u’lláh and collectively controlled by His providence and power. This is the community of the Most Great Peace. Its first concern is to enter more deeply into the spiritual possibilities of the New Day and its contact with the public is conditioned by factors which seldom make for striking news in the ordinary sense of the word. This worldwide Bahá’í community may be likened to [Page 29]a ship moving upon the new current of spiritual will.

As has been so significantly demonstrated since the announcement of the Báb in 1844, the history of the Bahá’í Cause is primarily a defense of enlightened and conscious faith against the implacable opposition of individuals and organizations in whom true faith has long been extinct. A proper reading of Bahá’í records for any given interval of time must consequently take into account the underlying fact that the Bahá’í community exists only as that human vehicle through which the destined era of world order and peace can be established within the stress and confusion of a society incapable of survival. The sincere commentator will add the reflection that personal enlightenment is to be found outside as well as inside the Cause, but that the essential matter to be noted is that the Bahá’í community alone contains within itself a center of unity insuring continuity and survival, whereas enlightened individuals serving spiritual ideals in other movements and organizations build upon no such foundation of collective faith. Current Bahá’í history, therefore, cannot be regarded as the accomplishment of superior individuals nor as the achievements of an influential group—it is rather the gradual application of the divine will to human life through such unworthy instruments as are available at this time.

In order to present a summary of Bahá’í activities between 1928 and 1930 in accordance with this general point of view, selection will be made of certain outstanding events which have tended to focus and reveal the providential power of the Cause. That catalog of minor activities which represents transient human effort can be found elsewhere, as in the news letters published by national and local Assemblies throughout the world.

Bahá’í Forces Consolidated in Persia

As western historians turn their attention more and more to affairs in the Orient, an ordered body of knowledge is developing which makes it possible to approach modern movements in a country like Persia with a degree of sympathy and understanding which could not exist during the long centuries of prejudice and legend signalizing the hostility of Christendom and Islám. The origin and evolution of Muḥammadan civilization is now studied and interpreted to western peoples by scholars capable of appreciating the values common to humanity. Works like “A History of Nationalism in the East,” by the German scholar, Hans Kohn, offset the incomplete and inaccurate reports hitherto rendered through sectarian or commercial channels. We are able at last to consider contemporary Persia as an open chapter in the common record of human progress.

As a world movement, the Cause of Bahá’u’lláh can only be perceived in its majestic wholeness and far-reaching implications against a historical background co—relating not merely the religious but also the secular evolution of the race. The spiritual tragedy of the failure of Christianity and Muḥammadanism to produce their fruit in world brotherhood has been solely due to the fact that each Revelation was viewed as an isolated, independent movement involving distinct personalities and, therefore, different aims. The discovery and consolidation of a common history signalizes this age as the time when the true religious spirit can be identified under all its outer forms and humanity made aware of its one soul and its common destiny.

Not many years more can elapse before the people of Europe and America will put away the last remnants of ignorance and prejudice, and recognize the reality of the spiritual regeneration effected by Bahá’u’lláh but hitherto concealed by its false identification with the historically separate destiny of Islám. An independent witness may be summoned to supply the perspective required in order to realize the conditions under which the faith of Bahá’u’lláh has had to struggle before it could become the dominating influence in the land of its birth. From “A History of Nationalism in the East” we quote the following passages: “The question which divides Shiites and Sunnites concerns the Caliphate, Muḥammad’s succession. The Shiites believe that Ali, the Prophet’s cousin and son-in-law,

[Page 30]was his sole true successor, and that the office of Caliph is hereditary in his house. When Ali, who was the fourth Caliph, died and the Ommiades became Caliphs, the Shiites continued to believe that Ali’s descendants were the chosen successors of the Prophet. At the same time they believed that the Caliph was not merely an earthly chief, as the Sunnites held, but also a spiritual head, an incarnation of the Holy Spirit, a leader of the faithful alike in spiritual and worldly matters. The largest sect of Shiites believes that there have been twelve such Caliphs or Imáms. A further explanation of the Persians’ faithful adherence to the house of Ali may be that, according to popular legend, Ali’s second son El Husain married a daughter of the last Sassanide king, Yazdgird III, thus allying his house with the last Persian national dynasty before the country was subdued by the Arabs. The twelfth and last descendant of Ali in the line of Imáms or incarnations of the Holy Spirit, which descended upon each generation in unbroken succession, had succeeded his father in 873 and disappeared finally in 941 after a life of retirement. It is said, however, that he is not dead, but lives in a secret city and will return some day as the Messiah, the Imám Mahdi. During his life of retirement the twelfth Imám communicated with the faithful through a mediator, the Báb, the ‘gate of revelation,’ from the leader to his followers. But with the final disappearance of the twelfth Imám this communication also ceased. The Shiites were left without a visible head, but they awaited the return of a visible incarnation of the Holy Spirit.

“Thus public life as a whole was permeated with spiritual influence in a State which was merely a temporary expedient, pending the development of a complete theocracy under the legitimate Imám, and this resulted in giving immense power to the clergy, especially the Mujtahids, the learned students of the sacred law. At the beginning of the nineteenth century this dominance of a religious caste acted like a powerful brake, checking all possibility of freer intellectual and political development for the people. Here, too, as in all other countries, Islám had fallen into utter paralysis and corruption. It was the Bábist movement which roused it from its torpor about the middle of the nineteenth century, shook the power of the Shiite Mujtahids, and helped to awaken modern Persia and create the first beginnings of intellectual freedom. . . .

“At the outset Bábism was conservative and riddled with a mass of mystical theology and dogma, such as only the favorable soil of Shiite Persia could produce. But even at this stage it stood for the principle of religious evolution, the denial of the finality of revelation, and in the schisms which arose in its subsequent history the victory always went to the non-stationary party which stood for continued revelation and was thus constantly developing towards liberal and humanistic tendencies. Bábism was at first wholly confined to Islám, but as it evolved it overstepped the bounds of Islám and sought itself to become a world religion, unrestricted by any national or linguistic tradition.”

Such comments make it possible to perceive the parallels between a Christendom divided by Catholic and Protestant organizations and the similar religious condition in the world of Islám. We note as well the struggle between church and secular power characteristic of our own “medieval” age, a struggle now terminating in favor of the secular influence as a step necessary in the repudiation of outgrown institutions and the reorganization of society for international communication and progress.

The brief space of time since the publication of the previous volume of THE BAHÁ’Í WORLD has served to consolidate the Cause in Persia to a marvelous degree, and win for it an appreciable emancipation from the grievous restrictions and persecutions patiently suffered more than eighty years. The new status enjoyed by Persian Bahá’ís is well illustrated by the fact that large public gatherings have recently been held in Ṭihrán not only without molestation but with the presence of government officials of high rank.

In other ways, too, the influence of Bahá’u’lláh has served to liberate the country from long-prevailing attitudes and customs. Of slight importance perhaps in

[Page 31]

The upper chamber (in center) in which the Báb first declared His mission.

[Page 32]comparison with western standards, but deeply significant from the point of view of Persia itself has been the successful insistence by the Bahá’ís that they no longer be classified as Muslim or Jew on passports and other official documents issued by the government. Due to this unflinching stand, the government has omitted all reference to religious affiliation in its civil forms, thus indicating a complete break with the traditional subservience to the Muḥammadan religions. The gradual consolidation of the Persian Bahá’ís into an independent community exercising its own religious laws is still further attested by action of the National Spiritual Assembly in issuing formal marriage certificates in accordance with the code given by Bahá’u’lláh in the Aqdás. Bahá’í anniversaries and holy days, moreover, long celebrated in secret and under penalty of mob uprising, like the meetings of the early Christians in the catacombs, are now become public events, with interchange of greetings among the hundreds of Bahá’í communities by telegram.

The struggle maintained by Persian Bahá’ís so gallantly since the execution of the Báb in 1850 is thus, one by one, destroying the prohibitions by which an allpowerful state religion sought to perpetuate itself at the expense of the people. The victories won by the Bahá’ís are victories for all Persian subjects, because the struggle, at bottom, has been for such human rights as education, social and legal equality for women and representative government by merit instead of by arbitrary control. More than a generation ago, in a work translated under the title “Mysterious Forces of Civilization,” ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. drew up a program of reform and progress for His native country which, neglected though it apparently has been, nevertheless established new attitudes and purposes adopted by the Bahá’ís and indirectly, through their faithfulness and devotion, molding the development of the entire race. It is not too soon, in fact, to assert the definite prophecies made both by Bahá’u’lláh and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá that Persia, in this new age, is destined to become the very center of progress and enlightenment.

The one outstanding disability still suffered by the Cause in Persia is the confiscation by the government of Bahá’í literature. Here the evidence of reaction and fear is yet manifest, tending to prevent the people at large from learning the supreme spiritual inheritance freely left them by the Founder of the Bahá’í Cause. On the other hand, as history proves in every instance, the suppression of any literature conveying freedom and knowledge serves to enhance its importance and builds up a dam behind which an irresistible force is eventually accumulated.

Bahá’í achievements in Persia have from time to time been reported to believers in other lands by Shoghi Effendi, Guardian of the Cause, with his clear interpretation of their true significance. Thus, in a letter written to the American National Spiritual Assembly on October 18, 1927, the Guardian included this passage: “As to the state of affairs in Persia, where the circumstances related in a previous circular letter have had their share in intensifying the chronic state of instability and insecurity that prevail, grave concern has been felt lest the support, both moral and financial, anticipated from the bigoted elements of foreign Missions in the Capital should lead to an extension of its circulation in the West, and thus inflict, however slight, a damage on the prestige and fair name of our beloved Cause. These internal agitations, however, coinciding as they have done with outbursts of sectarian fanaticism from without, accompanied by isolated cases of fresh persecution in Kirman and elsewhere, have failed to exasperate and exhaust the heroic patience of the steadfast lovers of the Cause. They have even failed to becloud the serenity of their faith in the inevitable approach of the breaking of a brighter dawn for their afflicted country. Undeterred and undismayed, they have replied to the defiance of the traitor within, and the assaults of the enemy without by a striking re-affirmation of their unbroken solidarity and inflexible resolve to build with infinite patience and toil on the sure foundations laid for them by Bahá’u’lláh. With their traditional fidelity and characteristic vigor, notwithstanding the unimaginable hindrances they have to face, they have convened their first

[Page 33]historic representative conference of various delegates from the nine leading provinces of Persia, have evolved plans for holding every year as fully representative a convention of Bahá’í delegates in Persia as circumstances permit, and modeled after the method pursued by their brethren in the United States and Canada. They have reconstituted and defined the limits of the hitherto confused Bahá’í administrative divisions throughout the length and breadth of their land. They have adopted various resolutions of vital importance, the chief ones among them aiming at the reorganization of the institutions of the National Fund, the consolidation and extension of their national campaign of Teaching, the strengthening of the bonds that unite them with the local and national Assemblies at home and abroad, the establishment of Bahá’í primary educational institutions in towns and villages, the raising of the social and educational standard of women, irrespective of sect and caste, and the reinforcement of those forces that tend to raise the moral, cultural and material standard of their fellow-countrymen. Surely, to an unbiased observer of the present state of affairs in Persia, these resolutions, backed by the creative energy inherent in the power of the Word of God, mark not only a milestone on the road of the progress of the Persian believers, but constitute as well a notable landmark in the checkered history of their own country.

Again, in letters addressed to believers throughout the West dated December 6, 1928, and February 12, 1929, we have detailed reference to Persia. These letters will be found in Part Two of the present work.

Reference to Bahá’í activities in Persia may be concluded with the following brief summary, drawn from reports received from Ṭihrán and provincial centers.

A considerable proportion cf the students sent each year to Europe by the government for advanced courses and research are Bahá’ís or young men educated in Bahá’í schools. Continued effort is made to further the use of Esperanto for international correspondence. Separate burial places termed “Gardens of Eternity” are being secured by Bahá’í centers throughout the country. Houses and sites associated with important events in the history of the Cause are purchased when possible; when they cannot be acquired, careful record is made of the events in question. The general history of the Cause in Persia, based on the first-hand experience and eyewitness of the older believers, is proceeding satisfactorily. A number of Bahá’í communities are establishing public baths of modern type, thus gradually ridding the country of a medieval, unhygienic custom. “Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era,” by J. E. Esslemont, has been translated into Persian. Economic committees are appointed to study co-operative methods as developed in America and Europe. A system for maintaining a staff of traveling teachers on circuits including visits to the seventeen Bahá’í provincial districts has been developed. In the city of Kirmanshah, police permission has been received for conducting the Bahá’í Library as a Public Library, thus making generally available a large number of modern books imported from Europe. A newly opened Girls’ School in Najafabad, near Iṣfáhán, received the disapproval of the head of the district board of education but on investigation by the director of education at Iṣfáhán, the Bahá’í School was officially approved, with special comment on its superior cleanliness in comparison with other schools of the district. Proceeding with the task of collecting the original writings of Bahá’u’lláh and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá', a committee of the spiritual Assembly of Ṭihrán last year copied 1,857 pages of writings by Bahá’u’lláh and 1,634 pages of writings by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. Further steps have been taken by all Spiritual Assemblies to establish committees and institutions for the advancement of Bahá’í women. From Ṭihrán a Bahá’í bulletin is issued containing international news for the information of believers throughout Persia. As a result of the first representative National Bahá’í Convention held in 1927, Persia has been divided into 17 districts and 365 sub-districts from which ninety-five delegates are to be elected annually, according to the principle of proportionate representation, as among the American Bahá’ís, that a National Spiritual Assembly may be convened for the

[Page 34]general conduct of Bahá’í affairs throughout Persia and for co-operation with other Bahá’í National Assemblies in the election of an International Body as described in the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá.

Consideration of the many facets of responsibility borne by the Persian believers gives one an inspiring picture of a community endeavoring on the one hand to raise itself above a well-nigh medieval plane of civilization—undergoing the throes experienced by European peoples over a period of hundreds of years—and at the same time that it is adjusting itself to modern science and industry, upholding an ideal of world community profounder than the internationalism now interesting advanced souls in the West.

Persecution Under the Soviet Régime

As every student of the Faith realizes, the Cause of Bahá’u’lláh has vindicated its purpose and revealed its power by the successive overcoming of obstacles and oppositions too great to be surmounted or even resisted without the operation of manifest destiny. There can be no profounder religious experience at this time than that which inheres in a knowledge of the history of the Bahá’í Faith, for this history discloses an incontrovertible human record of the victory of religion in conflict with the forces of the world. Essentially different from that history traced in terms of dynasties, social groups, races, nations or even ideas, Bahá’í history marks the glory of man in his spiritual maturity, whose victory has been secured for the inner reality of all men.

The first opposition was raised by the chiefs of Islám, long accustomed to dominance over an ignorant, superstitious folk rendered helpless by tyranny in the civil realm—the lowest degree of degradation which human beings can attain. Through this opposition the Báb was given over to shameful execution, but not before the fire of renewed faith had been kindled in thousands of hearts and preparation made for the rise of Bahá’u’lláh. Against Bahá’u’lláh this opposition could not prevail, even though to the power of Persia was added that of the Sultan representing headship of the Muslim World.

The second opposition was subtler, emanating from within the ranks of the believers themselves. One whom the Báb had highly honored, and to whom had been given direct responsibility for maintaining the integrity of the Cause after the Báb’s death, chose to interpret this spiritual rank as a leadership capable of perpetuating the movement indefinitely as “Babism”-——as a movement to be crystallized around the Báb as end and fulfilment rather than as forerunner of Bahá’u’lláh. In this opposition can be discerned a true symbol of literalism and man-made creed striving to divert religion from its true purpose and debase it into an organization insuring privilege and authority to a few. It was met and overcome by Bahá’u’lláh’s quiet retirement from the Babi community, leaving His implacable enemy in complete control, with the result that the believers after a brief period implored Bahá’u’lláh to return.

The third opposition, or obstacle, consisted in the condition of imprisonment and exile surrounding Bahá’u’lláh for forty years. It was literally from a prison cell that He laid the foundation for a world religion.

Again, in the spiritual indifference of the West, and its almost complete immersion in material interests during the period ending with the European War, we find a general opposition confronting ‘Abdu’l-Bahá at the time He traveled in Europe and America. Occasions, however, were created by which He was enabled to create a body of interpretative writings by which the Faith of Bahá’u’lláh was related to western society.

Today, while the Cause as a world community is still feeble and immature, it has been marked for persecution by the Soviet government in Russia. At the time of this writing the situation is still in its preliminary stage, but judging by the past this contact with a dominant force will eventually serve to enhance the glory of the Cause and extend its influence throughout new regions and into new realms of human activity. The situation is the more significant by reason of the fact that older religious bodies, both Christian and Muslim, are suffering

[Page 35]from the same opposition and hence it will in due time be possible to discern which religious community is imbued with the true standard of faith and which has vitality enough to survive the most intensive, highly organized hostility to revealed truth the world has ever known. The modern world has no clash of interest with such far-reaching ramifications as this arising between individualism and artificial communism. The religion of Bahá’u’lláh has now been made to participate as victim in the strife. Students of the Cause await the outcome in profound confidence that destiny will make use of the human instruments concerned to establish a new victory for truth. Reports have been received by the editors from Bahá’ís who have not merely resided in Soviet Russia but been subjected to severe persecution. These statements are documents of thrilling interest and historical value. In quoting from them, the names of the authors are, for obvious reasons, omitted. This portion of our survey of current Bahá’í activities concludes with a letter written by Shoghi Effendi, which defines the spiritual issues and establishes the true attitude to be taken by Bahá’ís as citizens of governments opposing the Cause.

From reports prepared by believers formerly resident in Soviet Russia: “From the beginning of the Soviet rule in Russia, up to 1926, the government authorities did not oppose the Bahá’ís of that country, nor did they interfere with the teaching of the Cause and the spreading of Bahá’í writings. The teachings of Bahá’u’lláh, the foundations of which are the unity of mankind, universal peace, the abolishment of hatred, enmity and war between the nations, caught the attention of a group of truth-lovers, some of whom embraced the Cause and found in it peace of mind and tranquillity of heart. Especially, a number of the followers of the great philosopher Tolstoy became very much attracted to the Bahá’í Faith. So much so that they used to attend the meetings and to invite believers to talk about the Cause in their own assemblies. . . .

“But little by little, the success and influence of the Bahá’ís aroused some agitation and unrest among the Soviet authorities. . . . They started to thwart the progress of the Cause. Thus in the year 1922 the official gazette of the Soviet government published an article in which it said that the Bahá’ís were turning the thoughts of the Russian youth from Bolshevism to their own religion and beliefs (and) consequently their efforts should be stopped.

“In the year 1926, which was the beginning of the pressure on the believers in Russia, the Bahá’í teacher . . . came to Moscow to visit his Bahá’í friends. For that occasion Bahá’í meetings were organized, and both believers and non-believers attended. . . . The President of the . . . Bureau of Politics . . . summoned the Bahá’í teacher and . . . asked him to stop teaching the Cause. . . . told the President that his coming to Moscow was for the purpose of visiting the believers there and that he was speaking about the Cause only in the Bahá’í meetings. ‘I also convey the Bahá’í teachings,’ he added, ‘to those who are willing to hear and who ask me about them. This is my religious duty.’ The President, however, told him . . . very emphatically that he should refrain from teaching the Cause and leave for . . .

“Shortly afterward, the President summoned the writer and during the course of conversation asked him why the Bahá’ís admitted to their meetings people who were non-believers and whom they did not know. I told him that the Bahá’ís had no secret aims or beliefs for them to close the door of their meetings to non-believers. ‘The government should really be thankful to the Bahá’ís,’ I said, ‘for the reason that they do not have a trace of secrecy in any of their proceedings.’ ‘Perhaps,’ he said, ‘the non-believers who attend your meetings make some plans there, among themselves, against the Soviet government.’ In reply, I told him that that was not possible, for on such occasions the Bahá’ís were more careful and circumspect than other people. ‘Moreover, in accordance with the explicit commands of Bahá’u’lláh, the believers do not interfere in politics, nor do they allow any one to speak against the government or about politics in their meetings.’ Nevertheless, the President made it very emphatic that non-believers should not be admitted to Bahá’í meetings.

[Page 36]“A few days later, the police authorities, unexpectedly, at midnight, entered the house of . . . and confiscated a printing press which, three days before, had been bought for Bahá’í publications and, with the permission of the government, placed in the house. (The Bahá’ís of) Moscow at once informed the authorities concerned and inquired the cause of confiscation. They gave no answer, but instead, increased their opposition to the Bahá’ís. One night, a number of believers were invited to the house of a Bahá’í. The next day the matter was reported to the Police Department, with the result that two of the guests . . . were sentenced to four years’ imprisonment with hard labor, and exiled to . . . Lately, a number of the believers in Russia have fallen in great trouble and distress. Some of them, after a period of imprisonment, have been banished to Persia. Others are still in prison and subject to every kind of violence and hardship. The writer, after being imprisoned for seven months, during which time his capital of $50,000 and land and property . . . were confiscated, has been exiled with his wife and children to Persia.”

“The writer, after spending forty years of his life in ‘Ishqábád, was recently (1929) expelled to Persia by orders of the Soviet authorities. The only charge against him being, his being a Bahá’í. In order that my account may not give rise to misunderstandings I should like to make the following point very clear: The Bahá’ís of ‘Ishqábád as well as their co-believers in other towns and cities of Turkistan have, like all the Bahá’ís in other parts of the world, been conscious of their responsibility to society. They have been busy in promulgating the Holy Teachings of Bahá’u’lláh. These Teachings turn the attention of humanity to true religion, are the cause of peace and love and unity among the different peoples of the earth, emphasize the spiritual, moral and physical education of youth, and break down superstitions and prejudices that are a blight and a desolation to mankind. These believers have in no way engaged in any practice which has been against the laws and regulations of their country. They have considered obedience to the Soviet government a moral duty. Even in the accomplishment of their religious duties and responsibilities, they have endeavored not to run counter to the will of their rulers. As this attitude of the Bahá’ís has become very clear to the Soviet authorities in Turkistan, after all the secret and open inquiries that they have made, and as it does not require any further elucidation for people who have a knowledge of the fundamental Teachings of the Cause, I need not dwell on it any more.

“It was at the beginning of 1928 that the Soviet government started oppressing the Bahá’ís in ‘Ishqábád. At the beginning of 1928, during the course of a Bahá’í meeting that was held in the house of . . . , a number of policemen suddenly broke into the meeting and arrested the owner of the house together with all those who were present. The latter, more than twenty in number, were conducted to the police office where, one by one, they were questioned and cross-examined from seven o’clock in the afternoon to three o’clock in the morning, after which time they were set free. But the owner of the house, together with his elder son, was held until morning. Later they were released upon payment of 100 Manats as indemnity. That same night, the houses of the president, secretary and treasurer of the Committee on the promulgation of the Bahá’í Faith were inspected, and all the Bahá’í documents and books found were confiscated by the G. P. U. (the Russian Secret Police Organization). A few days later, the believers were again called upon and questioned at length.

“Although the Soviet authorities found no blame with the Bahá’ís after long and careful examination of the documents confiscated from the Spiritual Assembly, and the above mentioned Committee, yet they ordered that no Bahá’í meetings or assemblies should be held without the permission of the Police Department. But actually, the above mentioned meeting at which the Bahá’ís were arrested was held by the Government’s permission.

"A few months before that incident a printing press bought with the written permission of the Publication Bureau was confiscated from the Spiritual Assembly.

[Page 37]"The Bahá’í magazine, ‘Khorshid Khawar’, which was published by the believers and contained religious and philosophical articles about the Cause, was at first not permitted to publish such articles, and later it was altogether suspended.

“All the Bahá’í mail, especially the one coming from England and America, whether to the address of the Bahá’ís or the Spiritual Assembly, was confiscated, and after keeping it for one month, during which time it was translated and copies made, the Soviet agents would return it to the Post Office, to be there distributed to their owners.

“In order to be well informed of the internal affairs of the Bahá’ís, spies and inspectors were appointed. One of them was a young Russian who for six months frequented the house of the Bahá’í teacher, . . , under the pretext that he wished to become a Bahá’í. The teacher showed him every kindness, hospitality and love, until one night, having by the request of the young man, and accompanied by him, gone to the house of a Russian to talk about the Cause, he was arrested by the agents of the G. P. U. and imprisoned for about thirty-five days, being accused of having expressed religious love and kindness, and finally they asked him not to hold religious discussions with any group or denomination except the Bahá’ís. At about this time, the Soviet authorities also imprisoned a Bahá’í instructor, . . . , the son of the late . . . , because he had a religious discussion with his fellow teachers in the school. Finally he was expelled from the school.

“In April, 1928, after the new election of the members of the Spiritual Assembly, the government authorities abrogated the constitution of that Assembly and substituted for it a new one, which was completely out of harmony with the organization of the Spiritual Assembly, and did not allow the Bahá’ís to take up any social or religious activities. In accordance with that constitution, all the Bahá’í committees and organizations were dissolved. Consequently the Young Men’s Bahá’í Association, an organization that had existed for the last ten years, had to be suspended. Its chairman was asked not to allow the Association to hold any meetings, or he would be personally responsible to the government. Nevertheless the Spiritual Assembly adopted the Constitution in order not to leave any grounds for objection on the part of the government.

"Not very long after, the government issued an order that henceforth all the churches, synagogues and other places of worship that exist in Russia were to be considered as the property of the Soviet Union. Consequently, the Mashriqu’l-Adhkár of the Bahá’ís must be rented from the government. . . .

“On the tenth of August, 1828, a meeting was held with the permission of the government in the house of . . . But again a number of policemen suddenly entered the meeting and wrote down the names of all the Bahá’ís present, their age and profession, and had each one sign the report. All this time one of the policemen was standing at the door of the house in order not to allow any person to leave it. It was in these days that . . . was arrested and imprisoned.

“Shortly after the above mentioned incident, the writer, . . . , chairman of the Spiritual Assembly, was summoned to the G. P. U. Bureau and was asked emphatically to resign his position as member and chairman of the Spiritual Assembly. In fact, they proposed to me to become a spy and report to them the proceedings of the Spiritual Assembly and of all the Bahá’ís, and also the news of the foreign countries. They even proposed to help me materially along that line.

“The G. P. U. officials being thus disappointed in their aims, sought to create some trouble for the writer, and started to manufacture accusations. . . . Finally, on the 26th of October, 1928, at midnight, a number of policemen entered the writer’s house and inspected every inch of it, until the break of dawn. They confiscated all the Tablets, Bahá’í writings, letters and pictures that I had, and conducted me to the G. P. U. office. In the morning they also arrested ... and confiscated a large number of Esperanto letters and other writings that he had. He was imprisoned for one month and a half.

“After imprisoning the writer for three [Page 38]months and a half, they expelled him to Persia. At the same time . . . of . . . was expelled from the Eastern University and . . . together with . . . was exiled to . . . Also a number of Bahá’í students were sent out of Russian schools on the sole charge that they were Bahá’ís.

“After the writer’s arrival in Persia, the news came that eighteen Bahá’ís of ‘Ishqábád were arrested and all their Bahá’í books and writings confiscated. Now that six months have passed, fifteen of them are still in prison, the other three being released.

“The Boys’ and Girls’ schools and the kindergarten for Bahá’í children have also been confiscated by the government, and all the Bahá’í teachers have been expelled. So that at present there are about one thousand boys and girls, all Persian subjects, that have been deprived of a sound moral training, receiving instead a communistic education.”

“After the Russian Revolution when the Soviets took charge of the government, the Bahá’ís of Russia, Turkistan and Caucasus, in view of the teachings of Bahá’u’lláh, abstained entirely from all interference in political matters and tried to show in their actions a spirit of trustworthiness, friendliness and goodwill. Unfortunately this truthfulness and spirit of internationalism was not well received by the Soviet government and at first secretly and ever since the last two years openly, they have tried to oppress the Bahá’ís. Sometimes secretly, other times through the press or even in public meetings and conferences they strongly opposed them, but in spite of all these threats and difficulties the Bahá’ís did not change their attitude in the least nor did they show resistance but were at the mercy of the government. The spiritual Assemblies in the various centers like ‘Ishqábád, Moscow and Baku petitioned both the local and central government and tried to seek redress, but the letters were not answered nor did they prove of any benefit.

“They used to arrest at night or daytime, simple people from among the Bahá’ís, take them to the Political Bureau (Checka) and under threat force them to give them news of the internal life of the Bahá’ís. If they refused they were made to suffer severely: if a government official, he was dismissed, if a trader or worker he was given no work, if a business man he was made to pay exorbitant taxes.

“All those who were members of Bahá’i organizations or committees, were deprived of all civil rights, were accused falsely to be either an English spy, a bourgeois in affiliation, a reactionary, or a helper of religious institutions. When intelligent young Bahá’ís finished their secondary school, they were not permitted into the University because they were Bahá’ís, they were even sometimes dismissed for the same reason from the secondary school before they finished their studies. For exactly two years the Spiritual Assembly of Baku kept on petitioning the Commissariat of Education of the Soviet government, begging permission to teach the international language of Esperanto as night courses to Bahá’í young people and children. Finally they refused to give an official reply, they orally expressed that they would not give permission nor did they give the reason. At the same time they sent in a petition asking permission to start a public library with night courses for women, and they did not reply. Two years ago the Spiritual Assembly of Baku according to the constitution which the Soviet government had given to the body of the Bahá’ís in Caucasus with regard to the establishment of public Bahá’í conferences, petitioned the government for same. After two months’ consideration they gave permission. Accordingly the Spiritual Assembly sent out a circular inviting candidates on a fixed date in Baku. A few days had elapsed when on behalf of the Foreign Commissariat through its special department, they called the chairman of the Spiritual Assembly and took back from him the permission, claiming that it was given by mistake.

“For a second time the local government took over the Bahá’í meeting place in Karabagh and ordered the departure of Bahá’í teachers, . . . and . . . As a result of the endeavors of the Spiritual Assembly of Baku this order was temporarily withdrawn, but again they unofficially ordered the departure of . . . that is, the Checka summoned him and under threat; forced him to leave. In

[Page 39]those same days the Spiritual Assembly of Baku and the Spiritual Assembly of Tiflis ordered me and . . . respectively to go and visit the Bahá’ís in outlying districts. They sent him to Eirasan and myself to Kanja and Karabagh. The moment we had reached our destination we were ordered by the Checka to return. When I returned I was summoned to the Offices of the Checka and was requested (1) to resign from membership and secretaryship of the Spiritual Assembly, and (2) not to speak in public meetings. I refused both requests but they gave me one week to think it over. After a week I was again called to give my final reply. I told them these were matters of the conscience which by your law is free and which I cannot go against. I cannot resign from membership of the Spiritual Assembly and not speak in public meetings. About twenty days after this refusal the officers of the Checka arrested me in the road and cast me into prison, where I was for sixty days. During my imprisonment I was cross—examined six times.

“Lately after imprisoning the previous chairman of the Spiritual Assembly . . . and . . . the new chairman and secretary, . . . and . . . were summoned to the political department. In the presence of a number of people each of whom claimed to represent a particular department, they were told that the Soviet government ordered them to adopt the following constitution (which the political department had itself drafted), to sign it and to exchange copies with the government. The articles were to the following effect: 1. No one is permitted to enter Bahá’í Temples except Bahá’ís. 2. Until the age of eighteen Bahá’í children could not enter Bahá’í meeting places. 3. Except in public sessions and acceptance of all Bahá’ís, Spiritual Assembly should do nothing. 4. Without the permission of the Soviet Government the Spiritual Assembly cannot accept funds from the Bahá’ís as contributions, etc.”

“The prime purpose in Russia is to wipe out the Cause entirely, especially in Caucasia and Turkistan, but in order that their doings may not be in direct contradiction to the principles of their government, and they should not be responsible, they seek various pretexts through which to carry out their aim. However, they have not so far succeeded in their plans to the extent that they had wished and despite all efforts they failed to cause dissension and to divide into two the group of Bahá’ís. Although our number is small and in spite of the fact that through force they have succeeded to subdue other religious communities and to make of them zealous communists, not a single Bahá’í has become one of them. Rather in spite of their endeavors the Cause started to grow in many parts of Russia, Turkistan and Uzbekistan. In Samarkand many of the noted citizens turned Bahá’ís and started to teach the Cause publicly, whereupon there was a great stir in Turkistan and the Political Department forced the Ulemas to oppose the Cause and to write pamphlets against it. It is very significant that though we are such a small group, they were so afraid of us that contrary to all the laws of the government, they attacked us in the way that has been already communicated.

“After arresting and imprisoning us they closed four of our educational institutions and pretending that they wanted four thousand Manats as rent for the building of the school, they fined the Spiritual Assembly. They ordered the immediate evacuation of the secretarial building of the Spiritual Assembly and they subjected us to various difficulties, the worst of which was the way in which they demoralized the children by inculcating them with communistic ideas and killing their religious sense.

“The saddest event was when the Political Department decided to condemn some of us to death, send others to the island of Saladka and still others to Siberia, and a few to Persia. For instance . . . who was one of those imprisoned and a Russian subject (although his alleged crime was milder than ours) was martyred and while they claimed that it was for political reasons, we have great doubt of that. In consequence of the Guardian’s cable and the assurance of his prayers, also due to the endeavors of His Majesty the Shah, we were saved and exiled to Persia.

"Conditions were such when on July 28, 1929, one hour before dawn the homes of twenty Bahá’í families were carefully [Page 40]searched and many Tablets and sacred writings confiscated from each and sixteen persons were arrested and cast into prison. Within ten days seven were released but soon afterwards another seven were arrested. Sixteen persons were in prison for 16 days, of whom one was arrested in Samarkand, another in Bokhara and another in Firuza. Finally, of these sixteen one was killed, fourteen who have signed hereunder were exiled to Persia and . . . was kept in prison but has since been released. In Tashkent, . . . has been in prison for six months but he too has been released. In Baku the president and secretary of the Spiritual Assembly, . . and . . have been in prison for over nine months and since they are Russian subjects there is fear of death. There is also fear in ‘Ishqábád that they should take over the Temple, pretending that it must pay exorbitant rates.

“In brief we reached Khorassan and the friends there, especially the Spiritual Assembly, have received us with such generosity and gladness that we are all very happy. In fact the Cause is spreading so fast in Khorassan that there will soon be great changes there.”

In the midst of all this confusion and suffering, the Russian Bahá’ís are still able to perceive that their troubles are not entirely due to government policy alone. We find this significant conclusion in one of the reports already quoted: “In concluding this account, my deep regrets are mixed with wonder and astonishment as to why should a group of innocent and well meaning people, who during all their stay in the Soviet Union have been an example of truthfulness and trustworthiness both to their fellow-countrymen and the government, who have never, not even once, been accused of any misdemeanor or disloyalty to their rulers —why, I say, should such a group of people be subject to all kinds of hardships and oppressions?

"All I can think of is this: these troubles are partly caused by misunderstandings on the part of some people of evil intention who have sown suspicion and mistrust in the minds of the Soviet authorities concerning the believers . . . and partly to the enmity and hostility of the religious denominations in Russia against the Bahá’ís. Their followers not being able to confront the Bahá’ís in religious discussion, for they invariably lose the argument, they see in the Bahá’í Faith a great obstacle to the spreading of their own beliefs and creeds. . . . At any rate, it is incumbent upon the Soviet government to pay more attention to, and examine more carefully, the current events that happen in the Union. If in reality all this interference with the Bahá’ís is the result of misunderstandings and the hostility of some people of evil intentions, then the government should prevent it. On the other hand, if to believe in religious principles is considered by the Soviet authorities a crime . . . , then the policy of imprisoning and oppressing (them) is not likely to succeed. . . . result will be nothing but regrettable memories left on the pages of history by the enemies of the Cause.”

In the face of such confident trust in the guiding spirit of the Cause, it is inevitable that those responsible for public policy will sooner or later learn to discriminate between religion as it had become throughout Russia under the Czars, and religion as it has been renewed by Bahá’u’lláh.

The following letter was written by Shoghi Effendi on January 1, 1929, to explain the course of events in Russia to American Bahá’ís:

“In my last communication to you I have attempted to depict the nature and swiftness of those liberating forces which today are being released in Persia by an enlightened régime determined to shake off with unconcealed contempt the odious fetters of a long standing tyranny. And I feel that a description of the very perplexing situation with which our brethren in Russia find themselves confronted at present will serve to complete the picture which responsible believers in the West must bear in mind of the critical and swiftly moving changes that are transforming the face of the East.

"Ever since the counter-revolution that proclaimed throughout the length and breadth of Czarist Russia the dictatorship of the Proletariat, and the subsequent [Page 41]incorporation of the semi—independent territories of Caucasus and Turkistan within the orbit of Soviet rule, the varied and numerous Bahá’í institutions established in the past by heroic pioneers of the Faith have been brought into direct and sudden contact with the internal convulsions necessitated by the establishment and maintenance of an order so fundamentally at variance with Russia’s previous régime. The avowed purpose and action of the responsible heads of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics who, within their recognized and legitimate rights, have emphatically proclaimed and vigorously pursued their policy of uncompromising opposition to all forms of organized religious propaganda, have by their very nature created for those whose primary obligation is to labor unremittingly for the spread of the Bahá’í Faith a state of affairs that is highly unfortunate and perplexing. For ten years, however, ever since the promulgation of that policy, by some miraculous interposition of Providence, the Bahá’ís of Soviet Russia have been spared the strict application to their institutions of the central principle that directs and animates the policy of the Soviet state. Although subjected, as all Russian citizens have been, ever since the outbreak of the Revolution, to the unfortunate consequences of civil strife and external war, and particularly to the internal commotions that must necessarily accompany far-reaching changes in the structure of society, such as partial expropriation of private property, excessive taxation and the curtailment of the right of personal initiative and enterprise; yet in matters of worship and in the conduct of their administrative and purely non-political activities they have, thanks to the benevolent attitude of their rulers, enjoyed an almost unrestricted freedom in the exercise of their public duties.

“Lately, however, due to circumstances wholly beyond their control and without being in the least implicated in political or subversive activity, our Bahá’í brethren in those provinces have had to endure the rigid application of the principles already enunciated by the state authorities and universally enforced with regard to all other religious communities under their sway. Faithful to their policy of expropriating in the interests of the State all edifices and monuments of a religious character, they have a few months ago approached the Bahá’í representatives in Turkistan, and after protracted negotiations with them, decided to claim and enforce their right of ownership and control of that most cherished and universally prized Bahá’í possession, the Mashriqu’l-Adhkár of ‘Ishqábád. The insistent and repeated representations made by the Bahá’ís, dutifully submitted and stressed by their local and national representatives, and duly reinforced by the action of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of Persia, emphasizing the international character and spiritual significance of the Edifice and its close material as well as spiritual connection with the divers Bahá’í communities throughout the East and West, have alas! proved of no avail. The beloved Temple which had been seized and expropriated and for three months closed under the seal of the Municipal authorities was reopened and meetings were allowed to be conducted within its walls only after the acceptance and signature by the Bahá’í Spiritual Assembly of ‘Ishqábád of an elaborate contract drawn by the Soviet authorities and recognizing the right of undisputed ownership by the State of the Mashriqu’l-Adhkár and its dependencies. According to this contract, the Temple is rented by the State for a period of five years to the local Bahá’í community of that town, and in it are stipulated a number of obligations, financial and otherwise, expressly providing for fines and penalties in the event of the evasion or infringement of its provisions.

“To these measures which the State, in the free exercise of its legitimate rights, has chosen to enforce, and with which the Bahá’ís, as befits their position as loyal and law-abiding citizens, have complied, others have followed which though of a different character are none the less grievously affecting our beloved Cause. In Baku, the seat of the Soviet Republic of Caucasus, as well as in Ganjih and other neighboring towns, state orders, orally and in writing, have been officially communicated to the Bahá’í Assemblies and individual believers,

[Page 42]

Southern part of Ṭihrán where criminals also were hanged and where many Bahá’ís were martyred. The mark "x" indicates the site of the imprisonment of Bahá’u’lláh.

[Page 43]suspending all meetings, commemoration gatherings and festivals, suppressing the committees of all Bahá’í local and national Spiritual Assemblies, prohibiting the raising of funds and the transmission of financial contributions to any center within or without Soviet jurisdiction, requiring the right of full and frequent inspection of the deliberations, decisions, plans and action of the Bahá’í Assemblies, dissolving young men’s clubs and children’s organizations, imposing a strict censorship on all correspondence to and from Bahá’í Assemblies, directing a minute investigation of Assemblies’ papers and documents, suspending all Bahá’í periodicals, bulletins and magazines, and requiring the deportation of leading personalities in the Cause whether as public teachers and speakers or officers of Bahá’í Assemblies.

“To all these the followers of the Faith of Bahá’u’lláh have with feelings of burning agony and heroic fortitude unanimously and unreservedly submitted, ever mindful of the guiding principles of Bahá’í conduct that in connection with their administrative activities, no matter how grievously interference with them might affect the course of the extension of the Movement, and the suspension of which does not constitute in itself a departure from the principle of loyalty to their Faith, the considered judgment and authoritative decrees issued by their responsible rulers must, if they be faithful to Bahá’u’lláh’s and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s express injunctions, be thoroughly respected and loyally obeyed. In matters, however, that vitally affect the integrity and honor of the Faith of Bahá’u’lláh, and are tantamount to a recantation of their faith and repudiation of their innermost belief, they are convinced, and are unhesitatingly prepared to vindicate by their life-blood the sincerity of their conviction, that no power on earth, neither the arts of the most insidious adversary nor the bloody weapons of the most tyrannical oppressor, can ever succeed in extorting from them a word or deed that might tend to stifle the voice of their conscience or tarnish the purity of their faith. Clinging with immovable resolution to the inviolable verities of their cherished Faith, our solely-tried brethren in Caucasus and Turkistan have none the less, as befits law abiding Bahá’í citizens resolved, after having exhausted every legitimate means for the alleviation of the restrictions imposed upon them, to definitely uphold and conscientiously carry out the considered judgment of their recognized government. They have with a hope that no earthly power can dim, and a resignation that is truly sublime, committed the interests of their Cause to the keeping of that vigilant, that all-powerful Divine Deliverer, who, they feel confident, will in time lift the veil that now obscures the vision of their rulers, and reveal the nobility of aim, the innocence of purpose, the rectitude of conduct, and the humanitarian ideals that characterize the as yet small yet potentially powerful Bahá’í communities in every land and under any government.”

The Bahá’í Cause on Trial in Turkey

Far different in character has been the recent experience of Bahá’ís under Turkish rule as compared to that of the believers residing in Soviet territory.

The action of Turkish officials in arresting members of the Spiritual Assembly of Constantinople and investigating the Bahá’í teachings was inevitable in view of the necessity to transform the country into a modern republic and disestablish the offices of the Muḥammadan religion. Such a transformation involves political methods and social custom more than it does the reality of spiritual faith. It conflicts with religions which have grown accustomed to material wealth and public authority, but is not essentially antagonistic to a movement upholding ideals, one of which is loyalty to government and non-participation in radical political activity.

The episode itself is recounted and explained in two letters written by Shoghi Effendi, the first dated December 6, 1928, the second February 12, 1929, quoted elsewhere in this volume.

An International Bahá’í Teacher

The invaluable services of those who in so many countries are promoting the Bahá’í Cause properly belong to this record of [Page 44]current activities, but in view of the impossibility of giving adequate mention to an ever-increasing host of active believers, the history of these Bahá’í teachers must be recorded in the annals of each National and Local Spiritual Assembly.

Miss Martha Root, however, has traveled so extensively, and succeeded in bringing the Cause to the attention of so many groups, societies, universities and important personages in Europe, South America and the Orient, that her activities can be adequately described only in this International Bahá’í medium. Since the publication of the previous volume, Miss Root has put forth truly providential effort in Europe, as will appear in the following brief memorandum.

Miss Martha Root, international Bahá’í teacher, journalist and lecturer, has been traveling up and down Europe for nearly five years, constantly and without interruption promoting the principles of Bahá’u’lláh. During the past two years she has been received by kings, queens, princes and princesses, presidents of Republics, statesmen, women writers, and she has spoken in the leading universities of Europe. Since THE BAHÁ’Í WORLD, Volume II, was written, Miss Martha Root’s journeys have been as follows: She began in Athens on January first, 1928, lecturing before six hundred people in one of the large halls. The Athens newspapers published some of the best articles that have yet been written about the Bahá’í movement in its relation to Christianity. Books were sent to the president, and several ministers gave interviews to the journalist.

Going next to Salonica, Miss Root spoke in Salonica University on “Bahá’u’lláh’s Principles for Universal Education.” Thence she went to Belgrade, Jugoslavia, where in the Royal Palace she was invited for the second time to an audience with Queen Marie^* of Rumania and her daughter, Princess Ileana, who were guests of the King and Queen of Jugoslavia. Later she was invited again to this Royal Palace in Belgrade to meet and speak with Prince Paul

---

^* Statements by Her Majesty Queen Marie on the Bahá’í Cause were reproduced in Volume II, THE BAHÁ’Í WORLD.—Editors.

(cousin of the King of Jugoslavia) and his wife, Princess Olga, who live in the palace, and their guest Princess Elizabeth of Greece. A great lecture on the Bahá’í movement was arranged and given in Belgrade University. Professor Bogdon Popovitch, one of the greatest Serbian Professors in that country, translated the small Bahá’í booklet into the Serbian language, and four thousand copies were requested in ten days. After several lectures in Belgrade Miss Root went to Zagreb in Croatia, where she addressed the Croatian Women’s Club with more than two thousand members. She had a long interview with the late Stephen Raditch, a great leader of the Peasants’ Party, and she gave him the book “Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era.” It was just a few weeks before he was killed in the Parliament. Then the Bahá’í teacher and journalist went to Praha, Czechoslovakia, and here she was received by the president of the Republic, Thomas G. Masaryk. He asked her several questions about the Bahá’í teachings; he said he had read the two books which she had sent him; these were “Bahá’í Scriptures” and Esslemont’s book “Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era.” During Miss Root’s stay in Czechoslovakia every courtesy was shown her. A long article appeared in the best Praha newspaper and a photograph of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá was used. She gave a lecture on “Bahá’u’lláh’s Principles for World Peace” in the University buildings but under the auspices of the two greatest peace societies of Czechoslovakia and the three Esperanto Societies. In Byrno (Czechoslovakia) she visited the parents of the first Bahá’í young man in that country who had lost his life in the Great War. His name is Milosh Würm, and when he was seventeen years old he translated the first Bahá’í book that has ever been translated into the Czech language. Later trips were made to Carlsbad, Marienbad, Franzensbad, the High Tatras, Pistany, Bratislava, and other cities.

Miss Root shortly afterward went to Germany for one month, lecturing in Dresden, Leipsic and Berlin. She went to Frankfurt-am-Main to speak at the National Esperanto Congress of Germany held there and arranged large Bahá’í-Esperanto sessions as part of that Congress; she also broadcast a [Page 45]short speech. Then she went to Brussels, Belgium, to prepare for several International Congresses which soon were to be held in Europe. In July, 1928, she attended the first International Religious Congress for World Peace which took place at The Hague. She with Miss Julia Culver arranged two important Bahá’í sessions for the Twentieth Universal Congress of Esperanto held in Antwerp in August. Three months were then spent in Switzerland lecturing in nine of the leading cities. She was in Geneva during the League of Nations’ sessions, and was present at the preliminary conference of the World Religious Congress, which is to be held later. She also spoke twice at the International Religious Congress of Christian Socialists held in Le Locle, Switzerland, in August. A visit was made to Dr. August Forel, the great European scientist and famous Bahá’í in Yvorne, Switzerland. Then seven months were spent in Germany; Miss Root visited all the German Universities twice, except two. She arranged and later gave lectures in all these leading universities. Also she spoke before Esperanto societies in forty cities in Germany. She received letters of thanks for books from President Hindenburg of the German Republic and the late Dr. Stresemann, Minister of Foreign Affairs. Two weeks were spent in Warsaw, Poland, with Miss Lydia Zamenhof, youngest daughter of Dr. L. Zamenhof, who was the creator of the Esperanto language. Miss Zamenhof had almost finished the translation of Dr. Esslemont’s book “Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era” into classic Esperanto. Miss Root went from Germany to be present at the Universal Congress of Education in Geneva, Switzerland, in July, 1929, going from there to Vienna, Austria, to the opening of the Esperanto Museum, where she met the President of Austria and spoke on the same program with him. Next she went to Budapest, Hungary, where for ten days she took part in the Twenty-first Universal Congress of Esperanto. There two Esperanto-Bahá’í sessions were arranged by Miss Root, Miss Culver, and Miss Zamenhof. Miss Root also spoke before the Club of Newspaper Writers of Budapest. Then she, for the third time, journeyed down through Jugoslavia, and on to Albania, where in Tirana she had the honor and privilege to be presented to His Majesty Zog I of the Albanians. Afterwards she was also presented to his mother and sisters. After working two weeks in Albania, she came for the second time to Constantinople, Turkey, where she remained for five weeks, meeting Stamboul University professors, statesmen, writers and Bahá’ís. A short trip was made to Angora, the capital, where she was received by Teufik Ruschdy Bey, Minister of Foreign Affairs. She had an invitation to the anniversary celebration of the founding of the Republic and on that date she would have been presented to the Ghazi Kemal Pasha by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, but it was not possible for her to return to Angora on that date.

Miss Root was invited to Balcic on the Black Sea to the fourth audience with Her Majesty Queen Marie of Rumania and her daughter, Princess Ileana, at their summer palace. Then she came down to Egypt by way of Rhodes, Cyprus, Alexandretta and Beirut. She met the Bahá’ís in Alexandria, Cairo, Ismalia and Kantara. While in Cairo she had interviews with Prince Muḥammad Ali Pasha, Madame Hoda Charaouwi, and Mr. Mourtada, who had been the Master of Ceremonies to the late King of Egypt when ‘Abdu’l-Bahá visited that country. It was Mr. Mourtada who arranged ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s visit to the Khedive. After Egypt, Miss Root went to Palestine, where she was received by the Governor of Jerusalem, had an interview with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and directors of great Mosques. Then she proceeded to Haifa, where for one month she was the guest of the Guardian of the Bahá’í Cause, Shoghi Effendi, and ‘Abdu-l-Baha’s family.

Miss Root started on Christmas Day, 1929, for a long trip to the Far East. She went first to Damascus, where a meeting was held. Then she crossed the desert to Baghdad and twelve days were spent visiting the cities of ’Iráq. While in Baghdad she had the great privilege to be received by His Majesty King Faisal. Awashiq, a wonderful Bahá’í village forty—five miles from Baghdad, was visited to meet the friends and see the new Hadhirat al Quds (Court of Holiness) [Page 46]which is in truth like a miniature Mashriqu’l-Adhkár. It is the only building made in burnt bricks in that village, all the other dwellings being of mud. This historic beautiful edifice is on the main highway which is traversed by hundreds of thousands of pilgrims who visit the Holy Shrines of ’Iráq.

The above outline may be concluded with the following letter sent to America by the Spiritual Assembly of Tihran, Persia. It is clear to American Bahá’ís at the present time that the moment is now at hand when ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s wish that a number of American Bahá’í teachers travel throughout Persia may be realized.

“The arrival in Persia of our beloved spiritual sister Miss Martha Root once more unfolded to the public eye the grandeur of the Cause and the Power of the Divine Word. People who, as proved by history, looked upon foreigners with enmity and bitterness, and considered association with them as contrary to religion, now, thanks to Bahá’u’lláh’s Teachings, shed tears of joy at the sight of their American sister.

“Miss Root arrived in Tihran on the 21st January, 1930, accompanied by four Bahá’ís from Tihran who had gone to Qazvin (a distance of over ninety miles), and over one hundred others who had gone to Karaj, to meet her. How we wished our American brothers and sisters were here to perceive the spirit of love which pervaded the meetings held for Miss Root; the eagerness with which friends rushed to meet her; and the devotion and enthusiasm with which every one listened to her sweet glad—tidings. Members of the Spiritual Assembly who were present at these meetings perceived the fervor and the intensity of the feelings of the audiences, and the profound effect which Miss Martha Root’s words, emanating from a divinely confirmed source, produced upon those hearing her, who could scarcely repress the flow of tears of exultation, and who rejoiced in the realization of true love and oneness taught by Bahá’u’lláh.

“Th Bahá’ís of Tihran regard Miss Martha Root as an angel of purity, and as a true Bahá’í, that is ‘the possessor of all human virtues.’ She has attracted the hearts of all the friends; and this attraction, based on true friendship and love, will evidently help in the success of her services to the Cause. We, on our part, pray for her and wish her the most glorious success to crown her efforts. Her visit will open up the way for others to come to this country, and we shall look forward to receiving our other brothers and sisters in the near future.”

The First Mashriqu’l-Adhkár of the West

Within a few months after the publication of this volume, the Bahá’í Temple on Lake Michigan, in the village of Wilmette, will have been carried a long stage toward completion. The physical structure of the central edifice, according to present estimate, is to be erected before April 30, 1931. The task of superimposing the external decoration, of decorating the interior, of constructing the five accessory buildings, and of landscaping the grounds, will require a number of years.

Of far—reaching significance throughout the worldwide Bahá’í community is the fact that the vast undertaking assumed by the American believers in 1909, and assisted so materially by contributions made by Bahá’ís of other lands, now enters the realm of material fulfilment. An adequate visible symbol and concrete embodiment of the spiritual teachings of Bahá’u’lláh thus for the first time has existence in the West.

Previous volumes of this biennial record have described the Mashriqu’l-Adhkár designed by Mr. Louis Bourgeois and explained its purpose as the Temple of universal religion. A brief summary of some of its more original and creative features, however, is added here for the sake of those considering the Bahá’í Cause for the first time.

Bahá’u’lláh ordained in His writings the construction of a Mashriqu’l-Adhkár in each local Bahá’í community. The edifice at Wilmette consequently represents not a unique achievement, nor an action by Bahá’ís desiring to build a monument to the Cause, but rather something organic and structural within the teachings, to be realized in the other cities of the world as time goes on. A Mashriqu’l-Adhkár is [Page 47]essential to a religion revealed to renew the inner life of man and make possible the administration of a true world community.

The Bahá’í Temple only superficially resembles the churches, chapels or cathedrals of the sectarian faiths. It establishes a center for worship of divine reality, an opportunity for human beings to meet on the plane where humanity is not diverse but one. The religion of Bahá’u’lláh has no professional clergy or priesthood, no artificial rites and no sermons or ritual. It is a religion not confined to one day of the week or to only one of the many aspects of life. Through Bahá’u’lláh, religion has become life itself—the life of man become conscious of his spiritual reality and voluntarily seeking to relate that reality to all his affairs. Where ritual has disclosed truth “as through a glass, darkly,” being men’s own veiled understanding or the effort of a ‘special group to maintain privilege and authority, this religious element in the Bahá’í teachings dissolves away and returns as conscious attitudes of the soul. What is philosophically or esthetically valid in the older religious practices, the religion of Bahá’u’lláh retains as elements of the arts and sciences of the new age, forever divorced from arbitrary ecclesiastical authority. A Mashriqu’l-Adhkár (“Dawning place of the Mention of God”) is thus a means for the followers of Bahá’u’lláh to pray and meditate, each in the sacred freedom of his own individuality, and find that underlying spiritual unity with all human beings which constitutes the sole basis of civilization in the age of Bahá’u’lláh. Since this institution was created by Bahá’u’lláh as one of His teachings, it upholds a standard of divine reality challenging every institution reflecting the religious spirit polluted by human imagination. A community sanctioning the existence of competitive churches is not a community but a psychological battlefield. The needs of men in this age cannot longer be served by faded memories of a once-vital faith.

Within the disintegration of the old body of religion, the Mashriqu’l-Adhkár arises pulsating with new-born life. It brings fresh inspiration to a disbelieving world. It faces the future and foretells a humanity which has learned the lesson of the “Most Great Peace.” One who enters this temple to worship as enjoined by Bahá’u’lláh unites with a spiritual community, strong in faith, which already includes individuals who have passed out from the constrictions and divisions of all the creeds on earth. Twenty-one nations, and a large number of creeds, were represented among the Bahá’ís present at the ceremony held in dedication of the resumption of building activities in the Temple at Wilmette during the Annual Convention, April, 1930.

Unlike many humanitarian achievements established at this time, the Mashriqu’l-Adhkár is not a repayment made by the rich and successful to the poor. It is a gift from the poor to the rich, from the weak to the powerful, from an outwardly small and insignificant group to the world. In it stands an impregnable manifestation of Peace in a war—rent earth. The significance of this edifice will, as ‘Abdu’l-Bahá declared, appear fully in the mysterious processes of time.

Mr. H. Van Buren Magonigle, the architect, after a study of the Temple plans, wrote the following impression:

“It has been necessary for me as architectural member of the Advisory Board to adjust myself to an unusual point of view. Mr. Bourgeois, in designing the Bahá’í Temple, has conceived a Temple of Light, in which structure—as usually understood —is to be concealed, visible support as far as possible eliminated, and the whole fabric to take on the airy substance of a dream. It is a lacy envelope enshrining an idea, the idea of Light—a shelter of cobweb interposed between earth and sky.”

This reference to the first Bahá’í Temple in the West may conclude with quotations from ‘Abdu’l-Bahá.

“Now the day has arrived in which the edifice of God, the divine sanctuary, the spiritual temple, shall be erected in America! I entreat God to assist the confirmed believers in accomplishing this great service and with entire zeal to rear this mighty structure which shall be renowned throughout the world. The support of God will be with those believers in that district that they may be successful in their undertaking, [Page 48]for the Cause is great and great; because this is the first Mashriqu’l-Adhkár in that country and from it the praise of God shall ascend to the Kingdom of Mystery and the tumult of His exaltation and greetings from the whole world shall be heard!

“Whosoever arises for the service of this building shall be assisted with a great power from His Supreme Kingdom and upon him spiritual and heavenly blessings shall descend, which shall fill his heart with wonderful consolation and enlighten his eyes by beholding the glorious and eternal God!”-‘Abdu’l-Bahá.

“When the foundation of the Mashriqu’l-Adhkáris laid in America, and that divine edifice is completed, a most wonderful and thrilling motion will appear in the world of existence. The Mashriqu’l-Adhkár will become the center around which all these universal Bahá’í activities will be clustered. From that point of light, the spirit of teaching, spreading the cause of God and promoting the teachings of God will permeate to all parts of the world.”——‘Abdu’l-Bahá.

The letter written by Shoghi Effendi to the American Bahá’ís, October 25, 1929, on the subject of the Mashriqu’l-Adhkár is reproduced elsewhere in this volume.

Bahá’ís of Egypt Seek Status of an Independent Religion

In the account of activities published in the previous volume of this series, we find reference to the unusual situation confronted by the Bahá’ís of Egypt. Residing in a country which has not yet developed a civil code, Egyptian subjects are controlled in all such relations as marriage by the code based upon the Qur’án of Muḥammad. This condition closely parallels that which existed in Europe during the supremacy of the Roman Church.

The Bahá’ís of Egypt have been brought into conflict with the Muslim code by the action of several Muḥammadan women, wives of Bahá’ís, who appealed for divorce on the grounds that their husbands had abandoned Islam.

Excerpts from the Opinion and Judgment of Appellate Court of Beba are included here as throwing clear light on the beliefs and practices of Islam, representing so large a section of mankind. We learn vividly what obstacles are raised in the path of world justice, how strangely the Bahá’í Cause is thrown against these obstacles, and how the spirit of the age, working through all favorable channels, as for example Kemal Pasha, removes these obstacles one by one. It is inevitable that Egypt, in due time, will create a civil code after the fashion of the Turkish Republic.

“In the divisional session of the religious court of Beba on Sunday, Sawal 17, 1242 A. H., May 10, 1925, before me, the Judge Mahmoud Abdullah Saad and in the presence of Sheikh Mohammed Seyed Ahmed, the secretary of the court, the following decision was passed on case No. 913, which was joined to the two cases No. 814 and No. 915, years 1923 and 1924, appealed from Mohammed Abu Bekr Heudawi commissioned in the city of Kowno Saayedeh, which is under the jurisdiction of Beba in the district of Baui Soweif. . . .

“The court, therefore, will discuss the following points, viz.: 1—The foundations of the religion of Islám and some of its beliefs and rites, with their proofs. 2-Bahá and the Bahá’ís and some of their beliefs; whether Baháism is an independent religion or not, and the proofs concerning this,—these points for their bearing upon the contentions of the defendants. 3—The departure of the defendants from Islam, having formerly been Muslims; the value of what they occasionally present from the tenets of Islám and what should be decided thereupon.

"1—The mission of the Prophets sent by God to man is necessary for their welfare in both worlds, this and the one to come; for the human intellect is incapable of comprehending what this welfare is. This is the law of God in His creation, followed without deviation until its consummation when God sent His Messenger and Prophet, Muḥammad, as a blessing to the world. This blessing He put in the form of the religion of Islám, the last of the heavenly religions. It has abrogated all other religions and can be repealed by none, until the world shall perish. Because of its appropriateness for [Page 49]every person, every time and place, and because Muḥammad is the last of the Prophets, revelation shall not descend upon any one after Him, until the end of the world. God said in the Qu’rán—‘And We have not sent thee save as a blessing to humanity.’ ‘And We have not sent thee save unto all the people.’ Muḥammad was not the father of any of your men, but the Messenger of God and the last of the Prophets; and God knows all things.’ Thus it is certain that he is the last of the Prophets. It makes no difference whether we consider Messengers and Prophets the same, as those to whom laws are revealed to be acted upon and spread; or whether we make a distinction between them and say that, though laws are revealed to both, yet the Prophet alone has the power to spread these laws, a power which is not possessed by the Messenger. In this sense, a Prophet is more inclusive than a Messenger. So, if prophethood has ended, we can reasonably maintain that messengership, too, has ceased. For the end of the more inclusive will also be the end of the thing included. Thus, as Muḥammad was the last of the Prophets, he was also the last of the Messengers. Muḥammad said, ‘There is no prophet after me,’ and the greatest miracle of the Prophet was the permanence of the Qu’rán, revealed to him in Arabic. There will be no one, either from those who turn to the Qu’rán, or from those who may come after it, who will be able to repeal it. It is a revelation from the All-Wise. ‘Say, if man and the genii should combine to produce one like this Qu’rán, they will be unable to do so.’ ‘A Qu’rán which we divided into parts, to be read slowly, and we have given it as revelation. We have not omitted anything from the Book.’

“It is necessary to understand the Qu’rán, in the form in which it descended upon the Messenger and his followers, according to its rules and particular meaning; otherwise it may be distorted for selfish ends. ‘Those who misinterpret our verses are not ignored by us. Are those who are thrown in the fire better or they who are in safety in the day of judgment?’ Misinterpretation is to put the word in other than its proper place.

Nasfi says that to deviate from the literal interpretation, is misinterpretation. Saad says that they have styled ‘inner meanings’ such because of their claim that the actual writings have not only a literal interpretation, but also have a concealed meaning known only to teachers. Their aim is thereby to deny the divine laws. God has appointed a Prophet to interpret. The Prophet does not follow his own fancies, but speaks through revelation. ‘God said that you may explain what has been sent to them: if you differ on a certain point, lay it before God and His Prophet; what the Prophet has brought to you, take, and from what he has prohibited, abstain.’ This is why Islám has appeared. The Muhammadans are the chosen people, sent to the world, and Islám is the religion of God. God said, ‘The religion of God is Islám. He is the One Who has sent His Messenger with guidance and has founded His religion on truth. Today I have completed your religion for you and have fulfilled My bounties unto you and have chosen Islám as a religion for you. And he who adopts another religion beside Islám is not acceptable in My sight and is the loser.’

“These things are accepted by individual Muḥammadans in all parts of the world ever since the appearance of the Qu’rán. Every one of them accepts these and all other teachings brought by Muḥammad. No one contests these principles or any other that form the basis upon which Islám rests. If we find certain differences, they are upon secondary matters which do not affect these basic conceptions.”

After detailed consideration of the tenets of the Bahá’ís, as set forth in various quotations from written works, the court continues:

“All these prove definitely that the Bahá’í religion is a new religion, with an independent platform and laws and institutions peculiar to it, and show a different and contradictory belief to the beliefs and laws and commandments of Islám. Nor can we state a Bahá’í to be a Muslim, or the reverse; as we cannot say of a Buddhist or a Brahman or a Christian that he is a Muslim or the reverse. . . .

"3—Islam testifies to all that Muḥammad [Page 50]wrought (brought?) from God and it is essential to maintain that he was the last of the Prophets and that his laws are eternal and can never be abrogated or changed; that the duties of prayer, tithes, pilgrimages and fasting, according to the belief of Muslims the world over, must be maintained. To depart from Islám is heresy and this heresy may be either through a heretical statement or an untrue belief; such as stating that the laws of Islám have been abrogated or in believing the same. This is the worst form of heresy, for it is the denial of Islám and the passing of judgment on the religion of God. . . .

“The religious law states that heresy dissolves the contract of marriage. It is written in the ‘Dorrel Mokhtar,’ ‘The heresy of one of the spouses is, ipso facto, an immediate dissolution, without the need of judgment.’ . . . For these reasons the court has decided on the dissolution of the contract of marriage of (the parties on trial) . . . If any of them repents and again believes in all that Muḥammad has brought from God and will return to Islám . . . then this repentance will be accepted and he will be entitled to renew his contract of marriage.”

The conflict outlined above is, in theory, irreconcilable, based as it is upon the assumption of Islámic sovereignty enduring until the end of the world. The same assumptions shaped European law during a long period. If in some quarters they still exist, society has developed beyond the point where they can be too rigorously applied.

Two solutions of the problem appear possible: either that the government of Egypt, following the judgment of the court that the Bahá’í Cause is an independent religion, give to the Bahá’í Spiritual Assemblies the authority of courts acting on matters affecting Bahá’ís; or that the nation evolve a civil law recognizing the equality before the law of all religions and taking over control of marriage and other contracts after the manner of the West.

The first solution is the more feasible at the present time, and the National Spiritual Assembly of Egypt accordingly, in its petition to the King through his prime minister, requested the government to “recognize the legal authority of the above mentioned body (i.e., the Egyptian National Spiritual Assembly) to uphold the principles of His Holiness Bahá’u’lláh, to safeguard the interests of the Bahá’ís living in the country and to direct their endeavors along the lines stated in their constitution as submitted with this petition.” As the petition pointed out, the result of the annulment of the marriages compelled the Bahá’ís to turn to their Spiritual Assemblies, giving them the legal status which Bahá’í laws provide, and to register marriages of Bahá’ís in their books. The effect of the petition is not known at this writing, but the continuance of the grave disability has prompted the American National Spiritual Assembly to address the Egyptian government in the matter, and the papers are under preparation at this time.

The situation was brought to the attention of the American believers again by Shoghi Effendi in a letter dated February 27, 1929, reproduced in Part Two.

The League of Nations and the Case of the Houses of Bahá’u’lláh at Baghdád

During March, 1929, the Council of the League of Nations adopted a resolution directing the Mandatory Power (Great Britain) “to make representations to the government of ’Iráq with a view to the immediate redress of the injustice suffered by the Petitioners (the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of ’Iráq).”

By this action the status of the Houses occupied by Bahá’u’lláh during His residence in Baghdád from 1852 to 1863, regarded by all Bahá’ís as a Holy Shrine, was accepted as an issue by the greatest international body yet come into existence. Through the intensity of devotion and reverence felt by believers throughout the world, inspired by Bahá’u’lláh’s prophetic statements concerning this Shrine, the matter had undergone successive transformation from an issue before local courts to an action passed upon by the highest court of ’Iráq, and finally, after acceptance and approval by the Mandates Committee of the petition submitted by the National Spiritual Assembly of ’Iráq, a case taken up by the Council of the League.

[Page 51]In our previous report of current Bahá’í activities, reviewing events that took place between 1926 and 1928, the matter of the Shrine at Baghdád was presented up to a point immediately preceding the adverse judgment passed by the supreme tribunal of that land. The events transpiring since 1928 may be most fairly described by quoting from official documents bearing upon the case.

The Bahá’í attitude toward these Houses appears in the following passage taken from the Petition:

“Your petitioners and their fellow believers in all parts of the world are followers of the spiritual teaching of Bahá’u’lláh (1817-1892), Whom they look to and revere as the One Whom Sayyid Ali Muḥammad, the Báb, (1817-1850) had heralded as ‘He Whom God would make manifest’; a universal spiritual Teacher soon to appear, Who by the inspired understanding and power of His life and precepts would remove the differences separating the religions of the world today and usher in the era promised by them all of the ultimate spiritual unification of mankind.

“In Bahá’u’lláh your petitioners recognize this universal Teacher. They believe Him to be the supreme Manifestation of God thus far revealed to the world: that in Him converges and finds expression the aspiration and belief of the devout Hindu, Confucianist, Zoroastrian, Buddhist, Jew, Christian and Muḥammadan; the aspiration and belief that, in His good time, God would send to the world His Messenger divinely inspired to reveal to all peoples His truth, to the end that, guided by this new understanding, they might unite in universal fellowship and establish His Kingdom in this world.

"From this brief outline of the supreme spiritual station which Bahá’u’lláh occupies in the faith of your petitioners will be understood the sacred reverence felt by His followers for places associated with His ministry, places to them holy, and of a sacredness, dignity and vital importance in their religious life and worship equal to that of places of like significance in the religious life of the followers of the other great spiritual Leaders of mankind.

"One of the most sacred of these holy places, situated in Baghdád, your petitioners aver has been unlawfully wrested from their possession and they have been deprived of the spiritual solace and inspiration of its use in their worship. This it is alleged has been brought about through the machinations of the leaders of the Shiah sect of Islám fearful of the spreading influence of Bahá’u’lláh and His liberal teachings and acting in pursuance of the deliberate, relentless purpose of Shiah Islám since the inception of this movement in Persia in 1844 to interfere with and prevent the freedom of belief and worship of our petitioners and their fellow believers throughout the world. It is against this alleged violation of their constitutional and treaty guarantees that your petitioners seek your aid and protection.”

The Report of the Permanent Mandates Commission to the Council of the League, published in the Minutes of the Fourteenth Session of that body, is next presented:

“The petitioners state at great length the facts which have led them to appeal to the League of Nations. These facts can be summarized as follows:

“The founder of the sect, Bahá’u’lláh, in whom the Bahá’ís recognize the inspired messenger of God, settled at Baghdád in 1852 after being exiled from Persia. He established himself and his family in certain dwelling-houses belonging to one of his disciples. This property——which is the subject of the present litigation—was subsequently acquired by Bahá’u’lláh and on his death passed into the possession of his son ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. Bahá’u’lláh resided eleven years in these houses, upon which his long residence conferred in the eyes of his disciples a sacred character.

“In view of the lack of security which prevailed under the former system of government and the constant hostility of the Shiahs, Bahá’u’lláh decided never to reveal his ownership of the dwelling—houses in question, which to all appearance remained the property of one of his disciples, and for the same reasons the sect abstained from using these dwellings for the exercise of their religion, thus refraining from [Page 52]drawing attention to the sacred character which they attached to this property.

“Matters remained in this condition until, with the establishment of the British mandate, the liberty of conscience and religion proclaimed in the Covenant of the League of Nations was confirmed in ’Iráq by the Treaty of 1922 with Great Britain and later by the Organic Law of ’Iráq. Taking advantage of a security they had never known before, the Bahá’ís, under the direction of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá,"* henceforth the leader of their movement, set about putting into repair the dwellings sanctified by the residence of Bahá’u’lláh with a view to the open exercise of their religion.

“Then began the tribulations which they ascribe to the fanaticism of the Shiahs. The era of persecution and violence had passed, but the Shiahs resorted to intrigue in order to relegate into the background a sect whose development they feared.

“A first attempt on the part of the Qadhi of the Shiah Courts at Baghdád to obtain possession of the property in question was frustrated by the intervention of the ‘Iráq authorities. A fresh application was subsequently made by the same Qadhi to the Peace Court at Baghdád for the eviction of the occupants.

“The decision of the Court was still pending when the Government intervened afresh, moved by the state of public opinion caused by the Shiahs: the government ordered the Bahá’ís to be evicted and the keys of the houses in dispute to be given into the custody of the Governor of Baghdád. After a judgment dismissing the application, the Peace Court made fruitless efforts to reinstate the defendants in possession of the property. Its decision remained a dead—letter, as the government maintained its refusal.

“The case passed from Court to Court and was finally brought before the Court of Appeal at Baghdád, which, by a majority of four (the native members) to one (the British Presiding Justice), decided in favor of the plaintiffs (the Shiahs).

"According to the petitioners, the property which was the subject of litigation was

• In 1922 the leader of the Bahá’í movement was Shoghi Effendi.—Editor.

at once converted into Waqf property, the effect of which was to render redress from the injustice of which they complain even more difficult. The accuracy of this fact was disputed by the accredited representative of the mandatory Power during his last hearing before the Commission.

“Finally, the petition contains extracts from correspondence exchanged between the British Secretary of State and the representative of the petitioners, from which it will be gathered that the mandatory government has taken active steps through its High Commissioner in ’Iráq with a View to inducing the Government of ’Iráq to adopt a compromise which would give satisfaction to the complainants. This intervention remained without success.

“The Bahá’í community maintains that, on account of a series of intrigues inspired by religious fanaticism in which the administrative authorities and finally also the judicial authorities of ’Iráq were associated, it has been seriously disturbed in the exercise of its religion and deprived of property belonging to its religious head, to which the community attaches a sacred character, to the advantage of a rival sect.

“In support of its claims, this community appeals to the principle of the liberty of conscience and religion contained in the Treaty of 1922 between ’Iráq and Great Britain (Article III) and in the Organic Law of ’Iráq (Article XIII), as also to Article 22 (1) of the League Covenant, which states that the well-being and development of the peoples (of the mandated territories) formed a sacred trust of civilization.

“The Commission draws the Council’s attention to the considerations and conclusions suggested to it by an examination of the petition of the Bahá’í Spiritual Assembly of Baghdád and of the documents accompanying it.

“It recommends that the Council should ask the British government to make representations to the ’Iráq government with a view to the immediate redress of the denial of justice from which the petitioners have suffered.

“Moreover, the Commission proposes to the Council that the petitioners be answered in the following terms:

[Page 53]“ ‘The Permanent Mandates Commission, recognizing the justice of the complaint made by the Bahá’í Spiritual Assembly of Baghdád, has recommended to the Council of the League such action as it thinks proper to redress the wrong suffered by the petitioners.’ ”

The decision of the Council of the League of Nations, based upon the report of its Mandates Commission, has already been quoted. At this writing, the government of ’Iráq has not yet conformed to the decision of the Council, a fact which is unsatisfactory to the followers of Bahá’u’lláh, and unacceptable to them, even though they fully appreciate the dificulties created by the hostile and implacable Shiah element, representing a majority party in Baghdad. As the matter now stands (July, 1930), Great Britain as Mandatory Power is obligated to carry out the League decision, in which of course the British representative on the Council concurred, all Council action being by unanimous vote. Great Britain has also signed a new treaty with ’Iráq in which the year 1932 is fixed as the date when Great Britain will recommend and endorse the acceptance of ’Iráq by the League of Nations as a member state. It would appear inconsistent for the League to accept ‘Iráq as member state if ’Iráq has not, before 1932, fully carried out the Council decision. The Bahá’ís are not concerned with political matters; they desire only the precious privilege of exercising full control over property which in time will become a center of pilgrimage for the believers in all parts of the world. The good offices rendered by many representatives both of Great Britain and ’Iráq are known to and deeply appreciated by the followers of Bahá’u’lláh.

Additional facts are brought out in the following excerpts taken from Comments of His Majesty’s Government on the Petition from the Bahá’í Spiritual Assembly, Baghdad, to the Permanent Mandates Commission:

“5. Under the Ottoman Empire the Bahá’ís had done as little as possible to advertise their presence, and their ownership of this property. A change of régime, however, gave them confidence, and the heirs of Bahá’u’lláh, through their agents, the occupants, spent considerable sums on improving the property. This drew attention to the existence of property revered by Bahá’ís in the middle of a Shiah quarter, and incensed the Shiahs, who started a campaign to get rid of those whom they regarded as enemies of their religion. The first step in the campaign was an application by certain Shiahs to the Shiah Qadhi, in January, 1921, to appoint agents to look after the property of Muḥammad Hussain Babi, who had, they asserted (as indeed appears to be the case) died without heirs. This order was granted early in February, 1921, and the Bahá’í occupants were evicted by the execution department. On representation by certain Bahá’ís the Minister of Justice instructed the appellate court to look into the case, with the result that on the 3rd of April, 1921, the order of the Qadhi was quashed, on the ground that if Muḥammad Hussain Babi had died without heirs, the property would have escheated to the State, and the Qadhi’s order putting in guardians at the request of persons who had no concern with the property was quite illegal. The Bahá’í occupants were consequently restored to possession.

"Note. The decision of the Qadhi was obviously wrong, and that of the appellate court right. The Bahá’í occupants should obviously, at some stage of the proceedings, have applied to be joined as parties.

“6. Having failed in this effort, the Shiahs determined to try again, and Muḥammad Jawad and Bibi, the Shiah claimants, applied to the same Shiah Qadhi for a declaration that one Laila was the heir of Muḥammad Hussain, and that they were her heirs. A number of the witnesses were the same persons who had previously deposed to the fact that Muḥammad Hussain had died Without heirs. The declaration was granted on November 23, 1921.

"Note. Everything said in the petition about this stage of the proceedings is fully justified. The decision of the Qadhi was unjust as undoubtedly actuated by religious prejudice.

“7. Armed with this declaration the Shiah claimants applied to the Peace Court early in 1922 for the ejectment of the Bahá’í occupants. This case was never heard on its [Page 54]merits, as on February 22, 1922, His Majesty King Feisal issued an order to the Governor of Baghdad to turn out the Bahá’ís and take possession of the property in order to prevent a breach of the peace. The Bahá’ís no longer being in possession, the suit to eject them was dismissed on June 17, 1922.

"Note. His Majesty’s action was illegal. But he feared a riot if the case went against the Shiahs, who, in general, were, at this time, seething with discontent and disloyalty. He therefore deemed his action, though illegal, necessary in the interests of public security. It is impossible to say at this stage whether he exaggerated the danger or not. Danger undoubtedly existed, but it cannot be denied that His Majesty’s actions made things more difficult for the Bahá’ís.

“8. The property now being in the hands of the Governor, it became necessary for the parties to take some further step, and the first step was taken by the Shiah claimants, who, on October 2nd, 1922, filed a suit in the court of First Instance, for ownership, against the Bahá’í ex-occupants. For some reason, which need not be entered into here, this suit did not come on for hearing until February 1st, 1924. In the meantime, on the 19th of July, 1923, the Bahá’ís filed a suit for possession against the Governor in the Peace Court, which gave a decision in their favor on December 20th, 1923. The Council of Ministers, however, with the approval of His Majesty, stepped in and instructed the Governor not to give up the keys until the question of ownership, as distinct from mere possession, was settled.

"Note. Here again the executives were actuated by a desire to avoid a breach of the peace, but their action, to which the High Commissioner took strong exception at the time by means of a written protest to His Majesty the King was highly irregular, and it is doubtful whether the emergency was grave enough to warrant it.

“9. The Shiah case in the Court of First Instance then came up for hearing, and on June 8th, 1924, judgment against the Bahá’í occupants, or rather ex-occupants, was given in default. They entered an opposition in the same court on July 7th, which was admitted. On October 9th, 1924, the heirs of Baha’u’llél1 applied to be joined as parties, claiming ownership on the strength of an admission by the Bahá’í occupants that they were not the owners, but merely agents of the heirs. This application was admitted, and on April Sch, 1925, the Court gave judgment dismissing the case against the Bahá’ís, but making no mention of the claims of the heirs. Even, therefore, had this judgment stood, the ownership of the heirs would not have been established. The judgment was, however, upset on appeal, by a majority of four (one Jew, one Christian, and two Sunnis) to one (the British president). Copies of the majority and the dissenting Judgment are enclosed with the petition, and it is unnecessary to discuss them in detail here, but two points in the majority judgment, with both of which the president of the Court disagreed, need special notice. One is the contention that possession by an agent for the full period necessary to establish a prescriptive right does not establish that right on behalf of the principal. The second is that the Bahá’í occupants, not having established, or indeed claimed, their ownership, had no right to challenge the (false) certificate of heirship issued by the Shiah Qadhi in November, 1921, vide paragraph 6 above, but that, if there were no real heirs, this could only be challenged by the State, and that, in the absence of any party with a right to challenge this certificate, it was not the duty of the court to enquire into the merits thereof.

"Note. These two contentions may be challenged, as they are in fact challenged in the dissentient judgment of the President of the Court, but they cannot, nor can the judgment based upon them, be described as unsustainable or contrary to law. A strong suspicion must, however, remain that the majority judgment was not uninfluenced by political consideration.

"General Note. Since the case was concluded on these lines efforts have been made to induce the ’Iráq government to rectify the injustice which has been done. That there has been injustice the British government is compelled to recognize, in that property which has been for years in the possession of the Bahá’ís, without its ownership[Page 55]being legally established, has passed into the ownership of persons who have no conceivable claim to it whatever. Neither His Majesty the King of ’Iráq nor the ’Iráq government have seriously attempted to deny this; they have in fact agreed in principle to try and rectify the injustice. But on every occasion on which they have definitely been asked to take action they have found it impossible to do so, through fear of Shiah opposition. And it cannot be denied that in the present state of Shiah feeling against a predominantly Sunni Government their attitude is intelligible. Interference at an earlier stage to prevent injustice would have been far less difficult than would be interference at the present stage to remedy it. Unfortunately such interference as there was, though its sole object was to avoid disturbance, did more to promote than to prevent the injustice that has taken place. While, however, it is realized, that there has been an injustice, it must not be taken for granted that, had the cases been heard throughout by impartial tribunals, and with no interference from the executive, the heirs of Bahá’u’lláh would have obtained the property. It might have been held that the only persons who could claim ownership were the Bahá’í occupants, who did not claim it, and that, no one else being able to establish a claim, the property had escheated to the State. If such had been the decision, the State could at all events have kept the building from falling into the hands of the fanatical opponents of the Bahá’ís and might have turned it into a useful public institution of some kind, which, it is understood, would have satisfied Bahá’í sentiment. As matters stand, the Shiahs have now constituted the building a Shiah Waqf or Pious Foundation, which at once makes an attempt by the executive to expropriate it very difficult and also greatly aggravates the situation in Bahá’í eyes. In short it cannot be disguised that the whole affair has from the beginning been mishandled by the ’Iráq authorities and has now drifted into a position in which it is almost impossible to discover an immediate remedy.”

Letters written by Shoghi Effendi to Western Bahá’ís on January 1 and March 20, 1929, bearing on the case, are quoted elsewhere in this volume.

Bahá’ís and Modern Movements

A Cause so broadly based as the Faith of Bahá’u’lláh must, during a certain period, absorb the thought and energy of its adherents and apparently interrupt their normal social relations. The Bahá’í movement is indeed a world in itself, a new world to be explored and learned, a world that gives inexhaustibly and demands both mind and heart. It has been likened to an egg, incubating new life while protecting it from the old. The Bahá’í Cause is a human community being shaped according to a new pattern and trained to produce a new human value. Spread as it is throughout the continents and islands of the world, in hundreds of local groups, the Religion of Bahá’u’lláh was formed on so vast a scale that its period of immaturity—the period required for co—ordination of mind, senses and limbs —has necessarily been prolonged. Unlike those movements which cohere around a single doctrine or interest, the Cause has with deliberation deceptive to all save the discerning taken its own time to grow up, as a community, to the point where its collective influence can be exerted in degree commensurate with its essential aims. July 9, 1930, the date of this Writing, is the eightieth anniversary of the martyrdom of the Báb, and the Bahá’í community is still negligible and obscure in nearly all parts of the world. Its literature, radiant with the light of divine faith, set forth before the human soul like an ocean of truth, still unsuccessfully contends for interest with writings by which the blind would lead the blind. But time, for this Cause, is like a cup that one day will overflow when other cups are drained. As the illusion of power withdraws from movements founded on self-interest, the real strength and integrity of the movement created by Bahá’u’lláh will stand revealed.

Meanwhile, for the reason already stated, the Bahá’í community has yet to feel itself a matured social body moved by the full power of its principles to demonstrate that a new order has come to the world.

[Page 56]The individual believer is yet constrained to evolve from his former social personality into the Bahá’í body. Much effective cooperation is being given by believers to liberal movements in many countries—movements dedicated to peace, to racial amity, to religious unity, to spiritual education; but the account of this aspect of Bahá’í activity during the past two years in reality touches only a minor phase of the Cause. The Cause itself has not participated, since from the point of view of social organism, the Cause is a growing child. Every Bahá’í who at this stage of its development attempts to promote one of the principles of Bahá’u’lláh as member or supporter of any liberal movement inevitably finds it necessary to choose between promoting a universal principle torn, like the limb of a tree, from the source of its vital energy, and upholding that same principle on the foundation laid by Bahá’u’lláh. Thus the sincere believer realizing the menace of war, for example, and deeply concerned with the triumph of the new spirit of universal peace, attempting public activity along conventional lines, sooner or later undergoes the experience that “peace” has become a separate and distinct concept, acceptable to millions who would reject other ideals ‘Abdu’l-Bahá taught were essential to it. The result is that ardent and public—spirited Bahá’ís learn that they must serve general movements as those who only stand and wait; or by their enthusiasm are carried out of touch with the main current of the Bahá’í Cause. The balance between the Cause and the world remains so delicate in the realm of insight and loyalty that few are those who, like ’Abu’l-Faḍl can be equally at home in both. The public relations of Bahá’ís will arise as the Cause becomes in itself a public event.

There are signs that indicate an era in the near future when the Bahá’í movement, having attained maturity, will sustain the individual believer undertaking public work with the power of a community consciousness; when the inner adjustments are made and the operations of the new organism are become so instinctive that its spiritual resources can focus upon any point. So far, however, it must be admitted that Bahá’ís in modern movements have gained invaluable experience rather than given vital aid.

The following examples of Bahá’í participation in movements of the day are typical of the many concrete cases that would require treatment in a summary pretending to deal with the subject in detail.

From India we have reports analyzing the religious situation of the country and indicating how Bahá’ís have co-operated with a number of progressive organizations, particularly the Brahmo Samaj, Arya Samaj and the Theosophical Society. These three movements, each in its own way, are centers of liberal thought and helpful social action, maintaining a platform for discussion of problems and furthering a program of reform. Scholarly believers like Professor Pritam Singh of Lahore have presented the Bahá’í teachings at meetings of these societies and endeavored to promote their common aims.

The World Conference for International Peace through Religion, formerly known as Universal Religious Peace Conference, has deeply impressed the Bahá’ís of Europe and America who see in it a determined effort to set up a social ideal capable of including representatives of all religions in one useful plan. Several Bahá’ís, notably Mr. Mountfort Mills, have served actively on committees of the Conference and the outcome of this noble and far-reaching program is awaited hopefully by all followers of Bahá’u’lláh.

The history of Bahá’í students at the American University of Beirut forms so interesting a part of the record of current activity that the statement prepared by Z. N. Zeine for the Spiritual Assembly of Beirut bears quoting at some length:

“Between 1900 and 1910 we do not find more than six Bahá’í students in the Syrian Protestant College, studying in the schools of Arts and Sciences and Medicine. During the early and middle part of that period, the despotic rule of the Sultan ‘Abdu’l Hamid was at its height. The Bahá’ís in the Ottoman Empire were in great trouble and anxiety. Corrupt Commissions of Investigations were sent by the Turkish Government to ’Akká, prepared charges against[Page 57]‘Abdu’l-Bahá and recommended His exile or execution. Add to these distressing conditions, the dogmatic attitude of the College at that time, and you will have a picture of the conditions surrounding the first Bahá’í students there. And yet they had the courage to hold Bahá’í meetings on Sunday afternoons.

“Of course, towards the end of the period, revolution broke out in Turkey, the young Turks came into power, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá was released from prison and ‘Abdu’l Hamid became himself a prisoner. Thus the pressure on the Bahá’ís was greatly decreased.

“The following nine years may well be called the golden period of the Bahá’í students in the S.P.C. Their number increased very rapidly, until in 1913-1914 it reached thirty. Persian, Palestinian, Turkish and Egyptian Bahá’ís they were, all of them living in utmost friendship and love with each other. Add to that the presence of Shoghi Effendi and Ruhi Effendi among the students during that period and then try to imagine how great was their happiness.

“Then came the terrible catastrophe of 1914 where the ‘lies and frivolity, the passion and fear’ of a small group of people changed the world into a scene of carnage and barbarism. During those four years of degeneracy, in spite of the fact that the number of the Bahá’í students decreased one-third, in spite of the economic difficulties that they had to face, away from home and cut off from all communication with their loved ones, they lived together in the same brotherly love and unity, the same happiness on their faces and in their hearts.

“Before closing the account of this second period a word must be said about their summer vacations. In the early part of it, when the Master was traveling in Europe and America, the Bahá’í students spent their summers in Lebanon, but after His return, they were asked to come to Haifa. With what joy did they dismount the donkeys that had brought them from Beirut, for in those days the modern conveniences of traveling were not known. Today in four hours’ time a motor car takes you from Beirut to Haifa, but it took two days for the Bahá’í students of twenty years ago to make the same trip. Those days spent with the Master were indeed glorious days. To hear Him every morning and afternoon, and to walk with Him on Mount Carmel, to pray with Him in the Holy Shrines, such was the privilege of the Bahá’í students of that time, a privilege that very few then had and no one will ever again have. Those three months of summer vacation were a period of spiritual education received from the lips of the great Educator Himself. That is why all their material difficulties were forgotten, especially in the days of the War, all their worries and anxieties melted away; they were in the presence of the Master, what else mattered?

“We may consider the period between 1919-1930 as the third in the history of the Bahá’í students in the A. U. B. It has ushered in many changes in their organization and meetings. From 1925 and on, their meetings became more formal. In 1927, the number of the Bahá’í students reached 32. Their first yearly program was printed in that year.

“In the early part of this period, the Sunday meetings were held on the campus of the University, but later two meetings were held, one for the students only and the other for both students and the resident believers in Beirut. The latter was held in the house of one of the Bahá’ís down town every Sunday afternoon.

“The Society of the Bahá’í Students is now under the supervision of the Spiritual Assembly of Beirut. The latter has appointed several sub-committees that work in conjunction with the Bahá’í Students Committee. The Translation Committee is at present engaged in translating ‘Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era,’ by J. E. Esslemont, into Persian, and the Hazirat’ul Kods Committee is trying to purchase a property for the permanent meeting place of the Bahá’í Students Society and the Spiritual Assembly.

“During the last three years a number of Bahá’í friends, coming from or on their Way to the Holy Land, have been kind enough to visit the Bahá’í students in Beirut. Such visits are greatly appreciated. It is hoped that more of them will take place in the future.

“It should be mentioned in passing that the Faculty of the American University of [Page 58]Beirut now recognizes the Bahá’í students as an independent group and officially grants them holidays for the feasts of Nawrúz and Ridván.”

Educational activity of a more direct Bahá’í character appears in the annual programs maintained at Geyserville, California, and Green Acre, Eliot, Maine. The programs for 1929 are reproduced below. At both centers, foundations for a highly developed community life are being carefully laid.

Green Acre Summer School

GENERAL THEME FOR THE SUMMER OF 1929

I. How to unite the new knowledge in physics, sociology, psychology, education, international relations and the history of religions with the universal Bahá’í teachings.

II. How to present this new synthesis to the present day world.

III. How to attain the radiant life.

Children’s Summer School—9:00 A. M. meeting daily, except Saturday and Sunday.

THE SCIENCE OF SPIRITUAL TEACHING

How to teach the Bahá’í Cause—preparation, speaking, answering questions.

This course was conducted from July 9th to August 29th, on Tuesday and Thursday, by Mr. Louis Gregory. Special addresses were given at this time by Mr. Gregory upon: “New Visions of Heaven,” “The Prophet and Religion of Islám,” “The Divine Covenant and Testament,” "Bahá’í Administration,” “The Banner of Youth,” “The Significance of Conversation,” “The Manifest and Hidden,” “The Ladder of Ascent,” “Can Human Nature be Changed?” “The Awakening of the Soul,” “Reason and Religion,” “Four Journeys.”

From August 5th to August 23rd, on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, Mr. Albert Vail conducted the course. He and the other speakers, at the end of each morning session, gave talks upon the philosophy of universal religion, the new interpretation of the bibles of the world and their prophecies, the vital question—how to attain the radiant life.

SIX COURSEs IN UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES

July 22-26. Proofs of Reality. Philosophy and Religion. Mr. Gregory and Mr. Philip Marangella....

July 29-Aug. 2. Scientific and Spiritual Proofs of Human Unity. Mr. Gregory.

Aug. 5-9. The Coming Union of Science and Religion. Prof. Shook, Mr. Vail.

Aug. 12-16. Recent Studies in the History of Religions. One of the Great Sciences of the Future. Mr. Vail.

Aug. 19-23. Discoveries in Progressive Education. Prof. Stanwood Cobb.

Aug. 26-30. Bahá’í Economics and the Science of Universal Peace. Mr. Alfred E. Lunt, Mr. Marangella, Mrs. Keith Ransom-Kehler.

Bahá’í Summer School for 1929 Geyserville, California

The Third Annual Session of the Bahá’í Summer School was held at Geyserville, California, from August 4 to August 15, inclusive, opening with the Annual Unity Feast, Sunday, August 4, at noon. The scope of the school has been greatly enlarged to include courses that will complement the study of the fundamental and universal principles of the Bahá’í Cause, thereby making the two weeks interesting and profitable in appeal to both Bahá’ís and their friends.

There were held three classes of study each morning.

1. Professor E. A. Rogers, head of the Montezuma School, conducted a course on Popular Science and its relationship to the Spiritual Truth.

2. Professor W. J. Meredith of the Montezuma School conducted a course in Sociological history covering (a) Social Evolution; (b) Education as an Element in Human Evolution; (c) Philosophy as the Interpretation of Diversified Human Thought.

3. Competent Bahá’í Teachers presented a course of study on the principles of the Bahá’í Cause with their application and adoption in the world today.

4. There was held an informal study class in Esperanto.

[Page 59]The Science of Religion:

a. From God to Man Aug. 5 Mr. Leroy C. Ioas.

b. From Man to God Aug. 6 Mr. Leroy C. Ioas.

Comparative Religion:

a. The Underlying Point of Unity Aug. 7 Mrs. Helen Bishop.

b. The Influences on Society Aug. 8 Mrs. Helen Bishop.

c. The Continuity of Manifestations Aug. 9 Mrs. Louise R. Waite.

d. The Return of the Manifestations “The Promised One” Aug. 10 Mr. Williard P. Hatch.

The Spiritualization of Psychology Aug. 12 Mrs. Ella G. Cooper

The Urge Toward Immortality Aug. 13 Mr. Geo. O. Latimer

Bahá’í Economics Aug. 14 Mr. Geo. O. Latimer

The Oneness of Humanity. Aug. 15 Mrs. Louise Caswell

Bahá’í Administration Aug. 16 Mrs. Amelia F. Collins

The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh Aug. 17

The Esperanto Society incorporates a fundamental Bahá’í ideal. On many occasions ‘Abdu’l-Bahá made it clear that the adoption of a universal secondary language will be a vital factor in international peace. With this injunction in mind, and faced also by the need to solve the problem of communication in the Cause itself, Bahá’ís have assisted very materially in the promotion of Esperanto. The important part played by Miss Martha Root is described elsewhere. For some years an international Bahá’í magazine, "La Nuova Tago,” has been published in Germany, and classes in Esperanto are conducted under Bahá’í auspices in many parts of the world.

The annual reports of the Committee on Inter-racial Amity appointed by the American National Spiritual Assembly disclose a method of Bahá’í co-operation with modern movements emanating from within the Cause itself. Since ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in 1921, the last year of His life on earth, warned the American believers through Mrs. Agnes S. Parsons of Washington, D. C., that the race problem could become the cause of the downfall of the nation, inter—racial amity has been accepted as a vital responsibility by the American Bahá’ís. A series of public meetings has been held at regular intervals in the larger cities for the past ten years, and in 1928 a compilation of Bahá’í teachings on this subject was edited by Mr. Louis G. Gregory and Mrs. Mariam Haney. During 1929-1930, the Committee arranged programs in the following cities: Milwaukee, Green Acre, Portsmouth, N. H., Philadelphia, Boston, Portland, Ore., Oakland, Los Angeles and San Francisco, Calif., Akron, Montreal, Binghamton, and Wilmette, Illinois.

The Bahá’í group in Hawaii has most effectively shown interest in the Pan—Pacific and Peace activities centered at Honolulu. Letters received from Miss Julia Goldman indicate how favorable are the conditions for co-operation in that unique racial environment:

"Since the Hawaiian Islands are becoming an increasingly important center of unity of the many racial elements of the Pacific, every effort toward international good-will and racial amity becomes significant. The Hawaiian Islands may well be called the ‘Paradise of the Pacific,’ for nature has very generously endowed them with an environment of rare beauty; and Honolulu is already referred to as the ‘Geneva of the Pacific.’ Through the efforts of the Pan-Pacific Union, several important conferences of international scope and interest have been held here. Conspicuous among these are the educational, scientific, commercial, research, conservation and press conferences; thus bringing the peoples of the Pacific countries into closer and more sympathetic relationships and resulting in establishing permanent organizations of good-will in most of these countries.

"In addition to the regular meetings many opportunities present themselves, in meetings with individuals and small groups of interested inquirers. In this way it has been possible to bring the liberating message of Bahá’u’lláh to many souls of capacity.

[Page 60]“An exceptional opportunity for service came last August, during the Pan-Pacific Women’s Conference which was held in Honolulu. This was the first gathering of the women of the Pacific countries. Representative women of these lands, who are contributing largely to the development of a better social, ethical, political and educational order, came together for the first time, for the purpose of exploring the field of common interests and common problems for the common good. It meant devoted service and earnest work on the part of women of all races in Hawaii, covering a period of four years in preparation. Miss Jane Addams of Hull House, Chicago, President of the International League for Peace and Freedom, was the permanent chairman of all the meetings, always presenting ideals of mutual service, and sounding and sustaining a high spiritual note. Surely all the delegates from Australia, New Zealand, Samoa, Korea, Fiji, the Philippine Islands, China, Japan, Canada and the United States, returned to their home-lands with renewed inspiration to do their part in bringing about international friendship and universal peace. As delegates to this Conference, Mrs. Baldwin and I were privileged to sit at the round-table discussions as well as to attend the larger public meetings. Here again, opportunities came for the expression of the principles of the Cause and its dynamic spirit. The most fruitful results, however, came from the many personal contacts with some of the outstanding women of the Conference. In a talk with Miss Jane Addams, she recalled vividly and happily, the inspiring address of the Master in 1912, when he visited Hull House.

“Since our return to Honolulu, we have also co-operated with the Honolulu branch of the Women’s International League for Peace. As chairman of the Committee on Education, it has been my privilege to suggest to the study group the reading of special articles, giving the Bahá’í teaching on war and peace. It was thrilling to hear our local president of the League for Peace read ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s words at one of the regular meetings of the League.

“Through the loving co-operation of the Bahá’í friends here, we have begun a series of special meetings, inviting outside speakers of capacity. Our first speaker was Prof. Lee, professor of Chinese history and culture at the University of Hawaii, who spoke eloquently on ‘Confucius and the Confucian Prophecy for This Day’—the ‘Day of Harmony’ in the words of the Prophet. We had a large and enthusiastic meeting. Our second speaker was Dr. Percival Cole of Australia, who holds the chair of international relations at the University of Hawaii, under the Carnegie Endowment for Peace. His subject was ‘Education and International Peace’—forcefully and convincingly presented.

“Our third speaker is to be Prof. Harada of Japan and now of the University of Hawaii, on ‘Japan’s Spiritual Heritage.’ This address will be given early in May (1929) .”

The Universal House of Justice

PRELIMINARY STEPS

Even to Bahá’ís themselves, the religion of Bahá’u’lláh at first appeared to be the modern counterpart of Christianity or Islam—depending upon the believer’s race —the renewal and return of Revelation, its supreme value being the presence upon earth of the human manifestation of God. Only gradually have students become aware that this Faith is not merely religion renewed but religion fulfilled: the principle of love embodied in a definite world order.

As mentioned elsewhere in this volume, the period since the ascension of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in 1921 has been chiefly characterized by the institution of Local and National Spiritual Assemblies, with a consequent evolution of the believers in the direction of a unified international community under the Guardianship of Shoghi Effendi. The next term in this evolution, which incidentally marks the first real balance between the objective and subjective religious principles, will be the election of the Universal House of Justice, or International Spiritual Assembly, by members of the National Spiritual Assemblies as the elective bodies named in the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá.

Before that supremely important Bahá’í[Page 61]event can take place, certain requisite conditions must come into existence, more especially the liberation of believers (both men and women) throughout Persia for the formation of a National Spiritual Assembly representative of all the Bahá’ís of that land. Though circumstances are rapidly altering in Persia, only preliminary steps have as yet been taken for the election of a worldwide House of Justice. The disruption of Spiritual Assemblies in countries belonging to the Soviet Union by the exile and imprisonment of their most influential members and the expropriation of the Mashriqu’l-Adhkár in ‘Ishqábád, raises another though not perhaps insuperable obstacle of a temporary nature. The most favorable condition for the election of a thoroughly representative Universal House of Justice would be the active functioning of National Spiritual Assemblies in a sufficient number of countries to involve Bahá’ís of every religious and racial affiliation, supplying the broad basis for that superstructure crowning, with the Guardianship, the social reality of religion in the new age.

As the attention of Bahá’ís turns more and more to the contemplation of this divinely inspired institution, the difference between the Cause of Bahá’u’lláh and the historic religions becomes clearly apparent. In the religion of Bahá’u’lláh we have a divine-human Revealer, as in other religions of prophetic type, whose authentic utterances constitute a body of spiritual law; but unlike previous dispensations, Bahá’í teachings create a social structure capable of bringing the spiritual laws into practical effect. There is thus no such inherent division and antagonism between mysticism and organization as hitherto has always prevented the fruitage of the will of God in man. Replacing individual “conscience” (that last refuge of egoism and first impetus to insanity) by the collective consciousness of the Spiritual Assembly, the Bahá’í Faith supplements personal belief by the habit of loyal co-operation and the instinct of consultation. Social beings are produced, instead of limited egos, but by the attainment, not the repudiation, of true inner experience. Spiritual experience today, thanks to Bahá’u’lláh, is no mere subjective affirmation of “higher self” or selfcreated concept of God, but consists in knowledge of and obedience to the body of Bahá’í teachings. The mystical and the practical are become one, to the confusion of those who prefer either attitude alone, without the balance. Since states of development differ, and understandings are diverse, the institution of the Spiritual Assembly reconciles every set of opposites and makes possible a degree of sanity and effective co-operation such as never existed before.

The Universal House of Justice, created by the believers through election, yet removed from any partisan influence by reason of the fact that its members are chosen by electors who are elected by electors themselves elected by each local Bahá’í community, deals with those Bahá’í matters not defined in the text of the Book. It is at once a supreme court, a highest legislature, and with the Guardian, the highest executive of the Cause. It correlates for Bahá’ís in their own religious affairs the functions elsewhere divided among priests, judges, teachers, law makers and social workers.

The existence of this body in the near future will demonstrate to the world most conclusively how Bahá’u’lláh has revealed a truth for the healing of the nations.

The chapter on Persia in this record describes the many steps being taken preparatory to the election of a National Spiritual Assembly. Recent action among the Bahá’ís of ’Iráq and of India to adopt a constitution and by-laws after the model created by the American believers; the effort of the Bahá’ís of Egypt to secure the right to administer their own religious affairs apart from the laws of Islám; and the holding of an informal International Bahá’í Conference in Paris during July, 1929, are other steps leading, it is ardently hoped, to the same great goal of Bahá’í endeavor in the near future.

[Page 64]

• 
  ‘Abdu’l-Bahá

• 
  “The Greatest Holy Leaf.”
• 
  “The Most Pure Branch.”