| ←Previous | The Bahá’í World Volume 5 |
Next→ |
 Proofread once
|
IN MEMORIAM
I.
THE UNITY OF EAST AND WEST
American Bahá’í Sacrifices Her Life in Service to Persian Believers.
MRS. KEITH RANSOM-KEHLER’S MISSION
THE death of Mrs. Keith Ransom-Kehler at Iṣfahán, Persia, October 23, 1933, culminated a mission which constitutes one of the most poignant episodes in the current history of the Bahá’í Faith. The last year of this heroic believer’s life, devoted to the high aim of securing from the Persian government a removal of the ban on entry and circulation of Bahá’í literature, as well as a final lifting of the heavy disabilities laid for so many years upon Persian Bahá’ís, may be likened to a wave whose concentrated force breaks upon a rocklike obstacle, then recedes to be gathered into the body of the sea. While the obstacle remains, the force has not been spent in vain. In future years the effect of this valiant faith will be fully disclosed.
Mrs. Ransom-Kehler carried forward a mighty task on which the American Bahá’í community has exerted itself over a long period of time: the consolidation of the spiritual unity of the East and West in fulfillment of the universal principles revealed by Bahá’u’lláh. The chief obstacle to this unity has throughout the eighty-nine years of Bahá’í history consisted in the resistance made by Persia to the new conceptions of amity and fellowship created by Bahá’u’lláh, a notable expression of which was the work known as "The Mysterious Forces of Civilization” written by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá to inspire his fellow Persians with the true spirit of enlightenment and progress.
The present era of the Cause, dating from the appointment of Shoghi Effendi as Guardian in ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s Will and Testament, has witnessed a rapid development of the relations between the Bahá’í communities of Persia and America. By 1921, however, under ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s guidance, a lasting foundation had already been laid in the cooperation extended by American Bahá’ís in the work of the Tarbiat School at Ṭihrán, through donations for scholarships and also the important services rendered the School by Dr. Susan I. Moody, Miss Lillian Kappes, Dr. Clock, Dr. Genevieve Coy and Miss Elizabeth Stewart.
The Persian Bahá’ís, meanwhile, had made their own unique and eternal contribution to the American Bahá’í community through the visits of such influential Bahá’í teachers as Mirza Abu’l-Faḍl and Jinab-e-Fadel.
During 1925 an opportunity was afforded American believers to express their attitude of spiritual unity with their Persian co-workers by the transmission of funds for the relief of the believers afflicted by floods at Nariz. Since 1921, moreover, Dr. Genevieve Coy served for a term as teacher in the Tarbiat School, and her visit to Persia was followed by that of Miss Martha Root and Mrs. Siegfried Schopflocher.
In 1927 a fresh outbreak of persecutions led to the preparation of an appeal on the part of the American National Spiritual Assembly to His Majesty Reda Shah Pahlavi, copies of which were published and spread throughout the United States and Canada. Soon afterward a statement on the Cause prepared by the Assembly and addressed to leading Persian Moslems was translated into Persian by the Ṭihrán Bahá’í community, and printed copies of this statement were sent to many hundreds of influential people in that country.
Again, early in 1932 the American Bahá’í Assembly addressed petitions to the Shah and his Prime Minister that the ban on entry
Keith Ransom-Kehler, a Hand of the Cause and first American Bahá’í martyr.
[Page 391]
of Bahá’í literature be
removed. This formal representation failing
in its purpose, on
June 10, 1932, the American National
Spiritual Assembly addressed a communication
to His Majesty requesting the recognition of
Mrs. Keith Ransom-Kehler as its representative
duly chosen and empowered to present
in person its renewed appeal. This letter,
sent to Mrs. Ransom-Kehler as her credentials
for the important mission with which she
had been entrusted at Shoghi Effendi’s
request, stated in part:
“Mrs. Keith Ransom-Kehler, an American citizen, a member of the Bahá’í community of this country, and a distinguished student of the teachings and history of the Bahá’í Faith, can, with your Majesty’s gracious permission, amplify and supplement the statements made by this Assembly in the written petition addressed to your Majesty under date of January 12, 1932.
“More effectively than in our written communication, this personal representative can make clear to your Majesty how widely spread throughout America, and especially among the Bahá’ís, is the appreciation of the notable reforms which have been made in Persia as the result of your Majesty’s administration of affairs in that land. Mrs. Ransom-Kehler can likewise affirm for your Majesty the importance of the spiritual ties binding Persia and America through the reverence of the believers in both countries for the enlightened religious teachings of Bahá’u’lláh, the extraordinary effect of these teachings in paying high tribute to the prophetic character of the mission of Muḥammad, overcoming the prejudice and misunderstanding prevalent among Christians in opposition to Islám for more than one thousand years, and the high moral value Bahá’í religious teachings have had for Persia by inculcating loyalty to Government, forbidding sedition and upholding true ideals of education and humanitarian service.
"The appointment of a representative to journey to Ṭihrán for the purpose of presenting in person the petition of this Assembly will make it evident to your Majesty how profoundly the American Bahá’ís are moved by their inability to communicate fully with their fellow-religionists in Persia by reason of the Postal regulations still prohibiting the entry of Bahá’í books and magazines published in the United States and Canada.”
It will be recalled that in Bahá’í News dated October, 1932, was published this reference to Mrs. Ransom-Kehler from a letter written to the National Spiritual Assembly by the Guardian’s secretary: “Mrs. Keith Ransom-Kehler is now with us in Haifa and in a few days will start for Persia. She rendered wonderful services in both Australia and India, and Shoghi Effendi trusts that she will do the same in Persia.”
On August 20, 1932, the following cablegram was received: “Mission successful. (Signed) Keith.”
On September 14 the National Spiritual Assembly, rejoiced by this swift consummation, despatched a cablegram to the Court Minister at Ṭihrán as follows:
“On behalf American Bahá’ís we express abiding gratitude for removal ban on entry Bahá’í literature into Persia. This noble action of His Imperial Majesty’s Government has profoundly impressed Bahá’ís of the United States and Canada who have already felt strong attachment to Bahá’u’lláh’s native land. We wish to assure your Highness of our sympathy for his Imperial Majesty, our great interest in the progress and welfare of his Empire and our desire to assist in enhancing its prestige throughout the world.” This message was brought to the attention of the Persian Minister at Washington in a letter dated October 21, 1932. A statement to the American press was also issued reporting that Mrs. Ransom-Kehler had received firm assurance from the Court Minister that the postal regulations under which Bahá’í literature had been confiscated would be immediately annulled.
Before taking up the events which destroyed this hope, it is interesting to learn of the impressive reception given Mrs. Ransom-Kehler by the Persian Bahá’ís on her arrival in that land. In November, 1932, the Spiritual Assembly of Haifa, Palestine, issued a general letter throughout the Bahá’í world, from which the following excerpts are taken:
“Mrs. Keith Ransom-Kehler, the energetic and faithful Bahá’í teacher, has been the object of great enthusiasm and loving devotion on the part of the Persian believers.
[Page 392]
. . . In Tabríz several meetings were held
in the Ḥaẓíratu’l-Quds where large numbers
of Bahá’ís, both men and women, had the
pleasure of greeting the international Bahá’í
teacher. From Tabríz she proceeded to
Milan, accompanied by a group of believers.
But before leaving Tabríz, the police authorities,
apparently disturbed by the scenes of
Bahá’í rejoicing, sent warning and forbade
the believers to hold any meetings in honor
of Mrs. Ransom-Kehler at Tabríz, and requested
her to abandon her visit to Milan.
But the Spiritual Assembly immediately sent
a delegation to the authorities and upon
assuring them that no demonstrations held by
the Bahá’ís would disturb the public peace,
permission was granted for her journey to
Milan.
"A most thrilling meeting was held in Milan, where old and young believers witnessed in Mrs. Ransom-Kehler’s visit the dawn of the fulfillment of the prophecy found more than once in the Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá to the Persian Bahá’ís, that the day will come when ‘brothers and sisters from the West will arrive and help you in promoting the Cause.’
“After proceeding to Sisan, Mianej, Azarbayejan and Qazwin, Mrs. Ransom-Kehler proceeded to Ṭihrán. A reception committee, followed by a group of more than a hundred believers, met the guest at a garden about four miles from the city. Her entrance in Ṭihrán was like the visit of a queen, amid the acclamations of thousands of rejoicing Bahá’ís. Never had Ṭihrán so welcomed any guest from the West.”
Mrs. Ransom-Kehler’s own report of her successful interview with the Court Minister was written to the American National Spiritual Assembly on August 20, 1932, the brevity of the communication revealing the pressure of that physical weakness against which she struggled so gallantly to the end. “On August 15 I saw His Highness Taymur Tash and received from him the direct, unqualified assurance that Bahá’í literature would be admitted freely into Persia and permitted to circulate.”
From other sources the American Assembly learned further details of this interview. "His Highness received the Bahá’í delegate kindly and listened with attention to her appeal. He stated that the matter did not require her to seek audience with the Shah nor to send him the written petition. The former letter of the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States has been received and given due attention. ‘I hereby promise that the restrictions on the import of Bahá’í books will be removed.’ Mrs. Ransom-Kehler thereupon asked whether she could cable America and inform the American Bahá’ís of this assurance. The Court Minister replied that she most assuredly could do so and that she must consider the matter as finally settled. Mrs. Ransom-Kehler then asked whether she might arrange to have her own Bahá’í books sent to her for use while in Persia, and the Minister said there was no reason why she might not do so.”
It was not until the receipt of a letter from Mrs. Ransom-Kehler dated January 20, 1933, that the American Bahá’ís learned that the assurance given their representative by the Court Minister had not become fruitful in action. In that letter she stated that the Bahá’í books shipped to her from Beirut had been confiscated, and that she had written the Court Minister to acquaint him with this fact and renew her petition on behalf of the American Bahá’ís. This letter also conveyed the disturbing information that, during a visit to Azarbayejan, the Governor General had refused to receive her and moreover that police orders had been issued forcing the abandonment of meetings arranged in her honor by the local Bahá’ís.
Later, press dispatches from Persia reported that changes had been made in the office of Court Minister, making it clear that all of Mrs. Ransom-Kehler’s work would have to be done over again.
Undiscouraged, Mrs. Ransom-Kehler immediately arranged an interview with the Secretary charged with American affairs at the Foreign Office. In a report of this conversation sent to the American Assembly, the following significant statement is quoted:
“He informed me that at the present time
our Bahá’í literature could not circulate in
Persia for three reasons. First, that it is
contrary to the constitution of Persia to
recognize any religion founded after Islám,
and, since the Bahá’í religion cannot legally
receive recognition, it follows that our
[Page 393]
literature must remain unrecognized.
Second, that it is contrary to the constitution of
Persia to permit the circulation of any literature
opposed to Islám. Third, that the
circulation of Bahá’í literature at this time
might cause grave internal disorders that
would bring much suffering to the Bahá’ís
themselves.”
This interview was in fact also reported to the Shah himself, in a letter which the valiant American Bahá’í addressed to him on February 25, 1933, in a supreme effort to fulfil her delicate and difficult mission. “In my report to America,” she informed his Majesty, “I shall be constrained to admit that I must have misunderstood completely the purpose and intent of the interpreter, for exhaustive investigation reveals no reference in the Constitution of Persia to the status of religions founded later than Islám.
“Since every Bahá’í before he can so designate himself‘must accept the validity of the Prophet Muḥammad and display toward the Qur’án the same reverence as that shown by the most orthodox Muslim, and since this attitude is inculcated through Bahá’í literature, the point of excluding it because it is opposed to Islám will, I fear, be incomprehensible. . . . I shall await your Majesty’s authority to submit the result of my conversation with the Foreign Office, herein set forth, to the proper Bahá’í centers throughout the world; for I have no desire, a second time, to find myself mistaken as to your Majesty’s intention.”
This appeal to the Shah receiving no reply, the National Spiritual Assembly in America, realizing that its report to the press stating that the ban on entry of Bahá’í literature into Persia had been removed was proved untrue, dispatched to its representative in Persia another communication to be presented to the Shah. This communication was dated March 27, 1933. A portion is quoted, as follows:
“Information has been received which leads us to believe that the permission granted in your Majesty’s name by your Majesty’s Minister of Court some months ago removing the ban on the entrance of Bahá’í literature into Persia has now been withdrawn.
“We trust that events will prove our present understanding of your Majesty’s intention to be incorrect. The recent gracious action of your Majesty in asserting the power of religious freedom and opening the door to the amenities of international communication customary in modern lands was by us immediately communicated to all leading newspapers in the United States and Canada together with an expression of our grateful recognition of your Majesty’s response to our petition.
“This announcement to the press was considered by us of extreme importance in view of the fact that it is among American Bahá’ís that the love and admiration for Persia and its people is most pronounced. The effect of the Bahá’í teachings upon believers in all countries outside of Persia has for many years been to establish not only an attitude of spiritual respect for the historic greatness of Persia but also a firm and unyielding confidence in the future greatness and worldwide influence of the Persian people.
“The responsibility seems now resting upon us to inform the press that our previous communication, made in perfect good faith, must now be withdrawn.
“The press in America exercises such far-reaching influence that we have ever been most scrupulous and careful in authorizing only the most conservative and accurate statements. The American press has become aware that on account of the existence of Bahá’í communities in many lands the American National Spiritual Assembly is well informed and enjoys unusual sources of information. Our devotion to the spiritual character of the Faith of Bahá’u’lláh makes it incumbent upon us to maintain our reputation with newspaper editors of unfailing sincerity and reliable accuracy.
“Our petition we entrust to our accredited representative, Mrs. Keith Ransom-Kehler, who, at our request, traveled to Persia many months ago in order to represent the Bahá’ís of the United States and Canada in our appeal to your Majesty and your Majesty’s Government for a favorable and final decision in the matter of the entrance and circulation of Bahá’í literature.”
Mrs. Ransom-Kehler presented the foregoing
communication to the Shah in a letter
dated Ṭihrán, April 23, 1933. Meanwhile,
on April 3, she addressed his Majesty once
[Page 394]
again in a letter which pointed out her
obligation to report the results of her mission
in Persia, and with that letter enclosed a
detailed summary of her interview with the
Foreign Office.
Before the opening of the Annual Convention of American Bahá’ís on June 1, 1933, it had become clear to the National Spiritual Assembly that the matter had come to no favorable decision, and reports were received which indicated even a recurrence of the physical maltreatment of Persian Bahá’ís. On advice of Shoghi Effendi the problem was accordingly laid before the assembled Convention delegates, with the result that the delegates unanimously pledged their support in the National Assembly’s effort to alleviate these dire conditions.
In order to carry out the spirit of this action, the Assembly on July 10, 1933, sent personal representatives with a communication to present to the Persian Minister at Washington, thus opening a new phase in the progress of the matter.
Meanwhile, though her physical illness had increased, Mrs. Keith Ransom-Kehler, as afterward learned, had been continuing her efforts in Ṭihrán. Thus, in a letter dated June 8, 1933, she once more addressed the Persian Shah, in a letter which stands as an expression of deep concern at the unfavorable conditions existing for the Persian Bahá’ís, with a most passionate and devoted resolve to leave no stone unturned in effort to change the official attitude. Some excerpts follow:
“A year ago this month I reached Persia as representative of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States and Canada, having traveled halfway around the world to present a petition on their behalf to your gracious Majesty requesting the removal of the ban on entry and circulation of Bahá’í literature in Persia.
“This petition was framed because of the incalculable blessings which your Majesty’s reign has bestowed upon Persia; because of the advancement, the liberation and the protection which, under the firm and spectacular power exhibited by your Majesty, have elevated this sacred land of ours to the forefront of progress and revival.
"Certainly it would have been folly to have sent such a communication in any period preceding your Majesty’s accession, for at that time ears were deaf to every plea of justice, and Persia had become the tragic plaything of wilful, corrupt and ruthless lords.
“But mindful of the great blessings which have flowed from your Majesty’s enlightened rule, the Bahá’ís of the United States and Canada felt that the time was now ripe, that the amazing accomplishments of your Majesty now favored the idea of consummating the complete emancipation of the Bahá’ís of Persia from the trammels and deprivations inherited from the dark past. . . .
“We must look not to Shah Abbas nor to Nadir Shah but to the distant past—to the days of Cyrus, Darius and Jamsheed—for anything comparable to the accomplishments which in twelve brief years have characterized your Majesty’s achievements. . . .
“These were the ideas we had in mind when petitioning your Majesty to remove this last barrier from the pathway of Bahá’í freedom and progress in Persia by according us the privilege of the press, an ordinary civil right in all but the most backward of countries.
“In fact, in the Minutes of the Twenty-Second Session of the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations we find the statement (pages 41-42): ‘Was it said that the Bahá’ís were such a small minority in ‘Iráq that there was no need to bother about them? It was the very fact that the minority was a small one that made it necessary for the authorities to safeguard its rights. It showed the weakness of the ‘Iráqi Government; the power which an intolerant majority had over it’—and this record has gone out not only to the fifty-six nations that comprise the League but to the whole world, carrying this reproach to the ‘Iráqi Government for its treatment of the Bahá’ís.
“The Bahá’ís of Persia are not a weak and helpless minority; we stand in numbers next to the State religion; but as the League report further says, ‘The Bahá’ís are by their religion, tenets and character of an extremely conciliatory disposition.’
“For that reason they patiently endure
whatever hardships are imposed upon them
[Page 395]
by their governments, and for that same
reason they are worthy of the utmost trust
and confidence from those in authority. . . .
“The numerous communications . . . which I have had the honor of addressing to the Crown since my interview at the Foreign Office have had but one purpose: that of ascertaining in definite and dependable form whether or not the amazing and feeble statements given me there were really in accord with your Majesty’s intent and desire.”
Bahá’ís of Ṭihrán bidding farewell to Keith Ransom-Kehler on her departure to Iṣfáhán.
To every Cabinet Minister and to the President of Parliament, Mrs. Ransom-Kehler sent on July 3, 1933, a letter containing the following statements:
"It would give me great pleasure to place in your hands portions of our Bahá’í literature in order to prove the great contribution that it has made to the advancement of Islám in countries unfriendly to its reception; but although Jewish, Christian and Zoroastrian literature, all opposed to Islám, is permitted to circulate, our Bahá’í literature that upholds and converts to Islám is denied this privilege. Therefore I have nothing available to present to you.
“In the Post Offices and Customs of Persia, however, are thousands of volumes that have been confiscated. Even a brief survey of any one of these will prove that Bahá’u’lláh lays down as fundamental, loyalty to one’s government, and the sanctity and verity of Islám.”
On that same day, moreover, the representative of the American Bahá’ís felt compelled to appeal once more to the Shah. “To my horror and grief I have just heard of the burning, on the part of your Majesty’s officials in Kirmanshah, of the sacred photographs of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. I am fully convinced that such a sacrilege has been committed without the knowledge of your Majesty, for it is fundamentally contrary to the policy of expansion, protection and tolerance that have characterized your Majesty’s evident intent with regard to the advancement of Persia.
“It is because I am certain that such an infamy was perpetrated without the knowledge or consent of your Majesty that I am presenting this memorandum to acquaint your Majesty with these high-handed and abominable outrages committed by your Majesty’s irresponsible servants. . . .
“Assuredly the most precious and sacred
[Page 396]
thing in life
to any man is his religious conviction.
Without hesitation thousands of
Bahá’ís have given their lives for their faith.
That flame that once burned in Persia alone
has now enkindled the world. The Bahá’ís
as a body stand ready if necessary to die for
the protection of their belief. We are willing
to endure any degree of injustice and
persecution ourselves but, when it comes to
regarding with other than outraged
sentiment a gratuitous indignity offered to that
illustrious example of human perfection,
‘Abdu’l-Bahá, the Bahá’ís of the world arise
in the full strength of their solidarity to
utter a vehement protest.
"In His Will and Testament, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá gives us this last instruction: ‘Consort with all the peoples, kindreds and religions of the world with the utmost truthfulness, uprightness, faithfulness, kindliness, good will and friendliness; that all the world of being may be filled with the holy ecstasy of the grace of Bahá; that ignorance, enmity, hate and rancor may vanish from the world and the darkness of estrangement amidst the peoples and kindreds of the world may give way to the light of unity.’
“Is the one who uttered such words of peace and reconciliation worthy of suppression and desecration?
"I now with the most intense fervor supplicate and implore your Majesty to put a final stop to these fanatical persecutions that disgrace in the eyes of men the annals of Persia’s former rulers, by removing this ban against Bahá’í literature, that bids fair if it continues to involve the world in contempt for this sacred land.”
The Minister of Education, replying in a letter dated “bitarikh 28—4—1312. No. 9880/4320” to the communication which Mrs. Ransom-Kehler sent to all members of the Cabinet, made this significant statement: “I would inform you that today all individuals and inhabitants of the country, whether Muḥammadans or people of other nations, are resting in the cradle of tranquillity and security under the shadow of the power and grandeur of His Majesty Shahanshah Pahlavi, may our souls be sacrificed for him, and they benefit equally from the privilege of existing laws. But in the meantime new publications which are considered contrary to the official religion of the country or its political aspect can not be agreed to.”
Meanwhile, as it became apparent that communications addressed to the ruler did not penetrate the official entourage and reach the Shah himself, the American Assembly, as already mentioned, applied to the Persian Minister at Washington. The letter dated July 10, 1933, was presented to the Minister by three representatives. It read, in part, as follows:
“Your Excellency: On October 21, 1932, the members of this American Bahá’í Assembly sent to the Persian Legation at Washington a copy of a cablegram which on September 14, 1932, had been dispatched to the Minister of the Court in Teherán.
“This communication was acknowledged by Mr. Y. Azodi, Charge d’Affaires, under date of October 22, 1932.
“In substance, the cablegram sent to the Court Minister on behalf of the American Bah’áís expressed abiding gratitude for the decision to remove the ban on entry and circulation of Bahá’í literature in Persia.
“On March 27, 1933, as the result of unexpected information indicating that this decision had either been reversed or never made effective, we addressed a respectful petition to His Imperial Majesty Reza Shah Pahlavi, expressing our profound hope that our understanding of the matter was incorrect and referring to the fact that the American Bahá’ís had informed the press that the ban had been removed, and in the event that this statement proved to be unfounded the Bahá’ís would be reluctantly obliged to make it clear to the press that Bahá’í literature is still prohibited from entry and circulation in Persia.
“This petition we forwarded to our personal representative in Teherán, Mrs. Keith Ransom-Kehler, a Bahá’í and American citizen, with the request that it be communicated to his Majesty on our behalf.
"To our astonishment and regret, during May, 1933, we learned that not only is the ban on literature still rigorously applied, but that Bahá’ís in Persia are even incurring physical maltreatment at the present time.
“These circumstances were considered by
the delegates representing sixty American
[Page 397]
cities who met in Annual Convention in the
Foundation Hall of the Bahá’í House of
Worship at Wilmette, Illinois, from June 1
to 4, 1933.
“It seems desirable to inform your Excellency that the Twenty-Fifth Annual Convention of the Bahá’ís of the United States and Canada adopted unanimously the following resolution:
- ‘Resolved, that the delegates of the Twenty-Fifth Annual Convention representing sixty communities of the United States and Canada, realizing the burdens of oppression still laid upon their brethren of Persia, recommend and urge the National Spiritual Assembly to take immediate action to bring about the cessation of the reported maltreatment of our Bahá’í brethren, to secure the entry of Bahá’í literature and to restore the constitutional provision for the printing and circulation of Bahá’í literature within Persia;
- ‘And be it further resolved, that the delegates pledge the support of the local Bahá’í communities to the National Spiritual Assembly in its effort to carryout the terms of this appeal.’
“In view of this action on the part of the Annual Convention, expressing the deep concern and heart-felt anxiety of all American Bahá’ís to assist in bringing about a final alleviation of all civil disabilities still suffered by our beloved brothers and co-workers in Persia, the National Spiritual Assembly has requested its chairman and secretary to call upon your Excellency and respectfully request your good offices in bringing our petition to the notice of the Persian Government.
“In discharging this grave responsibility, we respectfully point out to your Excellency the unique ties of sympathetic fellowship which have long united the Bahá’ís of America and Persia. For many years the Bahá’ís of the United States and Canada have courageously upheld the Prophethood of Muḥammad as one of the divine Messengers, in the face of the traditional antipathy and indifference of a predominantly Christian population. In publishing and distributing the literature of our Faith we are actively promoting the reality of Muḥammad as well as the reality of Jesus. By accepting Muḥammad as a Prophet inspired with the same Holy Spirit as Jesus, we have entered into a spiritual unity with the Persian Bahá’ís without parallel in the history of the East or of the West. We state with all emphasis that apart from this spiritual bond of faith in the one God of all mankind, the relations of the various peoples and nations of the world are uncertain and replete with peril of war and economic chaos.
“After entertaining the hope that the ancient land of Persia had been granted the high privilege of a regime based upon fearless justice, the very foundation of civilization, we cannot but deplore the survival from the past of indications that free intercourse on the part of American citizens with loyal citizens of Persia on matters of purely spiritual interest is prevented by regulations imposed by Persian authorities.
“The Bahá’ís of America assert very frankly to your Excellency their unhappiness because of the fact that unfounded prejudice against the Bahá’ís of Persia, whether emanating from atheistic or from ecclesiastical sources, can in this day and age find sanction from authorities of the State. Without this sanction, active or passive, it would be impossible to forbid the entry and circulation of a sacred literature which one day will be recognized as the glory of Persia, while at the same time permitting the entry and circulation of other religious literature the essential purpose of which is to defame the founder of Islám and overthrow the very foundation of Persian culture and ideals. . . .
“The outcome of this representation will, we trust, enable the National Spiritual Assembly to inform the local Bahá’í communities that their determined desire to assist in removing the disabilities and maltreatment of their Persian brothers has been completely realized.”
On July 26, 1933, the Assembly reported
to Mrs. Ransom-Kehler a summary of actions
taken by American Bahá’ís in the matter of
conditions affecting the Persian believers,
with the request that she communicate these
facts and the attitude of the American
Bahá’ís, to the officials of the Persian
Government, and report the results, that
the Assembly might inform the local
American Bahá’í
[Page 398]
communities whether their Convention resolution
had borne fruit. The answer came
in this message, cabled by Mrs.
Ransom-Kehler on September 10:
“Petition unanswered.”
The grief and disappointment caused by this outcome of her mission, magnified by exhaustion resulting from self-sacrificing effort to meet every opportunity to visit and address Bahá’í gatherings in Persia, reduced Mrs. Ransom-Kehler’s strength to such a degree that on October 23, 1933, while at Iṣfahán, this consecrated follower of Bahá’u’lláh fell victim to small pox and succumbed within a few brief hours.
This grievous event was announced in Bahá’í News of November, 1933, as follows:
“On October 27, 1933, the Spiritual Assembly of Ṭihrán, Persia, cabled the startling news that Mrs. Keith Ransom-Kehler had passed into the spiritual Kingdom. With burning hearts the Persian Bahá’ís conveyed their grief at this mysterious culmination of our sister's special mission in the land of the birth of the Faith of Bahá’u’lláh.
“The beloved Guardian on October 30 dispatched this message: ‘Keith’s precious life offered up in sacrifice to beloved Cause in Bahá’u’lláh’s native land. On Persian soil, for Persia’s sake, she encountered, challenged and fought the forces of darkness with high distinction, indomitable will, unswerving, exemplary loyalty. The mass of her helpless Persian brethren mourns the sudden loss of their valiant emancipator. American believers grateful and proud of the memory of their first and distinguished martyr. Sorrow stricken, I lament my earthly separation from an invaluable collaborator, an unfailing counsellor, an esteemed and faithful friend. I urge the Local Assemblies befittingly to organize memorial gatherings in memory of one whose international services entitled her to an eminent rank among the Hands of the Cause of Bahá’u’lláh.’ (Signed) Shoghi.
"A message from the American Consul at Ṭihrán, communicated through the Secretary of State, brought the information that Keith had passed on at Iṣfahán on October 23.
“With the approval of Mrs. Keith Ransom-Kehler’s nearest relative, a message was cabled to the Ṭihrán Assembly asking that burial be arranged at Iṣfahán under Bahai auspices, and stating that the American Assembly will construct a permanent memorial.
“Shoghi Effendi, on November 3, sent this message: ‘Instructed Iṣfahán Assembly to inter Keith in the vicinity of the grave of Sultanushushuada, surnamed by Bahá’u’lláh “King of Martyrs.” ’
"The detailed reports which our beloved sister has during the past year sent from Ṭihrán, to convey information on the result of her mission, as the representative of the American believers chosen by the Guardian, to secure from the Persian Government the lifting of the ban on entry of Bahá’í literature and also removal of the difficulties and hardships placed upon the Persian Bahá’ís, form one of the precious and important historical records of the Cause. A summary of these reports will be published in Bahá’í News next month.
“Local Spiritual Assemblies and groups are requested to arrange memorial meetings in accordance with the Guardian’s wish.”
The papers of New York and other cities reported in detail the news of the death of this American citizen in Persia. The following statement was published in the "New York American” on October 28, 1933:
“Mrs. Keith Ransom-Kehler, who spent the last year in Teherán, Persia, as representative of the American National Bahá’í Assembly, died in that city on October 25, it was reported in a cable received yesterday by the Assembly from the secretary of the Teherán Bahá’í community.
"In August, 1932, Mrs. Ransom-Kehler, after two years’ travel in China, Japan and India as a Bahá’í teacher, went to Persia on a special mission to represent the American Bahá’ís in appealing to the Shah’s government for removal of the ban on entry of Bahá’í literature into the country of the origin of the world religion established by Bahá’u’lláh nearly seventy years ago.
“From the Court Minister, Mrs. Keith Ransom-Kehler received assurance that the prohibition, passed under the former régime while the Muḥammedan clergy were at the height of their power, would be rescinded.
“This promise was, however, unfulfilled, and Mrs. Keith Ransom-Kehler devoted the remaining months of her life to the task of penetrating the imperial entourage and
Grave of Keith Ransom-Kehler, Iṣfahán, Persia.
Grave of the Sultánu’sh-Shuhadá (King of Martyrs), near which Keith Ransom-Kehler was buried.
[Page 400]
presenting to the Shah
in person a formal petition prepared
by the American Bahá’í Assembly on
behalf of the sixty Bahá’í communities
of the United States and Canada.
“The American Bahá’ís will erect in Teherán (correctly Iṣfahán) a memorial to commemorate the work of Mrs. Ransom-Kehler, the second American Bahá’í to die in Persia while serving the cause of unity and international peace.”
That memorial, we may be assured, will in future be visited by innumerable Bahá’ís of West and East as a shrine marking the physical interment of a pure and valiant Bahá’í spirit who, not in vain, sacrificed its earthly existence for the sake of the believers in that land.
The above statement has been prepared in reverent acknowledgment of Mrs. Ransom-Kehler’s mighty services to the Bahá’í Faith, that the worldwide community of believers may know what has been done to this date in effort to assist in bringing about freedom and security for the Baha is of Persia.
————————
II.
Your Majesty,
In a matter of vital importance to a vast number of people, I took the liberty, a few weeks ago, of invoking Your Majesty’s assistance.
Your Majesty’s Foreign Office has given me information so strange, so inconsistent and out of keeping with Your Majesty’s recognized policies that before making this interview public it seemed only wise and just to inform Your Majesty of its tenor.
For that reason I summarized its main points and submitted them for approval to Your Majesty before dispatching this news to the world.
Having as yet received no reply from the Throne I am now, with humble supplication, presenting my full report to Your Majesty hoping and praying that Your Majesty will indicate your good-pleasure in this matter, since I have nothing in mind but the satisfaction and approval of Your Just and Gracious Majesty.
The National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís is of the United States and Canada, an officially incorporated body, is now pressing me for further information concerning their petition. This petition has already been granted by a then-accredited Minister of the Crown. They are therefore at a loss to understand why the question involved in their petition remains in its former status.
Since this is a matter of international import may I again, very beseechingly, request Your Majesty to give me an authentic answer concerning the enclosed report.
- Relying on Your Majesty’s grace
Very respectfully,
- (Sgd.) KEITH RANSOM-KEHLER.
To:
- His Imperial Majesty
- the Shahanshah of Persia
- Riza Shah Pahlevi,
Ṭ i h r á n.
National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States and Canada.
Dear Bahá’í friends:
My delay in submitting this report is due to my having summarized it in a petition to His Imperial Majesty requesting that He consent to affirm its accuracy.
You are already too familiar with my experience of last summer when a then accredited Minister of the Crown gave me a firm and solemn assurance that has since been entirely disregarded and that now seems to be invalid. In order to avoid the repetition of sending wrong or inaccurate information around the world a second time it seemed to me more fitting to ascertain the authenticity of what I am about to set forth.
His Majesty not having seen fit to reply to my supplication on the one hand, and your request for further information on the other, now necessitate the following response.
With the sanction of the ex-Minister of
[Page 401]
Court, as already reported, I sent for some
Bahá’í books. When they were examined by
the Customs authorities I was denied the
right to receive them. Astonished and
perplexed I at once wrote the former Minister
to inquire why his definite and unqualified
promise was being disregarded.
There was no response to my inquiry and very shortly thereafter he was dismissed.
You can imagine my concern to find that all of our efforts, hopes and past assurance have proven valueless and that the matter of the circulation of our literature is in a worse condition today in this advanced régime than it was some years ago, when there was no ban against it.
I confess that my ingenuity is becoming more and more taxed to understand this violent opposition, on the part of certain Ministers and those in political posts, to our Faith. Like the intelligentsia in every land today, many educated Persians regard religion as a matter of minor consideration, except a negligible percentage who still display a formal loyalty to Islám. The daughter of a Persian in the diplomatic service, whom I met abroad, answered when asked her religious allegiance, “Le Lion et le Soleil,” (the ancient symbol of Persia).
Here are the Bahá’ís scattered round the world, protecting the prestige and advancing the interests of Persia; making of every Bahá’í convert an adherent of Persia’s state religion, Islám; Persian Bahá’ís, like all others scrupulously refraining from any political activity; serving with honesty and zeal in administrative posts; loyally supporting the progressive policies of the Government; what more could a politician ask? Of course if they want us to say that the Qa’im has not come thirty thousand Bahá’ís, with joy and valor, have looked upon death as a less formidable alternative.
Perhaps a reason for this resentment is because we of other lands have widely and easily succeeded in making friends for Persia where Persians themselves have been less successful; perhaps it is the mediaeval reflex that still grips the minds of those emerging from the dark night of Persia’s ignorance and fanaticism into the Shining Era of Pahlavi; perhaps the larger, richer, fuller outlook on life given in the Bahá’í teachings causes instinctive dread on the part of generations constrained through dogmatism and repressed by hereditary conservatism. Whatever the reason, we see the amazing phenomenon of those both in and out of Persia who are devoting themselves to her advancement, persecuted, dispossessed and reviled, by Persians.
One of the most intelligent and well informed men in Persia is Mr. Mohammed Ali Khan Furuqi, former Persian Secretary to the League of Nations and now Foreign Minister. Of his great ability there is not the slightest doubt. I have heard a rumor to the effect that his father supported the claim of Yahya, brother of Bahá’u’lláh, called Subhi Ezel, and, though this group is now practically extinct, the few remaining Ezelis are still animated by their only raison d’êtres, that of opposing, thwarting and persecuting the Bahá’ís to the extent of their capacity.
The first rigid exclusion of our literature
was when Mirza Furuqi was Minister of
Finance. If our information be correct, from
him probably emanated this suggestion that
was enacted by the Council. At the interview
which I am about to discuss, his Secretary
for America informed me that this
practice has now become so firmly entrenched
that even the Shah Himself (who,
perhaps as a matter of routine, signed this
decree when President of the Council) is now
helpless to reverse it, for fear of an uprising.
Naturally the Secretary did not state it that
way; he merely said that to remove this ban
would cause internal disorder; but there is
no other logical inference that can be deduced
from his admission. When we recall
the brilliant and spectacular manner in which
His Majesty with astounding intrepidity,
and no untoward results, changed many of
the age-old customs of this country we are,
of course, constrained to conclude that this
regulation, supposedly devised by the present
Foreign Minister and superimposed in the
midst of the vicious and corrupt conditions
of the past, now constitutes a law so powerful
that even a new and advanced dynasty is
forced to respect it. However, I will discuss
this further in its proper place. It is
certainly shocking enough, wherever it is
discussed that members of His Majesty’s
[Page 402]
Government should, with
perfect candor, give out such discreditable
information to foreigners. It is well that
such an astonishing admission of Persia’s
weakness should have
been made to a friend and lover of Persia who
thoroughly disbelieves and denies it, instead
of to an enemy.
The Minister of Posts and Telegraph was kind enough to grant me an interview and treated me with the utmost courtesy and respect. I was filled with gratitude for the consideration which he showed me. The Persians are unrivalled for suavity, courtesy and hospitality. But on two occasions he has denied the use of the public telegraph for Bahá’í communications; one a death message, when the Ṭihrán Assembly wished to inform Persian Bahá’ís of the ascension of the Greatest Holy Leaf.
So you see that these Ministers, most vitally concerned in the question of Bahá’í publications and printing, are not cordially disposed toward the Cause.
Having twice importuned the Shahanshah for an audience, so that there could be no mistake as to His intentions and desire, I was summoned after some weeks to the Foreign Office. On that very day I was seized with a violent attack of sciatica and was unable to touch my foot to the floor for more than a week. Finally when I was up and about again an appointment was made for me, after office hours to avoid interruptions.
I was very fortunate in having the matter handled by the Secretary for American Affairs, Mr. Shayesteh, a gentleman of much affability and sincere kindliness who extended to me the greatest courtesy. Mr. Assadi was my interpreter. Being a Columbia University M.A. he was admirable for this work.
How strange the ways of God, that I, a poor, feeble, old woman from the distant West, should be pleading for liberty and justice in the land of Bahá’u’lláh, who has given to the world its most advanced standards of humanitarianism and enlightenment.
After the interchange of usual compliments, I introduced the subject by speaking of the love and loyalty which the Bahá’ís the world entertain toward Persia.
As is customary in such cases the gentleman spoke of the friendly relations between Persia and America, and of how much Persia appreciated these sentiments on the part of the West. I hastened, as I always do on such occasions which are constantly recurring, (for it does not suit the purposes of official Persia to admit the vital and valuable service which the Bahá’ís everywhere are rendering to this land), I hastened to inform him that to the bulk of our hundred and thirty millions Persia is a mere name—just another Oriental country; while the money contributed for schools, hospitals and the like represents to the American church—goer no definite love for this country, since the donor is unconcerned whether it goes to China, Siam, Turkey or Persia as long as it is saving infidels and converting heathen. With more persistence than tact I never leave this subject until it is definitely understood that the sentiments which the Bahá’ís entertain toward Persia and the international service which we are rendering to Persia is not to be confused with anything else.
Mr. Shayesteh inquired politely as to our numbers, asking if many Christians had left their faith to embrace this teaching. At once I explained that the phenomenal progress of the Bahá’í Cause in every land is due to its support and reenforcement of the great religious teachings of the world: that a Jew to become a Bahá’í must acknowledge Jesus; that a Christian to become a Bahá’í must acknowledge Zoroaster; that a Hindu to become a Bahá’í must accept Muḥammad; that the Bahá’í teachings attack no belief, do not require the relinquishment of one’s faith, but protect the sanctities and enhance the spiritual value of every religion.
"It might be possible for Christians to argue this way and to accept the Bahá’í Cause while remaining Christians; but to the Moslem the idea is absolutely impossible. To reconcile being a Bahá’í and a Moslem would be outside the limits of Islám.”
“The idea of being a Bahá’í and a Moslem
is no less comprehensible to the non-Bahá’í
Moslem, than being a Bahá’í and a Christian
is to the non-Bahá’í Christian: it offers to
the fanatical and dogmatic Christian the
same obstacles which you have described as
applying to the Moslem. But certainly to the
Bahá’í Moslem and to the Bahá’í Christian
no such obstacles exist, the proof being that
[Page 403]
we have not abandoned
our original faith. The fact that we
have a vast concourse of
Moslem Bahá’ís who have reconciled the two
beliefs, demonstrates that this attitude has
not proved as difficult to many millions of
Moslems as your suggestion would imply.”
The Secretary gave an interesting account of Sufism and Sheikhism, showing that they were philosophies, a way of life which, though the Persian might not accept, he could understand; while the Bahá’í Cause offered a challenge to Islám. Of course I fully agreed that the Bahá’í teachings offer a challenge to the world, since they enfold a new civilization.
“But,” said the Secretary with amiability, “we will discuss these abstruse points at future meetings.” It seemed from this that there was to be a complete interchange of views. I was astonished and gratified.
And now the real purpose of the interview was broached. “You have written requesting an audience with His Majesty?” he suggested kindly.
“Yes,” I answered, “on a subject of vital importance to millions of people: the free entry and circulation of Bahá’í literature.”
Throughout the interview Mr. Shayesteh spoke in the most conciliatory and tactful way. I am full of admiration for his gentleness and delicacy.
“The Bahá’ís must show great patience in this matter; in due course of time this will be possible, but now it is necessary to wait. Being a foreigner you cannot understand the laws of Persia. It is against our constitution to admit literature contrary to Islám.”
Naturally it was a blow to hear that the promise and assurance of an accredited Minister of the Crown, given me only a few months before, were untrustworthy and invalid. But at once I rallied sufficiently to say that our literature supports Islám, converts to Islám, defends Islám, and gave the classic example of Queen Marie’s having, as a Bahá’í convert, acknowledged the authenticity of Muḥammad in the English-speaking press.
I then repeated the same thing that I had said to the former Minister of Court: “The Bahá’ís of the West are at a total loss to comprehend why Jews, Zoroastrians, Christians and Hindus who violently oppose Islám, are permitted to import and print their literature, while the Bahá’ís, who embrace and support Islám, are denied this simple, civil right.”
The answer was not verbal, being only a bland smile. For on the basis of both logic and justice this must be quite as incomprehensible to the intelligent Persian as to the average Occidental.
“It is contrary to the law,” the Secretary continue , "to recognize any religion founded after Islám; since the Bahá’í Movement cannot be recognized its literature can have no standing.”
This information nearly overwhelmed me. I did not know how it could be possible that no one had ever informed me of this condition, since the basis of our teaching is respect for the law of the land. Of course if this thing that we have been pressing were contrary to law nothing more could be done about it.
Immediately upon leaving the Foreign Office I hastened to make inquiry, for this represented an obstacle so grave as to check any future activity in the matter. To my intense relief I found that neither the Constitution nor constitutional law makes any reference to religions founded after Islám. Some one argued, however, that since Moslems believe in the finality of Islám and since Islám is the constitutional state religion that this involves the repudiation of any later religion.
The established state religion of England is Christianity. Church and state are one; the bishops of the church of England sit in the House of Lords. Christianity teaches that no religion will follow it. Jesus will come and all other religions will be abrogated. Along this line of argument Moslems should have no rights in England and Islamic literature should be barred. But instead the Moslems have their Mosque and the Qur’án is even taught in the universities. This is the practice of enlightened countries everywhere. Since all civilized lands offer complete religious freedom, these gentlemen were placing themselves in the awkward position of saying that Persia is not fully civilized—an admission which I should think they would be the last to make.
On this point, brought up two or three
[Page 404]
times as the conversation progressed, I must
have misunderstood entirely the information
that was being conveyed, for the constitution
not only does not deny recognition to
later religions but says that every citizen of
Persia has equal rights before the law.
As I sat there, through my mind kept running the query, why if the circulation of our literature is contrary to law should the Secretary have assured me at the very outset that presently this privilege would be granted? I did not press many queries not advance many arguments for, after all, the kind Secretary could do no differently from his instructions, and could exercise no final authority. My purpose was not to debate with him, since he was only an intermediary, but to gather as full information as possible concerning the viewpoint of his superiors: he probably thought me a rather inept and easily-persuaded old woman.
“In spite of all the bloodshed, all the oppression, all the appalling cruelty of the past Persia has never been able to do enough to the Bahá’ís to make us hate her. To whatever degree these persecutions may be continued we will always remain loyal to this land and venerate and serve it as the home of Bahá’u’lláh.”
The Secretary looked distinctly embarrassed.
“But the Persians have always been tolerant,” he said. I regret that I was sufficiently undisciplined to laugh out loud: the idea was so quaint.
“You must certainly have been informed of the 30,000 martyrs whom the Persian Bahá’ís have offered in the pathway of God?” I inquired.
Both men looked unaffectedly amazed.
“Certainly not so many,” ventured Mr. Assadi.
“On the authority of European historians, to whom the matter made no difference one way or the other, it is so estimated.”
They then accepted the statement without further opposition.
"But the Bahá’ís killed the Persians, too,” I was told.
“They were all Persians,” I answered; “but no Bahá’í ever killed a Persian or anyone else. The Bábís, who were attacked by the Imperial Army for the avowed purpose of extermination, defended themselves; but Bahá’u’lláh, who came after the Báb, taught that ‘it is better to be slain than to slay.’ ”
“To us they are all the same, Bábís and Bahá’ís.”
“The Bábís became Bahá’ís but there were many differences in their teaching,” I answered. I couldn’t help wondering if in America we would entrust to those not completely informed a discussion with a foreign representative, such as I am here.
“The Persians have never shown the religious intolerance of the Europeans,” repeated the Secretary. I make no attempt to fathom his purpose in this statement; whether he assumed that I was uninformed of the notorious cruelty practised by the Persians toward Jews, Zoroastrians and Kaffirs generally, or whether he himself was uninformed. “Woe betide the first Jew who crossed the path of a Persian on a holy day,” I quoted Lord Curzon. “What of the humiliating suppression of the Zoroastrians who could not even wear a new dress?”
“But they did not harm them,” was the lame reply, as if such persecutions were harmless. I dropped the discussion: I was not there to argue nor antagonize, but to gather valuable information. A recollection of “the fiendish ingenuity of the torture-mongers of Ṭihrán,” as described by Count de Gobineau, Nicholas, Lord Curzon, Captain von Goumoens and others flashed through my mind, however. I remembered my meeting a few days before with a young Bahá’í, shockingly disfigured, because in infancy he had been thrust into an oven by these harmless people, and was thereby partially cooked.
Please do not forget when reading this that in every instance the atmosphere was kept perfectly clear and quiet. There was no tension; the suavity and affability of the Secretary never relaxed.
“It would be a very ill-advised thing to
remove this ban on Bahá’í literature at
present. You have just spoken of the Bahá’ís
who lost their lives. It is for the protection
of the Bahá’ís themselves that this petition
from America is denied. The result of granting
it might be fraught with the gravest
danger to the Bahá’ís themselves. The Shah
is a kind father to all his subjects; a father
[Page 405]
loves all of his children alike; it is to save
and help the Bahá’ís that the request is
denied for the present. Later it can be
granted, but this must be gradual; now is
not the time.”
This was positively too much. First I am told that the Persians are tolerant and harmless; then, that if other Persians obtain ordinary civil rights they will likely be butchered by their tolerant and harmless Persian brothers; Persians against Persians, not against outsiders. It was like the previous statement that it is against the law to circulate our literature and that presently it can circulate.
Imagine my having to sit there and calmly listen while Persian officials discussed, without shame, the incapacity of their own monarch, certainly one of the most valiant, heroic, decisive and just rulers in the world, to handle this minor situation. I was profoundly shocked at the callousness with which this feeble argument was advanced.
Do they think that the press of the world has not been ringing with the stupendous accomplishments of the Shahanshah; of his intrepid onslaughts against the forces of ignorance, conservatism and decadence in this country; of his supreme determination to elevate Persia in spite of her own opposition and timidity above her mediaevalism to a position of advancement and modern culture?
Did they expect me to agree with them as to powerlessness of this superman who has securely established an enlightened dynasty; who has literally changed the physical face of his country in a few brief years; who has completely broken the paralyzing power of the clergy; who has set at naught the religious practices of centuries—the most difficult of all political accomplishments; who has taken trousers from women and skirts from men; who has inaugurated a new economic life for Persia; who is rapidly substituting patriotism for religious fanaticism; who has defied European powers; who has achieved for all religions, including the Bahá’ís, comparative protection and safety; the irresistible power of whose word is sufficient to accomplish the most far reaching and dramatic results?
It was quite evident that they did not realize the full import of what they were saying, and I did not discuss it with them. Within my own memory, in Persia’s dark and corrupt past, Bahá’í literature had circulated freely and Persian cities are today full of these books, imported in that period. There was no royal firman, no new law that stopped their import but, if I am correctly informed, the personal connivance of the present Foreign Minister; and now, God save us, I am told by Persian officials that though the Shah is sufficiently powerful so that previous interpretations of the Qur’án may be modified; that compulsory military service may be established; that the fez and chadur may be cast aside; that the clergy may be dispossessed; yet this regulation, suggested perhaps by the former Minister of Finance, is above the Shariat, above traditional customs, above the innumerable changes which have already been achieved and has become so sacrosanct that the Shah fears the effect of its removal on the people.
The suggestion is odious, fantastic and ridiculous; and I took the liberty of expressing this in a letter to His Imperial Majesty.
“Why are the American Bahá’ís interfering in these questions which concern Persia?” Mr. Assadi enquired.
“The Bahá’í world is one great organism. What concerns one part concerns all. If even a finger is infected the whole body suffers. It is impossible for the followers of other faiths, that separate and divide men from their fellows, to grasp the meaning of Bahá’í inclusiveness and solidarity.”
“But Persia has many, many problems confronting her; she has no time to deal with these questions,” I was told.
I was not rude enough to say: “The circulation of Bahá’í literature is one of those problems confronting Persia.” What I did say was that this strangulation of our communication, the only blemish of the religious tolerance of Persia, makes our propaganda for Persia throughout the world unnecessarily difficult; for we can not assert that in contrast to her dark past she now enjoys complete religious freedom. This is what we are longing to say.
“Persia has been through too many crises and difficulties; what she needs is peace.”
“The last thing that the Bahá’ís of the
[Page 406]
world desire is in any way to hinder or to
embarrass Persia. Since peace is the
foundation of the Bahá’í teachings we are in
heartiest accord with this sentiment.” I stopped
there though tempted to add: “But in what
country anywhere is there tranquillity where
men are unequal before the law; where there
is suppression, coercion and intimidation;
where ordinary civil rights are denied and
where recourse of police protection is unavailing?”
One of the richest ornaments of modern Persia is the name of Mírzá Abu’l Fadl-i Gulpayagani. As traveller and speaker he has adorned the foremost platforms of the world and her great libraries welcome his writings. But still within the past few weeks his nephew was beaten in the public bath of that town and was deported to Tihran, with inadequate preparation and without notice by the police. Obliged to leave all of his possessions there and to come without money or proper clothing to a strange city, how did this represent that equality before the law, that the constitution of Persia vouchsafes to every subject? Especially when this glaring injustice was committed by the law itself?
Does the Foreign Office seriously expect me to believe that this mighty monarch at whose slightest word all Persia stands at attention and displays obedience is incapable of upholding the constitution of this land and timid about issuing peremptory orders to village policemen? Do they expect me to imagine that His Imperial Majesty is informed of these outrages and permits them, because he is helpless to prevent them?
Things have reached a very strange pass when Western Bahá’ís entertain a more exalted and confident admiration and respect for the all-conquering power of the Shah than Persian Moslems, and His own officials at that.
Again I called attention to what the Bahá’ís of the world, wherever they are scattered, are doing to promote the interests and to enhance the prestige of Persia.
“But when I was in Geneva in 1927 I saw an attack on Persia, written by the American Bahá’ís, that has no real basis; it transpired that there had been a quarrel in Shíráz between a Bahá’í and a Moslem family, over some property. The Persian Bahá’ís had conveyed wrong information to America and there they had exaggerated this trivial incident into something of major importance that reflected discredit on Persia,” said the Secretary.
“That year I was serving on a committee and I never knew or heard of our publishing such a pamphlet.
“Perhaps I can find it for you,” he answered. “I think it is here somewhere.”
“I certainly wish you would, for to my knowledge the Bahá’ís have never issued such a statement. As you have already mentioned we have many enemies and this may be their work in order to undermine the position of Persian Bahá’ís.”
The only pamphlet of which I am cognizant is the one addressed to His Majesty on the subject of the martyrdoms of Jahrum. But since, by no stretch of the imagination, could the pillage and burning of twenty Bahá’í homes and the murder of eight people in Jahrum be construed into a quarrel between a Bahá’í and Moslem family in Shíráz over some property, the Secretary could not have been referring to this article.
Moreover, when we remember the great stir and revulsion that it created throughout the civilized world against Persia; the press protests; the expressions of horror from all sides; this letter which aroused universal indignation certainly could not be described in such a feeble way as “reflecting discredit on Persia.”
If any person or any organization could write or say anything to stop evil practices in America every right-minded American would look upon such a person or group as a great benefactor and not as an enemy. So it was the duty of the American Bahá’ís to exercise whatever restraining influence was possible to prevent such barbarous and appalling practices in Persia. These martyrdoms victimized men, women and children who had broken no law but the ancient bestial law of hatred, enmity and strife; whose only fault was a belief in love and peace and goodwill.
“You understand that now you have had
your answer to this petition. It will not be
necessary to discuss it any further.” At the
beginning of the conversation future interviews
had been mentioned. “It is not
[Page 407]
praticable nor expedient to grant this request at
present.” And again the Secretary repeated,
“Later on the matter will adjust itself and
the ban will be removed.”
In the beginning I had mentioned our being an officially incorporated body enjoying the sanction and protection of the Government of the United States.
“I shall communicate your conclusion to the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States and Canada,” I said, “and when their answer is returned it may be necessary to consult you further. I am not referring to anything remote and metaphysical. There may be some practical questions to discuss.”
“I shall be glad to receive you at any time,” he answered, with the same imperturbable courtesy; and with every show of respect and urbanity he accompanied me to the door. I liked him exceedingly.
He expressed some kind compliment for my age and general attitude which might have been construed to mean that he regretted seeing me involved with such an unsavory and nefarious crew as the Bahá’ís. It is really very amusing: how we pity those who are not Bahá’ís, and how those who are not Bahá’ís pity us.
It seemed incredible to me that this message, as it was delivered, could really have come from His Majesty, who has the clearest, the most definite, the most precise ideas, together with the soundest possible judgment.
That this mass of illogicalities and vulnerable arguments could possibly have proceeded from the Throne seemed to me beyond belief; for certainly the Shah would not say that things were in the Constitution which are not to be found there; would not sanction religious intolerance when his whole policy, for which every Bahá’í in the world is indebted to him, has been toward greater and greater religious freedom; and certainly it is difficult to imagine that He would announce His own timidity and powerlessness to cope with a very ordinary situation—that of conferring a commonplace civil right on a large number of his subjects.
For that reason I addressed His Majesty in terms of the enclosed letter, summarizing as briefly as the subject-matter permitted the conversation herein related; asking His Majesty graciously to respond as to whether or not the information received was according to his intent, and if so to accord me permission to release it to the waiting Bahá’í world.
No answer has as yet reached me. Therefore I shall now submit this full report to the Crown, relying still upon his clemency and justice. If at last no answer is vouchsafed I shall be constrained, in response to your requests, reluctantly to send this record as it stands.
- With loving Bahá’í greetings,
Your sister in el-Abhá,
————————
III.
EXTRACT FROM THE NEWS LETTER OF THE “UNITY OF THE EAST AND THE WEST COMMITTEE” ṬIHRÁN, PERSIA
ON pilgrimage to Keith’s grave, the Ṭihrán Assembly left for Iṣfahán November 23rd, in fulfillment of the Guardian’s instructions, and a large meeting was held there on November 24th, at which the Ṭihrán and Iṣfahán Assemblies, the Ṭihrán and Iṣfahán friends, and the six delegates from those centers which Keith was to have visited—Shíráz, Yazd, Kirmán, Ábádih and the southern ports—were present. On the following morning the two Assemblies in conjunction with the delegates and many other friends proceeded to the cemetery on the outskirts of Iṣfahán, stopped as Keith herself had done a few days before her last illness at the graves of the King of Martyrs and the Beloved of Martyrs, and gathered close by at the restingplace of the “first western martyr.” An enlarged photograph of Keith brought by the Assembly from Ṭihrán was placed above the
Bahá’ís of Iṣfáhán gathered about the casket of Keith Ransom-Kehler.
Members of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of Persia and representatives of various Bahá’í centers in Persia assembled at the grave of Keith Ransom-Kehler.
[Page 409]
grave, and the ground was
covered with flowers; the Shíráz
delegate, Ḥabíbulláh Afnán, poured out
rose water which he had
brought from the House of the Báb, and
gave some to each of the friends; all stood
in silence while prayers for dead were
chanted. Later a second memorial service
was held at the Ḥaẓíratu’l-Quds, where the
Guardian’s letters regarding Keith and her
Persian mission were read, her spiritual rank
and glorious services described, and fervent
tributes paid her; a memorial dinner was then
offered in her name, and on the following
day the Central Assembly returned to
Ṭihrán. In addition to the Assemblies and
delegates who made this pilgrimage in the
Guardian’s stead, the Guardian sent a special
representative, Áqáy-í-Faydí of Ṭihrán, who
travelling from Haifa laid a beautiful wreath
on Keith’s grave on behalf of the Guardian.
Recent instructions from Haifa stress the
importance of informing all centers in Persia
of Keith’s eminent station, so that all may
know that she was “the first Bahá’í martyr
of the West, the standard—bearer of this
long-suffering people, the true, unequalled
champion of God’s followers in that land, envied
by her spiritual brethren of the West”; that
“she solidly welded the Bahá’ís of the East
and the West”; and that “in life and
in death she glorified and exalted God’s
Cause.”
————————
IV.
. . . “I have fallen, though I never faltered. Months of effort with nothing accomplished is the record that confronts me. If anyone in future should be interested in this thwarted adventure of mine, he alone can say whether near or far from the seemingly impregnable heights of complaisance and indifference, my tired old body fell. The smoke and din of battle are to-day too dense for me to ascertain whether I moved forward or was slain in my tracks.
“Nothing in the world is meaningless, suffering least of all. Sacrifice with its attendant agony is a germ, an organism. Man cannot blight its fruition as he can the seeds of earth. Once sown it blooms, I think for ever, in the sweet fields of eternity. Mine will be a very modest flower, perhaps like the single, tiny forget-me-not, watered by the blood of Quddús that I plucked in the Sabz-i-Maydán of Bárfurúsh; should it ever catch the eye, may one who seems to be struggling in vain garner it in the name of Shoghi Effendi and cherish it for his dear remembrance.
- “ ‘While the tired waves vainly breaking
- Seem here no painful inch to gain,
- Far back through creeks and inlets
- making.
- Silent comes flooding in the main.’”
————————
V.
KEITH
- O poet soul, whose unremitting toil
- Has helped to rend the veils from dark Iran,
- Thy tree of love is planted in her soil,
- Where Suns have clothed the crescent faith of man.
- When, in the dawn of that immortal day,
- Our martyrs quaffed of God’s eternal wine,
- The stream of glory coursed its crimson way
- Until it blended their rich blood with thine.
- First martyr from America to stain
- The rose of Persia with thy fragrant blood,
- The annals of thy life fore’er remain
- The signs of love’s unconquerable flood.
- The Sulṭánu’sh-Shuhada’s path is there,
- Where thy sure footsteps followed to his shrine,
- And Iṣfahán has now become aware
- Thou wert ordained a ‘Hand of the Divine’.
MRS. AGNES PARSONS
"Greatly deplore loss distinguished handmaid of Bahá’u’lláh. Through her manifold pioneer services she has proved herself worthy of implicit confidence reposed in her by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. Advise American believers hold befitting memorial gatherings. Assure relatives heartfelt sympathy, prayers.”
(Signed) Shoghi.
(Cable to National Spiritual Assembly)
“The dress was destroyed, but the one who wore the dress is living.” These words are part of a wonderful teaching on immortality which ‘Abdu’l-Bahá gave to Mrs. Parsons when she supplicated for a word from Him for a friend who was inconsolable because of the passing of a dear one. It seems appropriate now in connection with the going away of our dear sister herself, for in this world “she proved herself worthy of the implicit confidence reposed in her by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá,” as stated in the cable about her from our Guardian.
On Friday, January 19, 1934, at about six p.m., Mrs. Parsons was crossing a street alone and was knocked down by a passing automobile. A serious illness followed, and finally on Tuesday night, January 23rd, about midnight, she ascended to the world of eternal, radiant light and life. “The human spirit comes from God and to Him it returns.”
Mrs. Parsons, we are informed, had reached the age of seventy-three years, a long and eventful life which, as far as all earthly measurements are concerned, seemed full of promise for many more years of service.
The only child of General and Mrs. Royal, Mrs. Parsons was born into and lived in what at that time was considered a beautifully sheltered world. Until middle age when she first became a Bahá’í she had never known nor associated with any one outside of her own immediate circle. The absolutely miraculous creative effect of the Revealed Word of Bahá’u’lláh was never more pronounced than in the unfoldment of this great soul into a devoted and loyal follower of the Risen Sun of Righteousness and Truth.
Mrs. Parsons first heard of the Bahá’í Teachings around 1908, and became a confirmed follower of the Bahá’í Revelation when she made her pilgrimage to see ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in Haifa in 1910.
Our recorded Bahá’í history gives abundant proof of her outstanding service to the Cause in 1912 when ‘Abdu’l-Bahá was in Washington. There is no statement which any one could make which would sufficiently glorify her for the magnificent services which it was her privilege to render at that time. It was Pure Bounty from God the Almighty to her that she was able to offer to ‘Abdu’l-Bahá the hospitality of her new home during the greater part of His first visit to Washington in the spring of 1912. Every one who witnessed her indefatigable work can whole-heartedly testify that she left no stone unturned to make her service perfect at the feet of the Lord. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá Himself testified to this fact.
Some of the marvelous talks which ‘Abdu’l-Bahá gave in her home are recorded in the “Promulgation of Universal Peace,” but there were many private interviews with individuals and groups from the official and social circles of Washington which have never been printed. Many of the details of the Master’s visit have been written by Mrs. Parsons herself, and no doubt this important
[Page 411]
{{|INSCRIPTION}}
In Loving Memory of Keith Ransom-Kehler, 1878, Iṣfáhán 1933. “Keith’s Precious Life Offered Up in Sacrifice to Beloved Cause in Bahá’u’lláh’s Native Land.”—Shoghi Effendi. “The East Shall Become Illumined, the West Perfumed and the Children of Men Shall Enter Beneath the All-Embracing Canopy of the Oneness of the World of Humanity.” —‘Abdu’l-Bahá
Design by Myron Potter, Architect, of Memorial to be constructed by the American Bahá’ís in honor of Keith Ransom-Kehler at Iṣfahán.
[Page 412]
document will be included
in the history of the Cause in America.
In August, 1912, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá visited Dublin, N. H., where Mr. and Mrs. Parsons maintained their summer residence. Here Mrs. Parsons turned over to ‘Abdu’l-Bahá for the exclusive use of Himself and His entourage, one of her places there known as “Dayspring.” Thus two of her homes—one in
Portrait of Mrs. Agnes S. Parsons.
"Through her manifold pioneer services she has proved herself worthy of the implicit confidence reposed in her by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá.”—SHOGHI EFFENDI.
Washington and one in Dublin—will forever be mentioned in the Bahá’í history of this country. During His stay in Dublin ‘Abdu’l-Bahá talked again to many individuals and groups of great importance.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá often referred, during these times, to Mrs. Parsons’ spirituality and to her significant services to the Cause of God. That she was “called” to render this service and that she so whole-heartedly and graciously and happily arose and translated into the world of action all those instructions both subjectively and objectively received, shows that she was confirmed.
From that time on Mrs. Parsons gradually began to serve very definitely in the Cause, for the most part giving the Message to groups in her own immediate circle. Traveling teachers who came to Washington always received an invitation to speak to these groups in her home.
Her second visit to the Presence of the
Master in Haifa, Palestine, was made during
the winter and early spring of 1920. During
this second visit she received from
‘Abdu’l-Bahá a remarkable instruction—a command
—which, carried into execution, placed her
in the ranks of those who rendered pioneer
services to the Cause. “The blessings that
come to one are greater than those one
seeks,” said ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. This instruction
was not sought by Mrs. Parsons; it came to
her from the heaven of the Master’s
Divine
[Page 413]
Will, and was in truth and in fact a great
and overwhelming surprise to Mrs. Parsons
herself. The Master’s instruction was as
follows:
- "I want you to arrange a Convention for
- unity of the colored and white races. You
- must have people to help you.”
After Mrs. Parsons returned to America she often spoke of this command. In those days “to arrange a Convention” seemed a
Yúsuf Khán-i-Vujdání, distinguished Persian Bahá’í teacher. d. 1934
tremendous undertaking, but she always said: “I will be able to do it. I must for it is the Will of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá.” And in accordance with the explicit command of the Master she succeeded in gathering around her a helpful, active and earnest Committee.
During the period of preparation for this Convention (and the preliminary work consumed weeks and even months), Mr. Mountfort Mills was in Haifa. He returned to this country in time to serve as Chairman of one of the Convention sessions. At this meeting he read the following message from ‘Abdu’l-Bahá sent through him to be read at the Convention:
- "Say to this Convention that never since
- the beginning of time has one more important
- been held. This Convention stands
- for the Oneness of Humanity; it will become
- the cause of the removal of hostility
- between races; it will be the cause of the
- enlightenment of America. It will—if
- wisely managed and continued—check the
- deadly struggle between these races which
- otherwise will inevitably break out.”
Immediately after the close of the
Convention Mrs. Parsons sent the following
cable to ‘Abdu’l-Bahá: "Convention successful.
Meetings crowded. Hearts comforted.” And
[Page 414]
‘Abdu’l-Bahá replied at once by cable: "The
white-colored Convention produced happiness.
Hoping will establish same in all America.”
The Tablets of the Master which followed, not only to Mrs. Parsons but to others, indicated that this first Amity Convention was termed by the Master "the mother convention” from which many Amity Conventions would be born, and in one Tablet He called it a perfect convention.
Since that time Amity Conventions arranged by the Bahá’í Interracial Committees —both national and local—have been held in nearly all the large cities of America: three additional Conventions have been held in Washington, and in Green Acre every summer a Bahá’í Amity Convention is held as part of the regular program.
It is difficult to convey to any one the full import of the work accomplished by Mrs. Parsons. One sees at a glance, even from this brief statement, that she was confirmed. The Master said to her:
- “God has elected you and led you to the
- Kingdom of Abhá, therefore you must be
- very grateful to God, the Bestower of
- these bounties upon you.”
Any outline of Mrs. Parsons’ services—brief or otherwise—would not be complete without a word about her wonderful cooperation with the National and Local Bahá’í Funds to the fullest extent of her ability; without mention of her many charitable and kindly deeds. Pages could be written doubtless about her contributions and helpful donations along many lines.
At the time of her passing she was a member of the Washington Spiritual Assembly, Chairman of the National Interracial Committee, and a member of the Interracial Committee of the Bahá’ís of Washington, D. C.
Mrs. Parsons had a unique station. Absolutely no one can fill her place. She had a capacity all her own, and her station was a particular one not conferred upon any one else. She was very dear to the Master and He showed her great and extraordinary favor. Her place is empty; there is no one to fill it. Down through the ages her unique position in the Cause will be spoken of and written about, for a conferred position, conferred by the Master, can never die.
DR. ARASṬÚ KHÁN ḤAKÍM (1877-1934)
Dr. Arasṭú Khán was the grandson of Ḥakím Masíḥ, court physician to Muḥammad Sháh, and the first Jewish Bahá’í. Ḥakím Masíḥ had learned something of the new faith through Ṭáhirih herself, during the early days of the Báb’s manifestation, when he was in Baghdád, and from that time on he had searched for the source of her power. Later in Ṭihrán he offered to visit the prison and treat a Bahá’í child, when the Moslem doctors had refused; the child’s father was the famous Ismu’lláhu’l—Aṣdaq, and in the course of these visits Ḥakím Masíḥ became a Bahá’í. He later achieved fame in the Cause, and among other Tablets, Bahá’u’lláh revealed the following for him:
- “In the name of God, the Wise, the
- All-knowing: O Ḥakím, be staunch in the
- faith of thy Lord, that the blasts of
- oppressors may not cause thee to shake; be
- enduring in the Cause of thy Lord, by
- thy trust in the Lord and His might; and
- say, O men, how long will ye sin and stray,
- how long will ye place passion over
- salvation? Do ye not see that those who
- left your midst have not returned, that
- those who were scattered have not again
- been gathered? Ere long shall your days
- to come pass by as your days that are
- gone. Fear your merciful Lord: by the
- one true God He hath desired only that
- which will draw you close unto Him and
- cause you to enter the realms of eternity,
- and He is the Giver, the Kind. Eat ye of
- the fruit of the eternal tree which is ever
- at hand, for those bereft of it are back of
- heavy veils. . . . Then know We are
- imprisoned where eyes can never penetrate,
- where ears cannot distinguish the words
- that God the Wise, the Able, and the
- Knowing doth reveal. By such means have
- they sought to withhold God’s slaves from
- hearing the words of their Lord, that His
- light might go out in the midst of His
- creatures; but God in His might hath
- revealed what He willed unto those who
- were turning toward Him with radiant
- faces. Then guard what We have
- entrusted to thee: thou hast in the sight of
- God a high station; praise Him, be of those
- who acclaim Him. Grieve not over that
- which hath come upon Us, be content
- with what God hath desired for Us, for
- We are in radiant gladness, and all praise
- is meet for the Lord of the heavens and
- earth.”
Dr. Arasṭú’s father Ḥakím Sulaymán was likewise a Bahá’í and Dr. Arasṭú himself
Dr. Arasṭú Khán Ḥakím.
gradually increased his services in the Cause as he grew to manhood. Meanwhile he was carrying on the family tradition, as are his sons today, of practicing medicine. About 1897 he had graduated from the American School in Ṭihrán was working in the American Hospital, where he already showed signs of that healing personality which later made him one of the foremost doctors in the capital. At this period he spent many hours in out of the way houses in the back streets of Ṭihrán, studying this faith, in those days when knowledge of Bahá’u’lláh’s cause often ended in death. Soon he began to teach on his own account; his brother Aflátún was also an ardent Bahá’í, much loved by the Master, who wrote him many tablets. In 1900 Aflátún died.
Shortly after his brother’s death Arasṭú
Khán went to ‘Akká, where it was his
privilege to stay in the Master’s presence one
year. During the first days of his visit the
Master continually addressed him as "Aflátún,”
which puzzled him considerably; until
one night when he and Dr. Yúnis Khán
Afrúkhtih were following the Master
through the narrow crooked streets of the
prison city, the Master again addressed him
as Aflátún and said, “Do you know why I
call you Aflátún? It is because I desire his
truth and spirituality to reappear in you.”
Arasṭú developed rapidly in ‘Akká, studying
the Master’s way, and he worked with Dr.
Yúnis Khán translating letters from the
Western Bahá’í. The Master had hoped to
send him to America, but family concerns
necessitated his return home. Here he worked
devotedly for the Cause, founding a weekly
teaching meeting which continued to his
death, and which according to his will is to
be perpetuated. He received his medical
diploma, became known throughout the
capital for his generosity to the poor and for
his gentleness. In 1911 he was in London
[Page 416]
with a patient and ably defended the Cause
from Azali activities, and he was with the
Master in Switzerland. In 1925 he again
went abroad, this time visiting the Guardian
in Haifa.
During his last years his health failed, but although he was ill himself he continued to visit the sick. His frequent meetings with Keith Ransom-Kehler were an important event of his last year; it was she who arranged a match between his son Dr. Qulám-Ḥusayn Khán and the sister-in-law of Raḥmat Alá’í, officiating herself at the wedding which will long be remembered in Ṭihrán.
Dr. Arasṭú’s death made a deep impression on Bahá’ís and non-Bahá’ís alike. Several hundred persons attended his funeral, following his coffin up one of the main thoroughfares of the capital. In commemoration of his passing, The Guardian sent to his family the following cablegram: “Beloved Arasṭú joined Immortals (of) Supreme Concourse. Fully share your grief earthly separation. Praying fervently. Awaiting account life with photograph for Bahá’í World.” (Signed) Shoghi.
The Qur’ánic verse chosen for Dr. Arasṭú Khán’s gravestone symbolizes what his life was: “O well-assured spirit, willing and blessed go thou back to thy Lord.”
GEORGE ADAM BENKE.
George Adam Benke was born on a flourishing and prosperous farm in Fredericksfelt, Southern Russia, of God-fearing parents in the year 1878.
When but a small boy of nine he had an attack of smallpox. Taking a severe cold after this, he lay at death’s door for four years. The doctors had little hope of a recovery. When his mother heard this, she fell on her knees at his little cot, beseeching God to restore her boy to health, promising that if he recovered, his life should be dedicated to God’s service as a missionary. Very shortly after this a peasant woman was found who declared she could effect a cure. She proceeded to administer doses of sarsaparilla brewed from an herb, and fed the boy only on unleavened bread. At the end of two weeks there was a marked improvement, so the child was allowed to have his regular food for a time, and then to go back again to her treatment. In a very short time Adam was up and about.
When the time drew near for his higher education, a great famine and pestilence fell on the land. The crops failed. Barely enough grain was saved for the families’ nourishment, while twenty-six of the best horses and cattle died. All thought of educating Adam as a missionary had to be abandoned, and instead he became a schoolmaster. Nevertheless his mother’s great desire for him filled his thoughts, and while unable to go forth to foreign fields, or become a university student, still he could and did live a life of love for God. And when, in 1901, he married Miss Lina Wolf from Carlsruhe, Baden, they together searched long and lovingly for truth.
Then came the world’s war, after which German soldiers came to the Crimea. Life soon became very hazardous, and it seemed better to escape with the soldiers. They then settled in Liepzig, and having had to leave all their worldly possessions behind them, they had to begin all over again. Some twelve or more months later, while they were still investigating reality through the Theosophical Society, they had the joy of meeting with Mr. and Mrs. Ober and Miss Alma Knoblock, who gave to them the glorious message of Bahá’u’lláh. They then knew that they had found what they had long sought, The Pearl of Great Price, and thereafter they gave all attention to the study of the Sacred utterances.
To Mr. Benke’s delight, he found in the University Library of Liepzig the Russian writings by Thomansky and Rosenberg translations from Bahá’u’lláh. These he proceeded to put into German and, in order to enable himself to further enrich the German Bahá’í Library, he set himself the task of studying English, since a good number of these precious words had already been translated into English.
In June, 1931, Mr. Benke was called to
help Mrs. Jack in Sofia, where his knowledge
of Russian was of great benefit, since that
language is now taught in the high schools.
He worked arduously in this city nearly three
months, leaving no stone unturned in his
[Page 417]
efforts to find the ready souls. He was sent
during the month of August to the Esperanto
Congress at Starazagora, and meeting
the Bulgarian President on the train, who
became much attracted to him, he was
elected honorary vice-president of the Congress.
He was again called to Sofia the following year, and remained until his passing in November. During those months Mr. Benke
George Adam Benke.
worked night and day. Nothing could divert his attention from the work in hand. When nothing else offered he studied Bulgarian, English, and Esperanto. His ambition to become an efficient teacher of the Cause and a servant of whom his beloved Guardian would be proud was very great. This devotion to the Great Head of the Bahá’í Administration was very touching. He wanted to obey not only to the letter, but to the spirit, and studied earnestly every letter from the Great Guardian, and every word of the Administration in order that he might become absolutely efficient in this important matter, and such an obedient servant that he would be above reproach. His longing was that all believers should be firmly centered in the One chosen for us by our Heavenly Beloved ‘Abdu’l-Bahá to guard and guide us after His ascension.
The second year in Sofia he was again elected as vice-president of the Esperanto Congress, this time held in that city. Later he was invited to Varna on the Black Sea. Here he spoke twice under the auspices of the Esperanto Society to groups of enquirers. On his return journey he stopped over in Starazagora to renew his acquaintance with the Esperanto friends and refresh their knowledge of the teachings. Likewise he looked up his friend Dr. Tchervenkof in Plovdiv to meet those interested by him in that city.
Up to the very hour of his death Mr.
[Page 418]
Benke was in harness and in the evening
he taught a Russian lady, and later, until
after midnight, he was giving counsel and
advice to a young Bulgarian brother. He
had no illness at the last, only a short
half-hour of discomfort during which time he
turned in prayer to Bahá’u’lláh for relief,
and sweetly passed with the "Remover of
difficulties” on his lips, into the great beyond,
to join the noble army of martyrs in the
Supreme Concourse, and at last to see face to
face the Adored One whom he had never
met in life except frequently in the happy
hours of dreams.
His body was laid to rest in the Sofia cemetery.
All who knew him in Sofia and elsewhere testified to the beauty of his life and character. Many and many a one felt that when he went they had lost a dear friend and brother and one whose interest in them was of immense spiritual help, for he longed for their heavenly welfare as well as for the peace, unity and concord of all humanity. His example in living the life spoke even more loudly than his eloquent words.
MR. EDWIN SCOTT.
The passing of Mr. Edwin Scott, for many years a loyal and active member of the Bahá’í Cause, was deeply felt by the friends
Edwin Scott.
with whom he had spent long years in loving, active service in Paris. In 1911 when ‘Abdu’l-Bahá visited Paris He spoke several times in the studio of Mr. and Mrs. Scott and to this day that studio continues to be the Bahá’í center where Mrs. Scott welcomes the Bahá’í friends, whether tourists or residents of Paris, with the same beautiful courtesy, finding thus her greatest source of joy and consolation since the loss of her husband.
Because of his recognized ability as an
artist Mr. Scott was made Chevalier of the
[Page 419]
Legion d’Honneur and he was a distinguished
member of la Société National des Beaux
Arts. Five of his paintings were purchased
by the French government and after his
demise one of his works was hung in the
Salle du Jeu de Paume, in the Museum of
State in Paris, a distinction much sought
after by painters.
The Bahá’í Cause has suffered a grievous loss through the passing of Mr. Edwin Scott.
MRS. ALICE BARNEY.
Mrs. Alice Barney, gifted poetess, painter, dramatist, musician, architect and craftswoman who passed away in Los Angeles in 1931, lived as her friends and contemporaries attest, in a world of beauty. She became interested in the Bahá’í Cause shortly after her daughter Laura (now Mme. Dreyfus-Barney of Paris) visited Haifa in 1900. The Washington home of Mr. and Mrs. Barney was open for Bahá’í meetings on many occasions.
Mrs. Barney visited Accá in the spring of 1905 with her daughter Laura, remaining there near ‘Abdu’l-Bahá a month, during which time she painted the portrait of the son of the Governor.
Mrs. Alice Barney.
Mrs. Barney’s paintings are to be found in most of the important museums of the United States, the National Museum of Washington alone having as many as five of her works, while a painting which she exhibited in the Paris Salon was purchased by the French Government. She was always a generous patron of the arts and offered her encouragement especially to members of the colored race, assisting them to develop their talents with sympathetic understanding.
The well-known settlement “Neighborhood-House”
was her gift to the city of
[Page 420]
Washington, and this splendid
institution interested ‘Abdu’l-Bahá very much
when He visited Washington in 1912.
Mrs. Barney was particularly attracted to the Bahá’í Cause because of its broad teachings of tolerance, its humanitarianism, its love of the beautiful and fruitful action.
Elsewhere in this volume appears a remarkable portrait of Mírzá Abu’l-Faḍl which was made during the visit of this great teacher to Washington in 1903.
IN MEMORIAM
During the past two years the BAHÁ’Í NEWS has carried the announcements of the passing of the dearly beloved American believers whose names are listed below. It is with great sorrow that we chronicle the loss of these members of the Bahá’í Communities, many of whom were valiant pioneers of the Cause in America, and loyal servants of the Abhá Kingdom.
Word has come of the passing of Dr. Auguste Forel, the distinguished savant of Switzerland, known throughout the world as one of the foremost scientists of this day. In 1920 Dr. Forel embraced the Bahá’í Cause, and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá addressed to him
Lisbeth Klitzing.
1884-1933.
that great Tablet presenting the scientific proofs of God’s existence, which was published in its entirety in the Star of the West, Vol. 13, pages 101 to 109. By his tireless research Dr. Forel greatly augmented scientific knowledge and rendered inestimable service to mankind, and the beauty of his life and character will long remain with us as an example of selfless service to humanity.
Mrs. Dora Taylor passed from this life
August 18th. Mrs. Taylor united with the
Cincinnati group of Bahá’ís more than
[Page 421]
twenty-five years ago. At her request, the
service used at the funeral of Mr. Louis
Bourgeois, was read by Miss Hilda Stauss.
Mrs. Taylor had been incapacitated for many
years by a most distressing illness. She was
the wife of Benjamin R. Taylor and leaves
four children.
The Los Angeles Spiritual Assembly and Community of Bahá’ís report the passing of one of their honored members, Edgar F. Waite. He was born in Massachusetts in 1865, moved to Chicago in 1893, remaining until 1915, when he went to California. He has been a valued member of the Los Angeles Community of Bahá’ís for fifteen years, having been for several years Chairman of the Los Angeles Spiritual Assembly. His life has been one of self-sacrificing service to the Cause, and his passing a perfect example of “radiant acquiescence” to the will of Bahá’u’lláh. The friends feel keenly the absence of Mr. Waite’s physical presence and sincerely sympathize with Mrs. Shahnaz Waite in her bereavement.
On Thursday, September 17th, at Honolulu, one of out much loved friends, Mrs. Meta A. Sutherland, passed on suddenly to the Spiritual Kingdom. She served the Cause faithfully and lovingly for many years as a member of the Honolulu Bahá’í Assembly and through her spirit of steadfastness, understanding, gentleness and true humility, endeared herself to all. She was born in Honolulu on May 8th, 1862, and was one of the early believers in the Islands.
THE PASSING OF MME. DELAGNEL.
Once again the friends of Washington, D. C., were called upon to translate into the world of action the divine injunction of Bahá’u’lláh, “I have made death to thee as glad-tidings . . .” Without this teaching the devoted friends of Mme. Josephine Cowles deLagnel would have been a sorrowful group, for her passing into the life eternal and radiant would have meant a bereavement inexpressibly great and very deeply felt. This faithful maid-servant was for many years an active and beloved member of the Washington Bahá’í Community and for many years she had served on the Local Spiritual Assembly.
Mme. deLagnel became a Bahá’í in 1902, and from the day she entered the Fold she was a comprehending follower of the Faith, —loyal, devoted, sincere at every point and at all times. She had “found her Lord,” as she so often said, and so all of the Teachings emanating from the Source of Life and Light and Love in this Great Day constituted her armor and buckler and were indeed all-in-all to her. Through the creative effect of the Holy Utterances she had developed spiritual ears and spiritual eyes and a keen spiritual perception. Her greatest charm was her firmness in faith and her longing to serve the Most Great Cause. She was eighty-five years of age, yet she was active up to the time of her serious illness which began about six weeks before the final dissolution of that once very strong body. She was well equipped for service for she had a strong spirit and a strong mind in a strong body.
Those who knew her well during all the thirty years of her devotion to the Cause will remember her unique and beautiful character, and the Washington friends in particular will always remember that her home was the Bahá’í meeting-place for years. When ‘Abdu’l-Bahá was in Washington in 1912, He visited her home, and thereafter she herself and many others considered the home was especially blessed and that it had an unusually pure spiritual atmosphere.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá said to her, “She is My real daughter, there is no one who could be dearer to me than she is because she really serves. I love her. I love her very much.” And in one of her own Tablets from Him, these words, “Every soul has a protector, but praise be to God thou hast God.” And during the storms and stress of life she held firmly to these Holy Words.
Mrs. May Warrick Hughes, Glendale, Calif.
Miss Lena Geib, Bloomfield, N. J.
Mrs. Rachel O. North, Chicago, Ill.
Mr. Charles T. Kerin, Pittsburgh, Penna.
Mrs. Ingrid Anna Nelson, Hollywood, Calif.
Miss Mable Sankey, San Francisco, Calif.
Mr. Herman Pauli, New York, N. Y.
Miss Ada Murray, Washington, D. C.
Mr. Edward Fuhrman, Sr., Washington, D. C.
Mr. Arthur D. Mayo, Washington, D. C.
Mr. Irving H. Vail, Pasadena, Calif.
Captain Albert W. Hall, Akron, Ohio.
[Page 422]
Mr. S. T. Ditmars, Spokane, Wash.
Mr. Arthur James, Bloomfield, N. J.
Mr. Augustus Dobleman, Baltimore, Md.
Mrs. Henrietta Wagner, Santa Barbara, Calif.
Dr. Emma McKay Appel, Chicago, Ill.
Mr. Stephen Saghatielan, Portland, Ore.
Mr. Carl G. Hillman, Seattle, Wash.
Dawn Nabil Britt, Seattle, Wash.
Mrs. Belle Blaney, Cleveland, Ohio.
Mrs. Shari Boros, Cleveland, Ohio.
Mrs. Hazel Chandon Hopkins, Gridley, Calif.
Mr. Frank Miller, Los Angeles, Calif.
Mrs. Ellen Davies, Detroit, Mich.
Mr. Frederick Heuther, Bloomfield, N. J.
Mr. William R. Ripley, Orlando, Fla.
Mother Beecher, Lima, Ohio.
Mrs. Ann Marshall, San Francisco, Calif.
Dr. Frederick W. D’Evelyn, San Francisco, Calif.
Mr. Charles Greenleaf, Texas.
Miss Mary Vistue, Denver, Colo.
Miss Martha Robinson, New York, N. Y.
Miss Ann Boylan, New York, N. Y.
Miss Jennie Bishop, New York, N. Y.
Mrs. Cora C. Horn, New York, N. Y.
Mrs. Marion Hotchkiss, New York, N. Y.
Mr. Robert J. Edgar, Phoenix. Ariz.
Infant daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Kendricks, Hinsdale, N. H.
Mr. Nels Peterson, Fruitport, Mich.
Mrs. Alice Ives Breed, New York, N. Y.
Mrs. Harriet Sprague, New York, N. Y.
Mrs. Annie Stewart, Kooskia, Ida.
Mrs. Margaret Adams, Johnstown, N. Y.
Dr. Charles Berrien Hall, Chicago, Ill.
Mrs. Altia May, Chicago, Ill.
Mrs. Leona S. Barnitz, Washington, D. C.
Mrs. W. H. Repogle, Bakersfield, Calif.
Mr. Frank W. Doty, Yonkers, N. Y.
Mr. J. T. Reddin, Marstock, Nova Scotia.
Miss Katherine Brandeau, Cleveland, Ohio.
Mrs. Angela Lynch, San Francisco, Calif.
Mr. John Hampel, Milwaukee, Wis.
Mrs. Pauline Ayres, Trenton, N. J.
Mrs. E. A. Dillabough, Farran Point, Ont.
Mr. Frederick Diehl, Pasadena, Calif.
Mrs. Mary Lucas, Boston, Mass.
Mrs. Lily Wiggins, Phoenix, Ariz.
Mrs. George W. Busey, Urbana, Ill.
Mrs. Katherine Bertlessen, Kaloma, Wash.
Mrs. Katherine Sankey, Oakland, Calif.
Mrs. Mary B. Morris, San Francisco, Calif.
Mr. M. B. Lessen, Racine, Wis.
Mrs. Katherine Miller, Racine, Wis.
