World Order/Series2/Volume 28/Issue 1/Text

←Volume 28 Index

World Order, Series 2 Volume 28 - Issue 1

Issue 2→

Return to PDF view

[Page -1]

[Page 0]

VOLUME 28, NUMBER 1

World 01'ch

WORLD ORDER IS INTENDED TO hSTIMULATE, INSPIRE, AND SERVE THINKING PEOPLE IN

THEIR SEARCH TO FIND RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CONTEMPORARY LIFE AND CONTEMPO RARY RELIGIOUS TEACHINGS AND PHILOSOPHY

Editorial Board:

FIRUZ KAZEMZADEH BETTY J. FISHER HOWARD GAREY ROBERT H. STOCKMAN JAMES D. STOKES Consultant In Poetry: HERBERT WOODWARD MARTIN Subscriber Service: LISA CORTES

WORLD ORDER is published quarterly by the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States, 415 Linden Avenue, Wilmette, IL 60091. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to WORLD ORDER Subscriber Service, Bahá’í National Center, Wilmette, IL 60091. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the publisher, the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States, or of the Editorial Board. Manuscripts can be typewritten or computer generated. They should be double spaced throughout, with the foornotes at the end. The contributor should send four copies—an original and three legible copies—and should keep a copy. Return pOStage should be included. Send manuscripts and other editorial correspondence to WORLD ORDER, 415 Linden Avenue, Wilmette, IL 60091. E—mail: Worldorder@usbnc.0tg

Subscription rates: U.S.A. and surface to all Other countites, 1 year, $ 19.00; 2 years, $36.00; single copies, $5.00. Airmail to all other countries, 1 year, $24.00; 2 years, $46.00.

WORLD ORDER is proteCted through trademark regiStration in the US. Patent Office. Copyright © 1996, National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States. All Rights Reserved. Printed in the U.S.A. ISSN 0043-8804

12

17

19

21

37

39

IN THIS ISSUE

Ethics and Elections Editorial

Interchange: Letters from and to the Editor

A Concurrent Resolution: The Emancipation of the Iranian Bahá’í’ Community

House Debate: Calling for Freedom of Conscience and Worship

Senate Debate: N0t Forgetting Persecution for Religious Convictions

Diversity poem by Veronica S/Joflhall

The Martyrs of Manshéd by 513942! Mulmmmad Tabz’b—i Manilgddz’ translated by Abang Rablmm' and Nag/Jme/y Astam'

Destiny poem by Monica A. Reller

The New Family: The Role of the Father, The Role of the Mother by Constance M. Clam

Inside back cover: Authors 86 Artists in This Issue

[Page 1]. -. V, .3 .

u .nnd . {nu}.

4 41.1

.wfi u“...

32,; a,

Mrwumw

[Page 2]2

Ethics and Ele ctions

VERY four years for more than two hundred years America has gone

through paroxysms of presidential eleCtions. Political parties offer the voters platforms to which no one pays much attention. Issues are simplified beyond recognition, and the candidates turn into caricatures of themselves. A thick fog of unrestrained partisanship settles upon the land, poisoning the atmosphere and leaving a residue of erosive bitterness. Even George Washington, who had no opponent in his two elections, was not spared vicious and unfair attacks by unscrupulous pamphleteers.

But that was another age, the age of public hangings, of slavery sanctioned by the Constitution, of naked aggression against the original inhabitants of the continent. Although many things have changed for the better, partisan politics have not improved. The rhetoric of divisiveness and antagonism is much the same. It is a sad relic of the past, a throwback, inappropriate and harmful at the close of the twentieth century.

In today’s strident debates all sides appeal to ethical ideals that are never clearly stated because in this society morality is relative, notions of right and wrong are not shared, and moral authority does not exist. When recognized norms of behavior do not exist, discussions of character become irrelevant to large segments of the population, a meaningless noise that dulls the senses, drives away reason, and keeps millions away from the polls.

It is at such times that one turns to Standards that, though derived from a particular faith, are truly universal, and capable of inspiring men and women who seek a harmony between thought and feeling, between private virtue and social commitment. We find our inspiration in words such as these:

Be generous in prosperity, and thankful in adversity. Be worthy of the

trust of thy neighbor, and look upon him with a bright and friendly

face. Be a treasure to the poor, an admonisher to the rich, an answerer of the cry of the needy, a preserver of the sanctity of thy pledge. Be fair in thy judgment, and guarded in thy speech. Be unjust to no man, and show all meekness to all men. Be as a lamp unto them that walk in darkness, a joy to the sorrowful, a sea for the thirsty, a haven for the distressed, an upholder and defender of the victim of oppression.

Let integrity and uprightness distinguish all thine acts. Be a home for

the Stranger, a balm to the suffering, a tower of strength for the

[Page 3]fugitive. Be eyes to the blind, and a guiding light unto the feet of the erring. Be an ornament to the countenance of truth, a crown to the brow of fidelity, a pillar of the temple of righteousness, a breath of life to the body of mankind, an ens’gn of the hosts of juStice, a luminary above the horizon of virtue, a dew to the soil of the human heart, an ark on the ocean of knowledge, a sun in the heaven of bounty, a gem on the diadem of wisdom, a shining light in the firmament of thy generation, a fruit upon the tree of humility. How different society would be if its leaders took these words to heart and at least to some extent turned their sublime poetry into aetion.

[Page 4]4

WORLD ORDER: FALL 1996

Interchange LETTERS FROM AND TO THE EDITOR

THOSE who doubt that religion is about the mOSt serious and fundamental of human concerns need only look at the pages of the present issue, the considerations of which range from the right to belief, to religious persecution in its Starkest form, to the future and changing nature of the family, to the need to nourish both body and soul.

Between our Winter 1978—79 issue and the present, nineteen issues of the magazine have included discussion of the waves of persecutions that began to fall upon the Iranian Bahá’í community with the arrival of the Islamic revolution in that country. Through editorials, articles, reprintings of Congressional hearings and resolutions, and reviews of books on the subjeCt, the pages of erd Order constitute a unique hismrical record of one of the century’s most sustained and brutal genocidal campaigns against a religious minority. Moreover, the successive issues provide a fascinating record of the evolving response of both the Bahá’í community and the non-Bahá’í world to the new round of horrors in Iran, as both snuggled to comprehend and then to respond to events.

The first editorial on the persecutions in the Winter 1978—79 issue offered a comprehensive overview of organized state violence againSt the Bahá’ís that began in the 18403 and 18505 with mass killings and recurred spasmodically in 1896, 1903,

1906, the 19305, 1955, and most recently throughout the seventeen years of the revolutionary Islamic regime. Subsequent editorials, appealing to reason and to the teachings of the Bahá’í Faith, have called upon the Iranian authorities to desist. Others have described the events, calling for the world to see what is being done and to respond. Yet others, with an almost Job—like tone, have marveled at the certitude of the martyred Bahá’ís and their families and explored the meaning of that suffering. In later issues there has gradually emerged a tra nscendent understanding that out of the suffering is evolving what one authorcalled“a universal moral order.”

While recording the Bahá’í response, era' Order has also charted the suStained response of successive U.S. governments, which are leading the world in condemning the atrocities, pogtoms, and persecutions and bringing pressure on them to Stop. Six times—in 1982, 1984, 1988, 1990, 1993, and 1996—the US. Congress has held hearings and issued concurrent resolutions condemning the actions of the Iranian authorities. All have been printed in the pages of the magazine. The mOSt recent appears in this issue.

The heartfelt expressions of support for the Iranian Bahá’ís by American governmental leaders of both parties, and similar statements by the United Nations and many of its major member states, provide evidence of a quickened global community increasingly committed to principles of universal toler

[Page 5]INTERCHANGE

5

ance and the promotion of religious freedom. The parallel responses by the Bahá’í community and the governments of the world constitute a unique convergence of moral authority that gives transcendent meaning to the martyrs’ suffering.

This issue of erd Order also offers the first English translation of an eye—witness account of one of the most horrifying of the episodes of violent suppression of the Bahá’í’s in Iran—the massacre of some one hundred persons in Manflad and neighboring villages in 1903. Nm a mere litany of horrorsthough it is that—it is also a record of heroic and patient faith in the face of mortal threats. It is almost unbearable to read, yet, sadly, it is also a record of the stuff out of which civilizations are born because the .witness of people willing to face death in patience and joy rather than recant their faith expresses ideas so powerful and true that they ultimately change the world.

The world is also changing by other means. An article by Consrance M. Chen explores the meaning of “family” seen in the teachings of Bahá’u’lláh as the fundamental building block of civilization. Basing her thoughts on a careful reading of Bahá’u’lláh’s words, together with the latest findings of feminist scholarship, she argues that both call for a new and broader understanding of the roles of women and men as nurturers and breadwinners. Are we entering the kind of world, she asks, where cooperative balance rather

than rigid role-playing is required of parents, one that allows women the right to work both within and outside the home, if they like, and men the right to engage with the nurturing of their children as they should? Shocking though it is to acknowledge, such inquiries, which seem benign and useful in a Western society, could still result in death sentences if they were uttered aloud in some repressive states; even in parts of Western society they can still be met with severe disapproval. There is not such a great distance in the resistance faced by those simply investigating truth with discourse in the U.S. and those expressing simple belief in the ancient town

of Manfiad.

Every issue of erd Order is a collaborative eflbrt among the editors and between the editors and the contributors. In this issue we are particularly indebted to three people who helped with “The Martyrs of Manfiad”: Jonah Winters, who scanned, corrected, and helped edit the manuscript after the translators lost it in a computer crash; Rhonda Wittorf, who keyboarded corrections when an editor was ill; and Dr. Manuchehr Derakhshani, who compared the translation to the original Persian and suggested a number of corrections and refinements.

[Page 6]

[Page 7]A Concurrent Resolution: The Emancipation of the Iranian

Bahá’í Communit Y

A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of the U.S. Congress about the continued persecution of the Bahá’ís in Iran went before the U.S. Senate on 9 February 1996. The following is the text of the debate as it appears in the Senate CongressionalRecom’ on 9 February 1996, vol. 142. no. 18.——ED.

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 42—CONCERNING THE EMANCIPATION OF THE IRANIAN BAHA’I COMMUNITY

Mrs. KASSEBAUM (for herself, MR. DODD, MR. LIEBERMAN, MR. MCCAIN, MR. MACK, MR. D’AMATO, MRS. FEINSTEIN, MR. SARBANES, MR. SIMON, MR. GLENN, MR. COHEN, MR. SPECTER, MR. PELL, MR. COCHRAN, Ms. SNOWE, MR. LEVIN, MR. KOHL, MR. JEffORDs, MR. HELMS, MR. SIMPSON, MR. KENNEDY, MR. INOUYE, MR. STEVENS, MR. CRAIG, MR. HOLLINGS, MR. CHAFEE, AND MR. GRASSLEY) submitted the following concurrent resolution, which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations:

8. CON. RES. 42

Whereas in 1982, 1984, 1988, 1990, 1992, and 1994 the Congress, by concurrent resolution, declared that it holds the Government of Iran responsible for upholding the rights of all its nationals, including members of the Bahá’í Faith, Iran’s largest religious manl'lty;

Whereas the Congress has deplored the Government of Iran’s religious persecution of the Bahá’í community in such resolutions and in numerous other appeals, and has

condemned Iran’s execution of more than 200 Bahá’ís and the imprisonment of thousands of others solely on account of their religious beliefs;

Whereas the Government of Iran continues to deny individual Bahá’ís access to higher education and government employment and denies recognition and religious rights to the Bahá’í community, according to the policy set forth in a confidential Iranian Government document which was revealed by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 1993;

Whereas all Bahá’í community properties in Iran have been confiscated by the government and Iranian Bahá’ís are not permitted to eleCt their leaders, organize as a community, operate religious schools or conduct Other religious community activities guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and

Whereas on February 22, 1993, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights published a formerly confidential Iranian Government document that constitutes a blueprint for the destrUCtion of the Bahá’í community and reveals that these repressive actions are the result of a deliberate policy designed and approved by the highest officials Of the Government of Iran; Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That the Congress (1) continues to hold the Government of Iran responsible for upholding the rights of all its nationals, including members of the Bahá’í community, in a manner consisrent

[Page 8]8 WORLD ORDER: FALL 1996

with Iran’s obligations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Other international agreements guaranteeing the civil and political rights of its citizens;

(2) condemns the repressive anti—Bahá’í policies and actions of the Government of Iran, including the denial of legal recognition to the Bahá’í community and the basic rights to organize, elect its leaders, educate its youth, and conduct the normal activities of a law—abiding religious community;

(3) expresses concern that individual Bahá’ís continue to suffer from severely repressive and discriminatory government actions, solely on account of their religion;

(4) urges the Government of Iran to extend to the Bahá’í community the rights guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the international covenants of human rights, including the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, and equal promotion of the law; and

(5) calls upon the President to continue (A) to assert the United States Government’s concern regarding Iran’s violations of the rights of its citizens, including members of the Bahá’í community, along with expressions of its concern regarding the Iranian Government’s support for international terrorism and its efforts to acquire weapons of mass deStruction;

(B) to emphasize that the United States regards the human rights practices of the Government of Iran, particularly its treatment of the Bahá’í community and Other religious minorities, as a significant factor in the development of the United States Government’s relations with the Government of Iran;

(C) to urge the Government of Iran to emancipate the Bahá’í community by granting those rights guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the international covenants on human rights; and

(D) to encourage Other governments to continue to appeal to the Government of

Iran, and to cooperate with other governments and international organizations, including the United Nations and its agencies, in efforts to protect the religious rights of the Bahá’ís and other minorities through joint appeals to the Government of Iran and through other appropriate actions.

0 Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, today I am submitting a concurrent resolution condemning the persecution of the Bahá’í community that has been carried out systematically by the Government of Iran over the paSt two decades. I am joined in this effort by Senator DODD, Senator LIEBERMAN, Senator MCCAIN, and 23 other cosponsors.

Six times in the paSt, Congress has passed similar legislation, mOSt recently in 1994. While Iran’s repression of Bahá’ís appears less bloody today than during the 19803, that persecution nevertheless continues. None of us has forgotten the confidential documents from 1991, drafted and signed by Iran’s highest government and clerical authorities, which revealed a deliberate policy to deStroy the Bahá’ís.

We believe it is important that Congress again raise its voice in protest of the Iranian Government’s persecution of Bahá’ís. While American Bahá’ís reside in every state and are deeply concerned about the fate of more than 300,000 Bahá’ís in Iran, our legislation is not motivated by constituent pressure. Rather, it rests on broader principles. Ours is a Nation founded on an unwavering belief in the importance of religious freedom, and all Americans—whatever their religious convictions may be—believe Strongly that no government should condemn and persecute a people because of their faith.

Yet, this is what the Government of Iran has done to the Bahá’ís for many years. Iran’s constitution does not recognize Bahá’ís as a religious group but as unprotected infidels whose civil rights can be ignored at will. The Bahá’ís cannot legally marry or divorce in Iran, nor can they travel freely outside Iran.

[Page 9]They cannot inherit property. They are not free to assemble and cannot elect community leaders or maintain their community in3titutions.

Since 1979, 201 Bahá’ís have been killed and 15 others have disappeared and are presumed dead. Arbitrary arrests of Bahá’ís continue. From January 1990 to June 1993, 43 Bahá’ís were arrested and detained for varying periods of time, and as of January this year 5 Bahá’ís were being held in prison because of their religious beliefs.

Bahá’í cemeteries, holy places, historical sites, adminiStrative centers, and other assets, most of which were seized in 1979, remain confiscated or have been destroyed. Bahá’í property rights generally are disregarded, and many homes and businesses have been arbitrarily confiscated. More than 10,000 Bahá’ís were dismissed from positions in government and education in the early 19808 because of their religious beliefs, and many remain unemployed without benefits or pensions. Bahá’í youth are syStematically barred from institutions of higher learning.

Perhaps we cannot, from the U.S. Congress, end the terrible oppression of the Bahá’ís in Iran. But by submitting this concurrent resolution, we can send a clear message to all who will listen: We have not forgotten. 0

0 Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, on a number of occasions over the past several years, many of my colleagues and I have condemned the Government of Iran for its repressive policies and actions toward its Bahá’í community. Today, Ijoin with Senator KASSEBAUM, Senator DODD, Senator MCCAIN, and others in submitting another concurrent resolution calling on Iran to change its repressive anti—Bahá’í policies and protect the rights of all its people including minorities such as the Bahá’ís.

Since the Senate passed its first concurrent resolution on the Iranian Bahá’ís in 1982, we have seen some improvement in the situation. Persecution of individual Bahá’ís seems

A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 9

to be less severe than in past years. Expressions of international outrage and the application of diplomatic pressure have had some effect, even on the isolated and close—minded regime in Iran.

But the progress we have seen is not enough. It is not enough to say that the government is not persecuting these people as much as they used to. It is not enough to say that only a few Bahá’ís are being held in Iran’s prisons because of their religious beliefs. It is not enough to say that the Government of Iran is willing, in the words of a 1991 policy document, to “permit them a modeSt livelihood.” It is not enough that the Government of Iran is willing to allow the Bahá’ís to “be enrolled in schools.” It is not enough when all of these rights are dependent on citizens NOT identifying themselves as Bahá’ís.

The real thrust of Iranian policy is seen in the provisions of the 1991 policy document that say Bahá’ís “must be expelled from the universities * * * once it becomes known that they are Bahá’ís” or that the government will “deny them employment if they identify themselves as Bahá’ís.” A policy which calls for a plan to “be devised to confront and destroy their cultural roots outside the country” and to “deny them any position of influence, such as in the educational sector, etc.” is a policy of repression and denial of fundamental human rights. Such a policy violates the obligations of sovereign states to uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international agreements guaranteeing the civil and political rights of citizens. Such a policy must change if Iran is ever to rejoin the community of nations.

Our aetion today in passing this resolution is consiStent with the actions of the U.S. Government and responsible international bodies for many years. The Reagan and Bush administrations worked to gain international support for the Bahá’í community. President Clinton has cited “the abusive treatment of the Bahá’í[s] in Iran” as a critical human

[Page 10]10 WORLD ORDER: FALL 1996

rights concern and his administration has remained attentive to the fate of this community. The State Department has worked diligently to secure passage of UN. resolutions condemning Iran for its persecution of the Bahá’ís and to raise the issue at all relevant international fora. The UN. General Assembly has adopted numerous resolutions condemning Iran’s human rights abuses with specific reference to the Bahá’ís. The German Bundestag and the European Parliament have also adopted resolutions condemning Iran’s treatment of its Bahá’í community.

And so we come before the Senate once again with a concurrent resolution which will keep this critical issue in the public eye and will maintain international pressure on Iran to change its ways. The American people understand very well that if the rights of all members of a society are not proteCted, then the rights of no one in the society are secure. We do not expect Iran to become aJeffersonian democracy. But we and the entire world community have a right to expect and to demand that it not persecute any of its peoples solely for their religious preferences. How can a society consider itself to be just and based on the law of God when it persecutes in a broad and systematic fashion 300,000 of its citizens who constitute the largest religious minority in Iran? Iran must end its hypocrisy and extend to the Bahá’í community the rights guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international covenants on human rights.

I urge my colleagues to support this concurrent resolution and our continuing effort to bring about change in Iran.

I3)

1. The secret memorandum on the “Bahai question,” which was dated 25 February 1991, was written by Seyyed Mohammad Golpaygani, Secretary of the Supreme Revolutionary Cultural Council at the request of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and addressed to him. World Order published the memorandum in its Fall 1993 issue, pages 44—49.

0 Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, it is an honor once again to join my colleagues, Senators KASSEBAUM, DODD, and LIEBERMAN in submitting the seventh concurrent resolution since 1982 condemning the abuses endured by the Bahá’í faithful in Iran. It is, however, an honor which I would prefer to be relieved of by an Iranian Government that respects the rights of religious minorities.

There has been some limited progress since 1982, but the situation for the Bahá’ís remains far from tolerable. Since 1979, 201 Bahá’ís have been killed and thousands have been jailed. Tens of thousands have been dismissed from jobs and denied the means to provide for themselves and their families. Bahá’ís, severely persecuted in life, are not even afforded peace in death. Fifteen thousand graves in the Bahá’í cemetery in Tehran were recently desecrated as a result of an excavation to make way for a city cultural project.

The scope of this persecution would seem ample proof of systematic persecution. But if there were any doubt in the international community that the suffering of the Bahá’ís is a result of deliberate government policy, the United Nations dispelled it in 1993 by publishing a secret Iranian Government document.1 The secret code of oppression which came to light that year outlined Iran’s design for the destruction of the Bahá’í faith.

It ordered the expulsion of known Bahá’ís from universities. A common strategy of tyrannies—this process has succeeded in depriving higher education to an entire generation.

The document emphasizes that Bahá’ís should be punished for false allegations of “political espionage.”

It calls for a multifaceted effort to Stop the growth of the Bahá’í religion.

And mosr frighteningly, it urges the destruction of the Bahá’ís’ “cultural roots outside their country.”

The Bahá’ís suffer oppression not because

[Page 11]they pose a threat to the power of the Iranian Government or the order of Iranian society, but because they refuse to recant their religious beliefs and accept the Islam of the mullahs.

There is perhaps no nation in the world with which we have as many differences as we do with Iran. Its quest for weapons of mass destruCtion and its support for international subversion pose direct threats to its neighbors, U.S. interests, and the interests of our allies.

If Iran is ever to enjoy normal relations with the free world, it must demonSttate a commitment to abide by the basic rules of

A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 11

relations among civilized nations. This must be made clear to Iran. But we muSt also communicate to the Government of Iran that Americans and, indeed, all the ever expanding free world, consider religious tolerance to be a minimal requirement for entry into the community of nations. A Bahá’í, no less than any other human being, is entitled to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

For Bahá’ís, as for many people, happiness is pursued through religious devotion. If the theocracy that rules Iran cannot accept that enduring truth, it has no right to consider itself a worthy member of the civilized world. 0

[Page 12]12

House Debate: Calling for Freedom

of Conscience and Worship

The concurrent resolution expressing the sense of the U.S. Congress about the Iranian government’s continued denial to the Bahá’ís of their basic rights of freedom of conscience went before the U.S. House of Representatives on 26 March 1996. The following is the text of the debate in the House of Representatives as it appears in the House Congressional Record on 26 March 1996, pages H2855—7.—ED.

EMANCIPATION OF IRANIAN BAHA’I COMMUNITY

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. CON. RES. 102), concerning the emancipation of the Iranian Bahá’í community.

The Clerk read as follows:

H. Con. Res. 1021

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New York [Mr. GILMAN] and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. MORAN] will each be recognized for 20 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. GILMAN].

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased

l. The text of the House Concurrent Resolution 102 is the same as that of the Senate Concurrent Resolution 42 on pages 5—6.—EI).

to rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 102, concerning the emancipation of the Iranian Bahá’í community and would like to urge all House members to support this timely, important measure. I congratulate the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. PORTER) for again championing this important cause by introducing this measure. This resolution is the latest in a series of resolutions concerning the continuing repression of the Bahá’í community, and other religious minorities in Iran that have been adopted by the Congress since 1982.

It is truly a sad irony that since its founding the Bahá’í religion, which itself poses no threat to secular authority anywhere, has been singled out for such harsh repression in Iran and Other parts of the Middle East. I salute those who have courageously maintained their faith in the face of repression and who have too often paid the supreme price for their belief.

The closing years of this century have been marred by a resurgence of the brutality and horrors that have shaped much of its history. What we witness today in such places as Iran serves as a stark reminder that the Struggle for human rights is constant. While we can learn from our unfortunate history and our past misrakes, we can never desist from our defense of international human rights standards. Men and governments always seem to have the tragic capability of repeating the barbarisms of the paSt in new and unforeseen ways despite all of the institutions created in the course of this bloody century to prevent mankind from tearing itself apart.

This resolution allows us to once again

[Page 13]express our outrage and revulsion with regard to the brutal and systematic denial of one of the most basic of human freedomsfreedom of conscience—which has been denied by the Mullahs of Iran.

Each time we consider these resolutions it seems that there has been a new twist added to the outrages Iranian authorities have perpetrated against their own citizens. Last month, we received distressing reports from Iran about the conviction and sentencing to death of an Iranian Bahá’í for apostasy. NOt only does this have sinister implications for the longsuEering Bahá’í community of Iran, but for other religious minorities in that country as well.

Iran’s brutal treatment of the Bahá’í and other religious minorities has also been the subject of concern within the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. The Commission’s Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance has singled out the case of the Bahá’ís in Iran as an egregious example of interference with the right to freedom of conscience and of worship. The U.N.’s Special Rapporteur calls upon the Iranian authorities to ease reStrictions upon adherents to the Bahá’í faith.

The United States has spoken out consistently and repeatedly on Iran’s continued brutal repression of the Bahá’ís. In its latest Human Rights Report, the State Department includes Iran among the few countries that are the very worst abusers of the rights of their own citizens in the world. The treatment of the Iranian Bahá’í community epitomizes the character of the Iranian regimeits intolerance and its brutality.

We owe it to the victims of this repressive regime to continue to raise this issue in international human rights forums, and to press those governments that conduct commerce and diplomatic relations with the Government of Iran to use their influence and speak out against these outrages. Resolutions of the Congress, such as the one we now consider,

HOUSE DEBATE 13

representing the clear voice of the American people, are invaluable tools for our diplomats in bodies such as the U.N. Human Rights Commission, which is now meeting in Geneva. I hope my colleagues will join with me in supporting House ConcurrentResolution 102.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, Iyield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution makes an important statement, that the Congress continues to hold the Government of Iran responsible for upholding the rights of all its nationals, including members of the Bahá’í community.

Concern about Iran continues to rise to the surface of our foreign policy horizon. Much of the focus has been on trade, on Iran’s role in terrorism, its efforts to subvert governments in the Middle East, in North Africa, and its nuclear dealings with Russia and China.

This resolution helps in keeping our focus on Iran’s dismal record on human rights. Among the many other issues we have with that Government, Iran’s denial of religious rights, the abuse of its citizens and violations of internationally recognized human rights are of deepest concern to this Congress. We make that message clear by passing this resolution.

Our last resolution, which was adopted unanimously 2 years ago, was reiterated by the United Nations and the German Bundestag and the European Parliament condemning Iran’s persecution of Bahá’ís. In some limited instances, Iran has responded to this pressure. There is some evidence that the persecution of individual Bahá’ís in Iran is less severe today than it was several years ago. But let there be no doubt. The Bahá’í community is Still an oppressed minority and is denied rights to organize, elect leaders, conduct religious schools and Other religious activities.

Their religion is really all about achieving a peaceful world brotherhood. It is not some [Page 14]l4 WORLD ORDER: FALL 1996

thing we would consider to be threatening in this country, but it is a reflection of Iran’s intent that it is threatening to them.

We must continue to work to end this discrimination against the Bahá’ís and all who are denied basic civil rights, and so we would urge adoption of this resolution as one more appropriate Step toward that goal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mn PORTER].

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I again thank the chairman for yielding this time to me and would again commend him for his strong support of Bahá’ís. Throughout his service in the Congress he has made the protection of the minorities one of his highest priorities, and he has continuously strongly supported the Bahá’í minority in Iran, not only with votes, but by speaking out repeatedly on the floor of the House and wherever he has gone about the plight of the Bahá’ís at the hands of the revolutionary government of Iran, and I commend him for his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 102, the Bahá’í Community Emancipation Resolution, condemns the Government of Iran for denying the 300,000 people of the Bahá’í Iranian community their basic human rights. Since the fundamentalist Islamic regime took power in 1979, hundreds of Bahá’ís, the largest religious minority in Iran, have been executed, and thousands have been imprisoned solely because of their religion. Because the regime does not recognize the Bahá’í faith, calling it a conspiracy and

l. The secret memorandum on the “Bahá’í question,” which was dated 25 February 1991, was written by Seyyed Mohammad Golpaygani, Secretary of the Supreme Revolutionary Cultural Council at the request of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and addressed to him. Writ! Order published the memorandum in its Fall 1993 issue, pages 44—49.

a heresy, tens of thousands of Bahá’ís are today deprived of jobs, housing, schools, and other social services. Furthermore, it is common praCtice for Bahá’ís to be denied pensions and food ration cards purely because of their religious affiliation.

Mr. Speaker, the Bahá’í religion is founded upon the nine dominant religions of the world, including, of course, Islam, and draws on the teachings of all of them as the basis of its faith. There are organized Bahá’í assemblies in more than 100,000 localities in over 342 countries and territories.

[:l 1515

Intolerance, Mr. Speaker, is the trail of the backward, the ignorant, and the insecure. In Iran, intolerance of Bahá’ís, people who threaten no one and who accede to legitimate, civil authority wherever they reside, defines not the Bahá’ís, but the Iranian fundamentalists.

In 1993, an official Government document obtained in Iran confirmed for the first time that the ongoing persecution of the Bahá’í community has been a calculated policy written and approved by Iran’s highest ranking officials.l This document reveals that the Iranian policy is to repress Bahá’ís at every opportunity while maintaining official deniability for such actions. While the document states that Bahá’ís will not be expelled or arrested without reason, it makes evident that the Iranian Government’s intent is to isolate, persecute, and ultimately deStroy the Bahá’ís.

In the mid 19803, diplomatic pressure and negative publicity forced the Iranian leadership to lessen the severity of their grievous official campaign against Bahá’ís. There is strong evidence that congressional resolutions, together with appeals by other nations and the United Nations, helped to persuade Iranian officials to moderate their actions againSt the Bahá’í community.

There are disturbing signals, however, that the repression of Bahá’ís has increased during

[Page 15]this paSt year. We cannot be sure how many Bahá’ís are jailed at any moment. Apparently, there is a new trend by the Iranian authorities to carry out an increasing number of shortterm arreSts in various parts of the country. Bahá’ís are rotated through the prison system for varying lengths of confinement making it impossible to know who will be incarcerated when and for how long. Tragically, the situation has very recently taken a turn for the worse. Mr. Speaker, just last month a Bahá’í was found guilty of apostasy by the Revolutionary Court of Yazd and was sentenced to death. His crime? He was accused of changing his religion from Islam to the Bahá’í faith. The Iranian Supreme Court, in an unusual move, set aside the verdict and sent the case back to a lower court for review. If this man is executed, he will be the firSt Bahá’í executed since 1992.

Mr. Speaker, Iran mu3t continue to be ostracized from the community of nations until its conduct can begin to approach a respect for the basic rights of each human being to live, worship, and speak according to the dictates of his or her own conscience. Since 1982, the Congress has adopted six resolutions expressing its concern for persecuted Bahá’ís in Iran, and condemning the repressive anti-Bahá’í policies and actions of the Iranian Government. In 1994, the resolution was adopted by a recorded vote of 414 to 0. Mr. Speaker, with the passage of this resolution today, Congress will once again go on record in support of the basic rights of Bahá’ís and other religious minorities in Iran. I Strongly urge the adoption of this resolution.

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for his supportive remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey [ML SMITH], the distinguished chairman of our Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights

HOUSE DEBATE 15

of the Committee on International Relations.

(Mr. SMITH of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in Strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 102. I think it is a very good resolution and I want to commend the gentleman from Illinois [Mn PORTER] for his leadership on behalf of the Bahá’ís and on behalf of human rights

Mr. Speaker, the issue of persecution of the Bahá’ís is unfortunately not a new one in the House. Congress has passed a half—dozen resolutions condemning the vicious persecution of the Bahá’ís at the hands of the regime in Tehran, but the persecution continues.

Mr. Speaker, there is little I can add to the resolution and to the excellent comments that have been made so far. The Bahá’ís clearly are a peace-loving community, members of a religion that had its origin in Iran but that has adherents all over the world, including here in the United States. The extremist regime in Iran considers the Bahá’í religion to be a heresy, a group apostasy, so it persecutes them with even more severity than it does Christians, Jews, or other Muslims.

Mr. Speaker, I particularly want to call to the Congress’ attention the fact that there are at least four members of the Bahá’í faith that are now at risk of death in Iran. The gentleman from Illinois [M11 PORTER] mentioned one whose sentence has been remanded back to a lower court for review, and we hope this resolution sends a clear, unmistakable message that religious intolerance will not be tolerated by civilized countries, and that it will bring more scrutiny and more condemnation on the regime run by Rafsanjani.

I think it is very important that we speak, as we have, as Democrats, Republicans, as conservatives, moderates, and liberals, that we believe that the Bahá’ís have a right not

[Page 16]16 WORLD ORDER: FALL 1996

just to exist, but to express themselves, to practice their religion as they see fit.

We support the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the religious intolerance aets that have been passed by the United Nations. Every year the Human Rights Convention in Geneva looks at religious persecution and speaks out on it. My hope is that they will say to Tehran, “No more,” that cooler heads will prevail, and those who are being persecuted simply because they want to practice their faith as they see fit will no longer find themselves being tortured, incarcerated, and, even worse, put to death. I commend the gentleman from Illinois [ML PORTER] for his excellent resolution.

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. NEY].

(Mr. NEY asked and was given permission to revise and attend his remarks.)

Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I juSt wanted to make a couple of statements on this resolution. First, I commend the gentleman from Illinois [Mn PORTER] for bringing this forth to the floor of this House, and also commend the House for continuing to keep the pressure on this issue. I think the previous speakers have pointed out why we need to do that.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to state that I myself lived in Iran, in a southern city called Shíráz. I was there during the revolution in 1978 of the Shah of Iran. People would talk over the years about prejudice. Prejudice can exist in any country toward a people or toward a religion. There may have been some internal prejudice in 1978 and prior toward the Bahá’í religion, but I want to tell the Members, Bahá’ís were not pulled out into the streets and executed.

This regime, let us make no bones about it, goes beyond the thoughts of prejudice toward the Bahá’ís, and they have executed

people, they have forced families to purchase the bullets that their loved ones were executed with.

This is a brutal regime in Iran that has carried out assassinations toward members of the resistance in Europe recently. This is a regime that promotes terrorism around the world. As we know, even in Bosnia, as we speak this year they were active there and around the world to persecute people. I believe that the world needs to be constantly made aware and to promote and push the point of what is being done to the peaceful Bahá’í people.

I just want to again stress that if we do not keep up this type of pressure, it will be forgotten. This has helped in the past, and I want to commend the Members for what they are doing today, on behalf of the Bahá’í people.

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his supportive remarks.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. UPTON). The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from New York [ML GILMAN] that the House suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 102.

The question was taken.

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the Chair’s prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

[Page 17]17

Senate Debate: Not Forgetting Persecution for Religious

Convictions

The concurrent resolution expressing the sense of the US. Congress about the Iranian government’s ongoing violation of the human rights and religious freedom of the Bahá’ís went before the U.S. Senate on 26 June 1996. The following is the text of the debate in the Senate as it appears in the CongressionalRecord

on 26 June 1996, pages S7065—6.——ED.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 102.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

A concurrent resolution (H. CON. RES. 102) concerning the emancipation of the Iranian Bahá’í community.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate consideration of the concurrent resolution?

There being no objeCtion, the Senate proceeded to consider the concurrent resolution.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, the Senate today will adopt legislation condemning Iran’s persecution of the Bahá’í community. We have taken similar action in the past, and I regret that our continued vigilance on this matter is required.

We choose today to adopt this legislation in remembrance of a great tragedy for the Bahá’í community and for all who value

human rights and religious freedom. Thirteen years ago this month, Iranian religious officials executed, by hanging, 10 Bahá’í women—including three teen—age girls—in the city of Shíráz.

This killing of innocent women and children came amid a series of Bahá’í executions during the first half of 1983. At the time, President Reagan had expressed America’s alarm at the religious persecution of the Bahá’ís in Iran and had called upon the Iranian leadership to spare the lives of those Bahá’ís condemned to death in Shíráz. The Iranian response to this plea was to carry out without hesitation the schedule of June executions.

We know that those men, women and children were executed not for any crimes but for their religious beliefs. We also know the persecution continues to this day in many forms, both great and small.

Thirty—nine other Senators have joined with me in sponsoring this legislation, and the Senate today will unanimously adopt an identical resolution already passed by the House of Representatives. By today’s action, the U.S. Senate once again will make clear to all who will listen: “We have not forgorten.”

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, at many times during the past 14 years the Congress has condemned the government of Iran for its repressive policies and aetions toward its Bahá’í community. Today, I am honored to be celebrating the passage of a resolution

[Page 18]18 WORLD ORDER: FALL 1996

which calls on Iran to change its repressive anti-Bahá’í policies and to protect the rights of all its peoples including religious minority groups such as the Bahá’ís. The concurrent resolution we are adopting today is similar to the one which Sen. KASSEBAUM, Sen. MCCAIN, Sen. DODD and I submitted in this body in February.

Congress has adopted six previous resolutions on this important issue. The record of their success is certainly a mixed one, at best. Since their enactment, many Bahá’ís have been penalized by the government, and some even sentenced to death, just because of their religious beliefs. On the contrary, previous resolutions have shown some success as well, particularly in the case of one man who had been sentenced to death for his religious convictions. This man’s life was saved as the apostasy case was later overturned by the courts in Iran. Although the relationship between the Bahá’ís and the Iranian Government has improved since the first resolution was passed, not enough action has been taken. This open policy of repression is in clear violation of the obligation of sovereign states

to uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

In the past, President Clinton and former Presidents Reagan and Bush have all shown support of the Bahá’ís. The United Nations and many of its member states have also adopted numerous resolutions supporting religious freedom in Iran. Today, in adopting this concurrent resolution, we have succeeded in maintaining vigilance on the actions of the Iranian government. Only through continued support for change in the Iranian regime can over 300,000 Bahá’ís experience true religious freedom.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be considered and agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution appeared in the appropriate place in the Record.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The concurrent resolution (H. CON. RES. 102) was agreed to.

The preamble was agreed to.

[Page 19]19

Diversity

Papa, look at the pebbles I found today while walking on the shore; this one black and flat as slate, this one the color of sand, this one white and smooth as an egg, this one sunset red.

Papa, look at the leaves that fell from a tree and collected at my feet; this one all ablaze in red, this one banana-skin yellow, this one brown as my leather boots, this one fragile and beige.

Papa, look at the kittens born today in the field behind the house; this one white as snow, this one blacker than ink, this one striped with orange and tan, this one speckled and brown.

Papa, look at the friends I made today in the playground after school; this chocolate-skinned one with wooly black curls, this lean one with skin red as clay, this wheat—colored one with freckled cheeks, this one with almond-shaped eyes.

Papa, look at the colors I found today in everything I saw.

—Veronica Shoffstall

Copyright © 1996 by the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States

[Page 20][Page 21]21

The Martyrs of Manshéd

BY SIYYID MUHAMMAD TABIB-I MANsuADI

TRANSLATED BY AHANG RABBANI AND NAGHMEH ASTANI

THE PERSECUTION of the Bahá’ís by Iran’s Islamic regime has drawn the attention of the world. The United Nations, a number of governments, human—rights organizations, and thousands of individuals have protested against the inhuman treatment of a peaceful, lawabiding, and progressive religious community. To the Bahá’ís of Iran, more than two hundred of whom have been put to death in the last fifteen years, persecution is not new. It has been a constant feature of their history since the inception of their Faith some hundred and fifty years ago.

The martyrology of the Bahá’í Faith is rich in documents that include eyewitness accounts, government reports, dispatches of foreign consular officials, and histories produced after the events. Upsetting though its contents may be, World Order is happy to present one such document, “The Martyrs of Manshad,” a memoir of Siyyid Muhammad Tabib—i Manfiadi, newly translated from the Persian by Dr. Ahang Rabbani and Ms. Naghmeh Astani.

Aqa Siyyid Muhammad (1863—1918) was a Bahá’í physician who praCticed traditional Iranian medicine in the small town of Manflyid near the city of Yazd in Central Iran. Yazd has always been and continues to be a place where religious minorities, ZoroaStrian as well as Bahá’í, have experienced

Copyright © 1996 by Ahang Rabbani and Naghmeh Astani. Vafa Qa’im-Maqami’s gracious assistance in reading the translation and suggesting invaluable comments is affectionately acknowledged.

repeated attacks, pogroms, and confiscations of property provoked by a fanatical and rapacious Shiite clergy. A particularly cruel episode occurred in June 1903, when more than one hundred Bahá’í’s were killed in the city and its outlying villages, including Manflad. Aqa Siyyid Muhammad left an account, rich in detail, of what he witnessed during those blood-soaked days—an account he supplemented with details from interviews with the survivors. Its value is enhanced by the specificity of information it ofFers: names of the martyrs, circumstances of their deaths, identities of the murderers. Subheads have been added to clarify places and dates. Some details have been moved to the footnotes to make the narrative How better, and some passages have been omitted. Those familiar with the modern history of Iran will not be surprised to find among the persecutors Husayn Mirza Jalélu’d-Dawlih, son of the infamous Mas’tid Mirza Zillu’s Sultan, elder brother of Muzaffari’d-Din flab. Both princes have left a trail of blood in the annals of their country. Aqa Siyyid Muhammad’s account was published in its original Persian in Tehran circa 1975 under the title S_/mr[1—i §lga/m’dati flaubaddy—i Manglga’d.

Translating from the Persian is no easy task. The vocabulary and the style of Persian writing differ so greatly from that to which an English-speaking person is accustomed and expects that translators, even when they succeed in reproducing the meaning, often despair of conveying the feel of the original. An English-speaking reader will have no trouble

I)!

recognizing that “believer” refers to Baha is,

but might be baffled by the use of “Lover of

[Page 22]22 WORLD ORDER: FALL 1996

Truth” to mean the same thing. Some specifi 13/

cally Baha 1 terms may also need elucidation. Riḍván, an Arabic word from the root “rada’ ” meaning accepting, being pleased, is used by extension to mean “paradise” and the “gatekeeper or garden of paradise.” In the Bahá’í writings it also refers to the festival of Riḍván, the annual celebration of the days (21 April3 May 1863) during which Bahá’u’lláh declared His mission to a small number of disciples in a garden in Baghdad. Abhá Kingdom, literally the Kingdom of the Most Glorious, is another Bahá’í term for paradise.

The present translation is only the first attempt that will doubtless be followed by others. Yet it is a significant contribution to our slowly growing knowledge of the history of the Bahá’í Faith and the heroism of its adherents in its native land.

—THE EDITORS

l’l

renowned and much—esteemed Baha 1 teacher, Jinab—i Ibn—i Abhár, traveled from Tehran to Yazd.l The Bahá’ís of Maughad, learning of his stay in Yazd, invited this beloved soul to their town so that he might teach the Faith and meet the friends. Ibn—i Abhár readily accepted the invitation and during the Riclvan feStivities journeyed to Manflad. The news of his arrival brought much joy to the believers and cheered their spirit. But it also inflamed the jealousy and hatred of the fanatical populace of town. . .

DURING the early months of 1903 the

1. As is customary with Middle Eastern narratives, the opening passage is devoted to praise and glorification of God and of the Báb and Bahá’u’lláh, the ProphetForerunner and Prophet-Founder, respectively, of the Bahá’í Faith. This passage has been omitted.

Ibn—i Abhár remained in Manshad for four days. On the fifth day, via the village of Taft, he returned to Yazd, where he stayed for a few more days before going back to Tehran.

Upbeaval in Yazd ON Saturday, 12 June 1903/ 16 Rabi‘u’ -Awal, 1321 A.H., Mirza Ibrahim, the Imém-Jum‘ih, returned to Yazd after a brief trip to Iṣfahán. The people of Yazd wasted no time informing him of the activities of Bahá’ís and of their new vigor and enthusiasm and their gatherings for dawn prayers. His overgrown ego and IUSt for leadership inflamed, he issued an order for a pogrom against the Bahá’ís. Hoodlums of Yazd and those with personal grudges decided to start a riot.

The next morning some of these mischievous people gathered around the shop of Aqa Muhammad ‘Attar, son of Haji ‘Aziz flan, and Stoned the front entrance. Then they captured the shopkeeper and took him to the Imam-Jum‘ih, requesting permission to kill him. A few non-Bahá’ís who were acquainted with Aqa Muhammad’s goodly character, his honesty and trustworthiness, however, intervened and assiSted with his release.

On the third day, 14 June, three hours after sunrise, in the middle of Yazd’s bazaar, one of the Bahá’ís, Haji Mirza—yi Halabisaz, was stabbed and killed by the butcher’s cleaver of Hasan Ibn—i Rasfil, one of the hoodlums. Husayn Mirza, the Jalalu’d-Dawlih (son of Mas’t'ld Mirza Zillu’s—Sultén) , who was at that time the governor of Yazd, quickly dispatched his aides on the receipt of this news to calm the people and stop further rioting and killings.

Upbeaval in Manim’d WHEN the tragic news of Hájí Mirza’s martyrdom reached the Bahá’ís of Manshad, they mourned his death and held a memorial service for that much—loved believer. The entire Bahá’í community was present in that assemblage,

engaged in prayer and supplications. The news

[Page 23]of this gathering and the mourning of the friends further inflamed the hatred and animosity of the enemies, who began plotting riots to kill the friends.

The believers of Mansbfid informed the governor of their dire condition. In response he dispatched to Manahad ten flahsavan soldiers headed by a man named ‘Isé flén-i Sarti’p, who had orders to protect the believers and prevent further upheaval. When ‘Isa flan and his men arrived in Manshad, they stayed for four days in the house of the town’s chiefiain, Muhammad—i Kalantar (son of Hájí ‘Ali-Akbar—i Manfiédi).

Friday, 25 june. On Friday, 25 June, the last day of ‘Isa Khan’s stay, a Governor’s messenger arrived late in the afternoon and presented a sealed letter to him. This servant [the author] was present in that gathering when the letter was handed to him. On reading the letter, he was much perturbed. I asked him about the contents of the letter, which had visibly diSturbed him, but he did not reply, so deep was he in contemplation. Later that same night ‘Isa flan asked my opinion: “Without a guide, would I be able to go to Yazd, via the village of Mihtijird, this very night?” I advised him that, since it was quite dark, and he had never traveled that road, which was very rocky, he would certainly need a guide. Accepting this, ‘Isa _K_ha’tn, accompanied by a Manfiadi guide and two of his soldiers, started toward Yazd within the hour

Saturday, 26 fune. The following morning, three hours after sunrise, I was at home when flatir Hasan, the baker, and Aqa ‘AliAkbar, sons of the late Aqa Mirza Ibrahim, the baker, came to me in a state of bewilderment and agitation. I asked them what was troubling them. They replied, “News is circulating in Manshéd that the people of Yazd have caused much disturbance and have put to death several of the believers.” I inquired if they knew who had brought this news. They responded that this news was being

THE MARTYRS OF MAN§flAD 23

spread by one Muhammad—Sádiq Na‘i’mAba’tdi’, and flatir Hasan assured me that he would go and ascertain its truth.

When they left my house, Aqa ‘Ali-Akbar returned to his shop, and Shatir Hasan set out to inveStigate the matter. At the Manfiéd cemetery he came upon the source of the news, Muhammad-Sadiq Na‘im-Abadi, whom he asked about the events in Yazd and who reported the killings of Bahá’ís. MuhammadSádiq, overcome with anger, Struck Shatir Hasan in the head with a club he was carrying, opening a severe wound from which a fountain of blood poured forth. MuhammadSádiq, then stood there and cried out for the people to gather around. When a large group had formed, he told them of the events in Yazd and incited his listeners to perpetrate the same in Mansha’td. Shatir Hasan, his head and face bloody, left the crowd and returned to the company of his brother Aqa ‘Ali-Akbar and other Bahá’ís, to whom he recounted the events that had transpired. A number of the Bahá’ís retreated into hiding, and others went into the mountains of Manshéd.

Meanwhile some three hundred people gathered around Muhammad-Sadiq in the cemetery and embraced the idea of vandalizing and pillaging the Bahá’ís’ belongings and putting them to death. One influential believer, Haji ‘Ali-Muhammad, was soon informed of this gathering and went to the hoodlums to prevent them from rioting. Afterward he came directly to my house, happy that the group had had a change of heart. The crowd, however, remained quiet for only a short time before becoming agitated again, an agitation much louder than before. Once again Hájí ‘Ali—Muhammad went out to calm the crowd, but his efforts were in vain this time, and the mobs abusive cries grew worse.

In the midst of all the commotion Aqa G_hulam-Rida, the son of Haji ‘Ali—Naqi, while trying to escape, crossed paths with Siyyid Ibrahim, the shepherd, a son of Siyyid ‘Abu’l [Page 24]24 WORLD ORDER: FALL 1996

i Manshadi. Siyyid Ibrahim tried to take Aqa G_hulam—Rida’s life. Aqa Qhulam-Rida escaped, and the Siyyid returned to the group of timers and decitfully lay motionless on the ground as if dead. His relatives and friends gathered around him, shouting, “O people, Islam is finished. Bahá’ís have murdered the Siyyid!” Some three hundred people, including the rioters and spectators, lifted the Siyyid’s supposedly lifeless body and carried it to the house of Muhammad—i Kalantar, the town’s chief. There they continued with their accusations and agitation that the Bahá’í’s had killed the Siyyid.

The Kalantar sent a messenger to my house bearing the news that Bahá’ís had beaten up a man, who had been brought unconscious to the chief’s house, and asking me to examine him to determine if he was still alive. Confident of God’s confirmations and putting my trust in Him, I went to the Kalantar’s home. On the way I ran into the mob of rioters who attempted to kill me. A non-Bahá’í prevented them and dispersed them from around me. I finally passed through the crowd safely and reached the Kalantar’s home. After examining the Siyyid and checking his

2. The names of the assailants are given on page 18 of the text as Muhammad-Sadiq Na‘im—Abédi; Q_l_1_ulémRida, son of Husayn; Siyyid Muhammad—‘Ali, the soothsayer; ‘Ali-Akbar, a son of Ibrahim; G_hulam—Ridé of Tazarjan; Haji Ibn-Mirza—‘Ali; Ahmad—Jt’ila; the three sons of G_hulém-‘Ali, the catpenter—namely, G_h_ulamHusayn, Javad, and Hájí; ‘Alyi-‘Arab; Muhammad IbnRidé; ‘Abdu—l—‘Ali, a son of Ahmad; ‘Ali, a nephew of the Kalantar; Husayn-’Ali, son of Hájí ‘Abu’l-Qasim; Mihdi and Ibrahim, sons of Umm-Layli; Ja‘far Ibnflulam; Rida, Husayn, and Hasan, sons of Baqir; Ahmad Ibn—flahtbém’i; ‘Ali—Bayk, son of Amir-Bayk; Ahmad, son of Haji G_hulém; ‘Alf, son of ‘Askar; Mirza Ahmad, son of Muhammad-Husayn-i- Dahan; and ‘AliIbn—Baqir.

3. These two brothers and their entire family had embraced the new faith on Siyyid Yaya Vahid-i—Da’u'ébf’s last visit to Yazd in April 1850.

pulse, I knew there was nothing wrong with him, and told the crowd: “No one has beaten or injured the Siyyid. Do not create mischief for no reason.” No one listened, and the hoodlums grasped the pretext of the Siyyid’s condition to leave the Kalantar’s house shouting and screaming.

Twenty—seven men, agitated further by a certain Javad, son of Haji MuhammadHusayn—i sham, and with the approval of Muhammad-i Kaléntar, separated from the group.2 Heavily armed and yelling loudly, they walked to the farm of flajih Hasan. When they reached their destination about an hour before noon, Mulla ‘Ali-Akbar, the brother of Rada’r-Rt’ih, was working in the field.3 As the wild mob approached, Hájí’, son of Qhulam—‘Ali, the carpenter, threw a stone at Mulla ‘Ali-Akbar, striking him in the head and covering his face and beard with much blood. Then another man, Ja‘far IbnG_hulam, struck him in the head with a club, knocking his feeble frame to the ground. ‘AlfMuhammad, the ten year old grandson of Mulla ‘Ali—Akbat, threw himself on the body of his grandfather. The holligans wanted to kill the child, but one of the byStanders prevented it. The mob gathered around and proceeded, using knives, clubs, and stones, to assault the body of Mulla ‘Ali-Akbar until his spirit yielded. Two individuals buried Mulla ‘Ali-Akbar in the same spot where his body lay. Several days later, however, his body was removed from the temporary grave and properly buried in his own home in Manshad, in the neighborhood known as Mirzaha. Mulla ‘Ali-Akbar was seventy years old at the time of his martyrdom.

Having taken the life of Mulla ‘Ali-Akbar, the bloodthirsty mob immediately attacked

I?!

the house of Muhammad-Isma‘il, a Bahai baker and a son of Mirza Ibrahim, the baker, who lived on the same farm. They pillaged his house and, finding him on the second floor, stabbed him repeatedly before throwing him from the balcony, after which his

[Page 25]body was subjected to various sorts of blows by those eagerly waiting outside. The body of that lover of truth was buried in the vicinity of his house. At the time of his martyrdom, Aqé Muhammad—Isma‘il was sixtyseven years old.

After committing these two shameful murders, the mob left the farm, returning to Manshad. As they entered, some three hundred spectators from the town and surrounding localities joined them. They marched toward the home of Ustad Hu‘sayn, a Bahá’í shoemaker from Yazd who happened to be in Manshad during these events. When the mob entered his house, Ustad Husayn retreated to the roof. Muhammad-Sadiq Na‘i’m-Abadi’ [who had incited the mob earlier in the day] followed him with the intention of killing him. Ustad Husayn, protecting himself with a shoe—making tool, injured and successfully warded off Muhammad—Sadiq. No sooner had he fought off Muhammad-Sadiq than he was overtaken by several individuals, led by a certain Haji Muhammad, who climbed a mulberry tree to gain access to the roof. Ustad Iqusayn, defenseless and overpowered,- was thrown from the roof to the ground where a ruthless mob set on him with knives, clubs, and stones, martyring this noble soul. By now it was noon.

Ustad Husayn’s aged mother ran out of the house and threw herself on her son’s lifeless body, weeping bitterly. The heartless mob threw stones and inflicted many injuries on this devoted woman who was seventy years old. She became ill and only twenty days after the martyrdom of her son passed on to the Abhá Kingdom and was buried in Manfiad’s cemetery. The body of Ustad Husayn was taken to the bank of the flahmiri’ River on the outskirts of the town and buried in a spot that to this day remains his resting place. Ustad Husayn was fifty years old at the time of his martyrdom.

After killing Ustad Husayn, the mob con tinued with its vicious attacks on the lives

THE MARTYRS OF MANs_HAD 25

and property of Bahá’ís. Arriving in a neighborhood known as KarQinar around one o’clock in the afternoon, they encountered three believers—Aqa Husayn (son of Muhammad-Kfizim), Aqa G_hulam-‘Ali’ (son of Hasan Ibn-i Haji Rajab), and Aqa Ramadan (son of Javad Ibn-i Haji ‘Ali—Naqi)—who were attempting to flee to the refuge of the mountains known as Pth-i Bagh-i No and Mazra‘ih—yi Abbas on the south side of Manshad. The mob followed them. ‘All’, the brother of the Kalantar, fired and shot Aqa Husayn. As he fell, the mob opened fire on him, riddling his body with bullets. Not satisfied with this act, they stoned what remained of his mortal frame. Sixty—five years old at the time of his martyrdom, he was brought back to his own home and buried there.

After the murder of Aqa Husayn, the murderous mob found Aqa G_hulam-‘Ali’ in the same vicinity. A certain ‘Abdu’l—‘Alf fired on him fiISt; then the rest clubbed and stoned his young body until he died. Regrettably, Aqa Ramadan suffered the same fate as did his companions. He was found taking refuge under a large rock on the hill. They dropped the rock on him, killing him. Both he and Aqa G_hulam-‘Ali were buried on the same hill, a location that would remain their permanent grave sites. Aqa Ramadan was twentytwo, and Aqa Qhulam-‘Ali eighteen years old at the time of their martyrdoms.

The mob remained on the hill until sunset. They then turned back to Manfiad looking for Bahá’ís. On the way, passing through the Muhammad-Abad region, they came upon Siyyid Mirza, the son of Siyyid Ahmad. Having left his home out of fear of the enemies, he had lain down to rest and had fallen asleep on the ground. Seeing him, two of the hooligans, Qhulam-‘Ali, son of Haji Muhammad, and _G_hulam-Husayn, son of Mirza ‘Ali-Rida, picked up a massive rock and delivered a fatal blow to the head of the sleeping and defenseless Siyyid Mirza. Carrying him to his own

[Page 26]26 WORLD ORDER: FALL 1996

orchard, the men buried him in the orchard, which to this day remains his resting place. He was seventy-five years old on the day of his martyrdom.

To sum up, on that first day of upheavals, from one hour before noon until sunset, seven believers were put to death in the most inhumane and reprehensible ways. No sound could be heard that day except the shouts of a populace celebrating and the roar of gunfire. Only God knows what befell me all during those tragic events. At times I was given the news of yet another dear friend being put to death or heard the taunting and jeering of the mob in the streets. At other times the foes would congratulate each other. All through this I was constantly being threatened with death, and yet I had no choice but to witness and remain patient in light of the horrendous events encircling the community. . . .

Sunday, 27 june. The next day, Sunday, 27 June, this servant was briefly visiting one of the friends, Haji ‘Ali-Muhammad, at the hour of dawn. As I left his house, I saw ten gunmen . . . entering the town.4 I asked someone on the Street who these men were, and he said that the men, all from the nearby villages, had heard about the killing and plundering of the possessions of the Bahá’ís of Yazd and Man§_l_1_ad and had come to have their share in it too. When the news of their arrival reached the mob, they joined forces

4. The ten gunmen were from the surrounding villages of flabari, Zardanki, and ghar-Rahf; the author gives their names as fiulam-Husayn flabari and his three sons, Ahmad Khan, Rida-Quli, and Hasan flan; flayru’lláh C_hér—Rahi; Hájí, the son of Qurban‘Ali flabari; G_hulém—Rida Zardanki; Muhammad, the son of Husayn-i-C_hér-Rahi; Iansan fiah-Rida; and Iskandar Qhér—Réhi.

5. The author gives their names as Hájí Husayn; ‘Ali-Akbar; and Haji Husayn-‘Ali, the son of Hájí ‘AliAkbar.

and started toward the homes of the believers.

The first home and shop they came upon belonged to two previously mentioned brothers—_S_b_atir Hasan and Aqa ‘Ali-Akbar. All their belongings were either desrroyed or plundered; even the grapevines in their garden were uprooted and smashed. The house and shop were then set afire.

Afterward, about two hours before noon, the mob moved on to the house of Muhammad-Béqir, the son of Hasan Ibnfli Salih, one of the believers of Yazd visiting Manflad. Another believer, Mulla’ Muhammad—i Manshadi, had taken refuge on the second floor of the house as well. Three persons from the rioting gang . . . entered the house and located Mulla Muhammad.5 One of the three men told the others that Mulla Muhammad had been his teacher and suggested that they leave him alone and spare his life. The other two would not consent to this and brought Mulla Muhammad downstairs and told the others about his presence. The mob and the ten gunmen circled around him. One of the gunmen, ghulam-Rida Zardanki’, fired a shot at his chest, which was followed by another shot by ‘Ali-Akbar. Then the rest either opened fire on Mulla Muhammad or stoned and clubbed him. After viciously killing him, they tied a rope to his feet and dragged his body to the back of Aqa ‘Ali-Akbar’s house. Two of them, Zaynu’l-‘Abidin—i ‘Attar and his son Hasan-‘Ali, brought kerosene and another, ‘Ali-yi ‘Arab, poured it over the body and set it on fire. As the body burned, the rest of the crazed mob continued to stone it—so much so that the charred remains were completely buried under the rocks. When the last parts of Mulla Muhammad’s body were covered, some poured water over the pile of rocks and left the scene. That evening, his son, Ustad Naqi, with the help of another believer, Haji ‘Ali—Muhammad, took the body and buried it in a property belonging to Mulla Muhammad. His resting place remains at the same

[Page 27]spot. He was fifty-eight years old at the time of his martyrdom.

On the first day of the troubles [a group of Bahá’í’s had taken refuge in the nearby mountains on the eastern side of the town.6 Rajab-‘Ali’, who previously frequented the Bahá’í gatherings and on occasions had expressed his allegiance to the Faith and had been friendly to the believers, learned of their hiding place in the mountains. On Sunday night he went to visit them. Because the believers trusted him, they inquired about the events of recent days, asking further about the friends who had been murdered, their families, and their own households and relatives who were left behind. Rajab—‘Ali told the Bahá’ís about the martyrdoms and the generally disaStrous condition of the believers in town. When the group asked what was to come, Rajab-‘Ali told them that on that day a group of gunmen had entered the town to massacre the Bahá’ís and plunder their possessions. He also mentioned that it was anticipated that on the following day a few hundred townspeople would circle this bill, killing all the Bahá’ís who had taken refuge there.

On hearing this, since they trusted this man, the believers became greatly perturbed. The refugees decided that in the middle of the night they would descend the hill, and each travel in a separate direction. Little did they know that Rajab—‘All’ was devoid of any spiritual qualities and was totally insincere.

6. On pages 27-28 of the original text the following names are given: Shani" Hasan, the baker, Aqa ‘AliAkbar, and Assadu’llah—the sons of the late Mirza Ibrahim, the baker; Aqa Hasan—‘Ali; Javéd; Aqa Siyyid Taqi; Aqa Siyyid Baqir; Siyyid Husayn; children of the late Aqa Siyyid Ahmad; Aqa Siyyid Muhammad, the son of Siyyid Taqi; Aqé Mirza Muhammad-I—Iudé; ‘Abdu’l-Vahhab; ‘Abdu’r—Rast’il; and Aqa Muhammad Ibn-i Mihdi.

THE MARTYRS OF MAN_S_}1AD 27

When they dispersed in the dead of the night, Aqa ‘Ali-Akbar had a bad fall and broke his leg. gag: Hasan was also severely injured when a rock rolled over his foot. As a result, these two brothers were obliged to remain in the hills and could not disperse with the others. Meanwhile, Rajab-‘Ali’, upon leaving the group, went diteCtly to the home of the notorious Muhammad—i Kaléntar and gave him a complete report of the plans of the Bahá’ís and the condition of the two brothers.

Monday 28 june. The next morning, on the third day of the massacres, Muhammadi Kalantar dispatched several gunmen to the hills with instructions to find and kill the two brothers. A very large number of bloodthirsty enemies of the Faith also accompanied these evil men. Meanwhile, flatir Hasan, in spite of his injuries, had come down the hill at dawn to fetch some water for his brother, who was in great pain. He was by a small spring . . . when the mob sported him. Circling him, they demanded to know the whereabouts of his brother. sham Hasan told the group that last night, while he was running, a rock had fallen on him and cut his foot, causing it to bleed badly, and, if they followed the blood trail, it would lead to his brother, Aqa ‘Ali-Akbar.

A number remained with him to ensure that he would not go anywhere. The rest followed the blood trail until they reached the top of the hill and saw Aqa ‘Ali-Akbar, who was very weak and could not move. When he was spotted, one of the gunmen, Muhammad Rabi‘, the son-in-law of the Kalantar, shot him, following which Rida flikéri and then the other townspeople also launched a volley of bullets.

After killing ‘Ali-Akbar, they left the body and came back down to join the reSt by the Stream. flatir Hasan had some rock candy, which he distributed among the mob and assassins. Then he took off his outer garments and divided them among the

[Page 28]28 WORLD ORDER: FALL 1996

mob. . . . Having thereby prepared himself for his martyrdom, he asked if he could drink some water before they killed him. After being granted permission, §hatir Hasan said, “Though I know you won’t allow me time to drink, I am resigned to the will of God.” . . . As soon as he had taken a few steps toward the stream, seventeen of the gunmen shot him in the back. This was followed by round after round. In all, three volleys, with a total of fifty—one bullets, pierced his beloved body. After §hétir Hasan’s martyrdom, his body was left by the stream. Later that evening a few of the friends placed his body in a wooden coffin and, bringing it back to Manfiad, hid the coffin in his own home for four months until it was safe to bury it in a nearby place. . . . He was sixty years old at the time of martyrdom.

Forty days after the martyrdom of Aqa ‘Ali-Akbar, nine of the believers . . . returned quietly at night to the hills and located his body.7 They also placed his body in a casket and buried it at his own home in Manfiad. He was fifty-six years old at the time of his martyrdom.

73465614}, 29 june. On Tuesday, the mob learned of the hiding place of ‘Ali-Akbar, the son of Hasan Ibn-i Hájí Rajab, who had taken refuge in the house of his son—in—law, Qhulam-Rida. About one hour before noon the mob rushed to the house, located Jinabi ‘Ali-Akbar, and dragged him outside to the Streets. One of the gunmen, G_hulam—Rida Ibn—i Husayn, shot him. This was followed

7. This group of believers included Aqa ‘Ali-Akbar, the son of Muhammad and a nephew of the martyred Aqa ‘Ali-Alghbat; Aqé Javéd, the son of martyred Mullá Bahá’í; Aqé ‘Ali-Akbar, the son of Hájí’ ‘Ali—Muhammad; Aqé ‘Ali-Muhammad, the son of martyred Aqé Mirza Muhammad; Aqé Haydar, the son of Taqi; Aqé Mitzi ‘Ali, the well-digger; Aqé ghuIam-Husayn, the son of Haji Ja‘far; Aqé Mina ‘Ali-Akbar, the son of Husayn; Aqa ‘Abdu’l-Vahhab.

by a severe blow to the head with a heavy club—which Husayn-‘Ali, the son of Haji Muhammad, carried for this purpose—that rendered him unconscious. The rest of the crowd then set upon him, stoning, clubbing, and firing at him. His body then was thrown off a nearby bridge into the river, where it remained until that evening when a few of the believers took his body and buried him in one of his orchards. Jináb-i ‘Ali-Akbar was fifty years old at the time of martyrdom.

W/ednesday, 30 june. The next morning, the crowd learned of yet another Bahá’í in hiding. This time it was Aqé Mirza Husayn, the son of Sadiq Ibn-i Haji Muhammad-‘Ali, who had been hiding in the northern hills, known as the mountains of Murghisrén and Murad—‘Ali. Around noontime two men, Javéd, the son of G_hulam-‘Ali’, the carpenter, and Zaynu’l—‘Abidin—i Yazdi, the son of ‘Ali-Akbar, went into the hills, located Aqa Mirzá Husayn, and captured him. It was two hours before noon when he was brought back to Manfiéd and taken to the home of Muhammad-Rabi‘. Aqa Mirza Husayn asked for water, in response to which the aforementioned Muhammad-Sadiq Na‘im-Abédi unsheathed a large knife and Stabbed him, saying, “Drink this.” The man turned to the mob and said, “0 people, I had vowed to drink the blood of these Bábl’s. Now watch me fulfill my vow.” He pulled the knife out of the body and licked all the blood off it. Then he signaled the mob to shoot Aqa Mitzi Husayn, which the crazed gunmen were happy to do. Not being satisfied with that the mob . . . then circled his remains and stoned and clubbed him. After killing him in that fashion, they tied a rope to his feet and dragged him through the streets of Mangéd until they reached the martyr’s home, where they deposited his remains. That evening his wife took the body and quietly buried it in a nearby garden belonging to Aqa Mirza Husayn, where it remains to this day. He was sixty years old at the time of martyrdom.

[Page 29]That same day Muhammad-i Kalantar sent some of his men to arrest Aqa Yadu’llah, a son of Aqa Mirza Husayn. The boy, who was no more than twelve years old, was taken to the home of the Kalantar so he might also be put to death. In the ensuing gathering in which this servant was also present, I told Muhammad-i Kalantar that the boy was a minor, and religious laws were not applicable to him. The hoodlums Still wanted to kill him. To ensure his freedom, I suggested to the Kaléntar that he collect some money as a price for his liberty. He accepted my requesr, and the mother of the child was called. Upon collecting a sum, he allowed the boy to leave.

Again on that same day the mob, after killing Aqa Mirza Husayn, went to another neighborhood in the outskirts of Manshad known as Kuzh. At that time one of the believers, Aqa ‘Ali-Muhammad, the son of Haji Husayn Ibn-i Haji ‘Ali-Akbar-i Turk, was hiding from the bloodthirsty crowd in the home of Husayn Ibn—i Hasan Ibn—i Panah‘Alr’. Four men . . . entered the house, located Aqa ‘Ali—Muhammad, and took him outside.8 One of the gunmen, ‘Ali-Akbar, aimed his gun at Aqa ‘Ali-Muhammad’s head and fired. He immediately fell to the ground at which time the reSt of the crowd began Stoning him. At that moment, while the severely injured Aqa ‘Ali—Muhammad was breathing his last breaths, a man approached him. This heartless individual opened Aqa ‘Ali-Muhammad’s mouth, filled it with sand and soil, and then kicked him until he was dead. A rope

8. The text on page 36 gives their names as Hasan‘Ali, the son of Haji Muhammad; Javad, the son of Muhammad Hédi; ‘Ali-Akbar, the son of Ibrahim; and ‘Ali-Akbar, the son of Hájí Husayn.

9. The four assailants were Qhulém-Riclé, the son of Husayn; ‘Ali, the son of Hájí’ Akbar; Ahmad, the son of Hájí _G_hulam; and Qiulam-Ridé Tazarjénf.

THE MARTYRS OF MANsriAD 29

was tied to his feet, and he was dragged and paraded to the front door of gag: Hasan’s home, the believer whom the same people had killed earlier. His body was left there until nighttime, when one of the believers gathered his remains and buried them in the backyard of the same house, where they remain to this day. Aqa ‘Alf—Muhammad was fortyfive years old at the time of martyrdom. Thursday, 1 july. The next day, Thursday, two hours before noon, four men . . . entered the home of __K_hadi’jih—Sultein, an elderly Bahá’í woman, daughter of Haji Rajab and mother of the martyr Aqa Qhult’lm-Ritlai.9 They took her to the home of Muhammad—i Kalantar and requeSted his permission to kill her. He instructed them to take her away, thereby signaling his consent. The men took her to the top of Tikiyyih [a building where large gatherings for mourning martyred Imams are held] in the town center and pushed her off the roof. The women of Manshad gathered around her body and first removed her chador and veil, after which her remains were stoned by men and women alike. fladijih—Sultan, who was later buried in her own home, was sixty—five years old at the time of her death. Friday, 211d}. Meanwhile, Aqé Siyyid Javad, a son of Aqa’t Siyyid Taqi, had taken refuge in his home. The next day, fiulam—Rida, one of the men from the killing mob, learned of Aqa Siyyid Javéd’s whereabouts and went to his house, captured him, and brought him out. His three young daughters, who were only nine, seven, and five years old, began to weep and plead with the man to leave their father alone. They even begged to be killed in place of their father. The daughters, tears pouring from their eyes, encircled their dear father and held tight to him. Determined to take Aqa Javéd’s life, the man ignored all the children’s pleas and cries. He used his club and kicks to separate the daughters from their father and, violently slapping them, forced them to let go of their father. By now an eager crowd had gathered and was watching

[Page 30]30 WORLD ORDER: FALL 1996

the whole incident. Aqa Siyyid Javad was dragged outside, his hands were tied behind his back, and with bare feet and head he was taken to the home of Muhammad-i Kalantar. . . . At that moment, when they brought Aqa Siyyid Javad, I happened to be visiting the Kalantar. Aqa Javad’s countenance seemed to glow with joy, extreme happiness, and certitude. He was radiating a heavenly smile as he entered the room. He was not speaking to anyone. . . . Muhammad-i Kalantar appeared on the roof of the house. The crowd told the Kalantar that they had captured this Bahá’í. He said, “Why have you brought the Siyyid to me?” And with the wave of his hand the Kalantar signaled his approval for him to be taken away and be killed. The mob paraded the Siyyid to the town square. One of them, G_hulam-‘A11’, the carpenter, fired a bullet that shattered his skull. Others . . . joined in by firing their guns at him and engaging in their ritual stoning, cursing, and defaming of the body.10 Later his remains were dropped into a pit used for preparing charcoal, which serves to this day as his burial place. It was an hour before noon when Aqa Siyyid Javad drank the cup of martyrdom. Hewas fortyyearsold.

Saturday, 311d}. On Saturday Aqa Muhammad—‘Ali, the son of Haji Nasru’llah, had taken refuge in the house of his nephew, Aqa Mirza Ahmad, when six men entered the house to capture him.11 They tied a rope

10. The three principle slayers were G_hulam-Rida, the son of Husayn; ‘Ali-Akbar, the son of Hájí Husayn; and G_h_ulam—Rida Tazarjani.

11. G_hula’1m-Rida, the son of Husayn; Mirza ‘AliAkbar and Mirzá Javad, the sons of Rida; Siyyid Muhammad, the soorhsayer; Siyyid Husayn, the son of Siyyid Ibrahim; and Muhammad, the son of Rigid.

12. Muhammad-Sadiq Na‘im-Abadi’; Mi’rza Rielé, the son of Hájí Siyyid Mina, the Imam Jum‘ih; Siyyid Husayn, the son of Haji Siyyid Mahmlid; and Siyyid Ibrahim, son of Siyyid ‘Ali—Ridé.

around his neck, and two men, Muhammad, son of Rida, and Qhulam—Rida, son of Husayn, forcefully pulled each end. Such is how Aqa Muhammad—‘Ali was martyred two hours before sunset. After the killing, they Stoned and clubbed his remains and left the body. . . . That evening the believers took his remains to nearby property belonging to Aqa Muhammad—‘Ali himself and buried him. He was fifty years old.

Sunday, 4 fuly. The following day, Sunday, Aqa G_hulam-Rida, the son of Haji’ ‘AliNaqi, who had also taken refuge at a home of a friend, Siyyid Rida, a son of Mi’rza Jamal, was discovered by Siyyid Husayn, son of Siyyid ‘Ali—Rida. Three hours after sunrise, four of the men who had committed many of the earlier killings, along with a large mob, came to the house and captured him.12 They tied his hands behind him, leading him through the streets and eventually to a neighborhood known as Pufllt—i Bagh. There he was shot by two of the gunmen, Siyyid Husayn and Siyyid Ibrahim; his body was stoned, clubbed, and then thrown into a well. Two months later his body was recovered from the well by fellow believers and buried in his own home at a site near the grave of his mother, Khadr’jih—Sultan, whom the same people had killed earlier. These two souls, the mother and son, are still buried next to each other. He was forty years old.

deesday and Thursday, 7 and 8 fuly. On the following Wednesday evening, Aqé Assadu’llah, another son of Mirza Ibrahim, the baker, and a brother of the martyrs gag: Hasan and Aqa ‘Ali-Akbar, decided to travel to Yazd, knowing that it would be better to leave Manflad for a time. Together with his traveling companion, Siyyid ‘AJi, they took a

route through the valleys outside of town.

The next morning, while passing by a village named Mihri’jird, they were recognized by a few of the villagers. The villagers immediately captured these two believers, taking them to a nearby farm known as Ibrahim-Abad.

[Page 31]They interrogated the two, and each was given the opportunity to recant. Siyyid-‘Ah’, who was a Muslim, was set free. Aqa Assadu’llah, however, was detained.

The people sent a report of the day’s event to the Imam-Jum‘ih of Yazd, Mirza Ibrahim, who was visiting the nearby village of Tazarjan. When the messenger arrived to deliver the report, he was intercepted by one of the community leaders, Haji Mirza Muhammad‘Ali-yi Tazarjanl', who took the report and read its contents. Then, without consulting the religious leader, the Imam-Jum‘ih, dispatched six of his gunmen to the farm where Aqa Assadu’llah was held, insrruCting them to kill him.13 When the men came to the farm, about three hours into the afternoon, they took Aqa Assadu’llah to the rooftop of a building on the farm belonging to a certain Siyyid Muhammad and asked if he was a Bahá’í. On hearing an affirmative response, one of the men, Siyyid Husayn-i ‘Arab, Stabbed him with a knife, and the others mercilessly shot him. His body was thrown into the streets, where it lay untouched for only a short while.

Upon learning of Aqa Assadu’llah’s arrest, ten men from Manflad rode to the IbrahimAbad farm.l4 Arriving about an hour after Aqa Assadu’lláh was executed, one of the men, ‘Ali-Akbar, a son of Ibrahim, approached the body and with his ax severed the head.

13. The six gunmen, who were from the village of Tafl', were ‘Abdu’l-flaliq; Siyyid Mihdi, known as flimr; Hájí ‘All-Akbar—i Syéh; Akbar, the son of Ibrahim, the farmer; ‘Abdu’l-Vahhéb; and Siyyid Husayn—i ‘Arab.

14. On page 43 of the text the ten assailants are identified as qulém—Rida, the son of Husayn; ‘AliAkbar, the son of Ibrahim; Muhammad, the son of Rigid; qulém-Husayn-i ‘Ashiq; Mina, the son of UstadJa‘far-i Sabbagh; Hasan-‘Ali, the son of Haji Muhammad; Javéd and Hájí, the sons of G_hulém—’Ali, the carpenter; Mihdi, the son of Umm-Laylf; and Siyyid Yaḥyá, the son of Mirzfi Ibrahim.

THE MARTYRS OF MAwa 31

The head was brought back to Manshad and thrown on the ground in the town square. It remained there for three hours . . . and then was taken and hung from the door of Aqa Assadu’llah’s own shop, where passers-by stoned it. On seeing this spectacle, Mulla MuhammadeHusayn, a well-known Muslim soothsayer, cried out, “O people! In Karbala the infidels killed our beloved Imam Husayn and hung his head from the gates of the city, for which the people of Islam have cursed them for centuries. Today you have committed the same exact shameful act of the infidels!” Upon hearing this, the people stopped their assault on the severed head.

A day later the head was taken down and carried to the home of the victim’s brother, Iqusayn—Baba, next door to the same shop, and buried. Aqa Assadu’llah’s headless body, still lying in the same field, was thrown in a well. Two months later one of the believers, ‘Ali-Rida, removed his body from the well and buried it at the same farm where Aqa Assadu’llah had been martyred. Four months later his head was also exhumed and taken to the farm known as Hujjatabéd and buried with his brother sham Hasan’s body. Aqa Assadu’llah was thirty-five years old.

Friday, 9 july. On Friday morning, Aqa Mirza Muhammad, son of the martyred Aqa Mulla ‘Ali-Akbar, who had taken refuge in a farm house belonging to Siyyid ‘Ali-Akbar, fell prey to the enemy. It was two hours before noon when more than two hundred people gathered around the farm house. They went inside, captured Aqa Mirza Muhammad, and restrained him by tying his hands together behind him. Then they dragged him to the home of Aqa ‘Ali-Akbar, who had been martyred days earlier. There he was tied to a tree and executed with successive volleys of gunfire. His body was then untied, doused with kerosene, and set on fire, . . . all the while being stoned and kicked by the murderers. . . . Afterward one of the non-Bahá’í relatives of Aqa Mirza Muhammad, a certain

[Page 32]32 WORLD ORDER: FALL 1996

Siyyid Mihdl’, took his remains and buried him in a property adjacent to his house. Aqa Mirza Muhammad was forty—three years old.

Aqa Siyyid Husayn, the son of Aqa Siyyid Ahmad, was yet another Bahá’í who had taken refuge at the home of a Muslim friend, Siyyid Aqa’i. Two days before the convulsions his eldest son, Siyyid Javad, who was only fourteen years old, had fallen while working in the fields with his grandfather, breaking one leg and severely injuring the other. His injuries were so severe that he could not move and was bedridden. Every day I would visit the boy and tend to his wounds. On the first day of the upheaval the wife of Aqa Siyyid Husayn had taken her injured son to the home of Siyyid Aqa’i to be with his father. Thus Siyyid Husayn, his wife, and Siyyid Javad were all three hiding there. Siyyid Iqusayn also had another younger son and daughter who were left alone. These two homeless young children were each day in a different house and at night, hungry, thirsty, and desolate, would hide in the fields or mountains.

On that Friday, which was now the fourteenth day of the troubles, the vicious mob was searching every household in Manshad in hope of finding more Bahá’ís to kill. Siyyid Aqa’i informed Aqa Siyyid Husayn’s wife of the day’s events, indicating to her that soon his house would be searched and did not want Aqa Siyyid Husayn to be killed in his house. When Aqa Siyyid Husayn learned of the conversation from his wife, he told her that his death was near. He alone left the home that had been his family’s refuge, bidding farewell to his wife and son. Taking the advice of his host, he changed his clothes and took refuge behind the pulpit of the nearby mosque. His hosr asked him to remain there until the mob had finished searching his house. Then he would be able to return.

Although the anticipated search of the

house did not result in any findings, a num ber of women in the neighborhood reported having seen Siyyid Husayn in the mosque. Siyyid Husayn, aware of his dire situation, had no choice but to leave the mosque, running a distance of two hundred yards and then climbing over a wall into a wheat field. He hid in the wheat but was spotted by a woman who told the search party where he was. Upon finding him, Ibrahim, a member of the mob, immediately Struck him with a wooden club, while another, Husayn—‘Ali, the son of Haji Muhammad, fired at Siyyid Husayn’s face. . . . _G_l_1_ulam-Rida Tazarjani’ threw Siyyid Husayn, who was nearly dead, over the same wall he had earlier climbed and then dragged him by his feet to the house of Mulla Babé’l’, a soon—to be martyr himself. Siyyid Husayn’s wife and children, being informed of his condition, ran to the scene but were stopped and assaulted by the curses and Obscenities shouted by the men. After the departure of G_hulam-Rida, they dared go near Siyyid Husayn. Upon hearing the crying voices of his family, he opened his eyes and looked at his wife and children. The family threw themselves on his body, and he embraced them. While holding his loved ones, tears streaming from his sorrow—filled eyes, Aqa Siyyid Husayn bid farewell to his earthly life. That evening his remains were taken to his home and buried. He was forty years old.

When he heard the news of his father’s martyrdom, the bedridden and brokenhearted Siyyid Javad pleaded for one last opportunity to visit and bid farewell to his father. Unfortunately, no one paid any attention to this poor boy, though he was only a short distance away from his fallen father. After Siyyid Husayn’s death, Siyyid Javad was taken back to his own home. He was constantly heard saying and praying, “How I wish that the enemies had seen me and taken my life on that day too! If only they would come now and allow me to join that exalted soul!” Not a day went by that he did not wish for his own death. His wailing and lamenting

[Page 33]were deStined to be as ephemeral as his fleeting life, for he was to outlive his father’s brutal martyrdom by only fourteen days. Every night his mother would take the other two children, afraid that the neighbors would bring harm to them, and spend the night at Siyyid Aqa’i’s home. Each night Siyyid Javad would beg his mother not to leave him alone. He feared he would die alone. But the poor mother had no choice but to look after the Other two young children and protect them. When she returned home on Friday, July 23, she found her son’s lifeless body in his bed. After his mother mourned for his death, Siyyid Javad, according to his wishes, was laid to rest next to Siyyid Husayn, where to this day both the father and son remain—a union in both this world and the next.

On the same Friday [July 9] that Siyyid Husayn was martyred, another young man by the name of Aqa Iqusayn-‘Ali was also martyred. Fearing the bloodthirsty mob, this young man had gone to the Murghistan mountains, where he hid in a cave. When the mob was finished with Siyyid Husayn, some three hours before sunset, they went to the mountains in search of Other believers. Upon locating Aqa Husayn—‘Ali, they captured him with the intention of bringing him back to town. On the way he fell viCtim to countless beatings and stonings. In a final act of contempt, one of his attackers, ‘Ali-Akbar, son of Ibrahim, fired at him, while G_hulam-Rida Ibn-i Ali and Hashim-i Faytij beat him to death with Sticks and stones. He was buried on that spot, at the tender age of nineteen. . . .

Saturday, 10 july. The following day Aqa Qhulam—Husayn Ibn-i Taqf, a Bahá’í from Yazd who had come to Manshad to escape

15. The Persian text erroneously has Siyyid Taqi; the translation has been correCted to read “Siyyid ‘Ali.”

16. Siyyid Sadiq, Siyyid ‘Ali-Akbar, and Mirzá Muhammad—‘Ali, the son of Mina Siyyid Husayn.

THE MARTYRS op MANS_HAD 33

the brutal pogrom unfolding there, along with another Bahá’í named Aqa Siyyid Baqir, a brother of martyred Aqa Siyyid Husayn, were found hiding in one of the caves in the eastern mountains. Two hours after sunrise the mob surrounded the cave and called for the two believers to surrender. Acquiescing, they emerged, whereupon Aqa G_hulamHusayn was killed instantly by a huge volley of gunfire and later beheaded. His headless body was left alone and later was buried in the same spot. His head was taken to Muhammad—i Kalantar, who inStructed one of his messengers, Mirza Muhammad-‘Ali, to take it as a gift to Mirza Fathu’llah, the Mu$i’ru’l-Mamalik, the governor of the province of Yazd. Aqa Q_hulam—Husayn was sixty-three years old at the time of his martyrdom.

After Aqa Qfiulam-Husayn was killed, the mob sought out Aqa Siyyid Baqir, who had escaped the fate of his companion and returned to his own home some time earlier. Since it was getting warm, and people seemed thirsty, Aqa Siyyid Baqir invited the men inside to have some fruit. They accepted his invitation and entered. After enjoying the refreshments and fruits that Aqa Siyyid Baqir offered them, they arrested him and, tying his hands, led him to the home of Muhammad-i Kalantar, who ordered his imprisonment.

On that same day Siyyid ‘Ali, out of fear, decided to leave Manfiad and Started toward Yazd.15 On the way, while between the villages of Tazarjan and Taft, three men from that area saw and recognized him.16 Siyyid ‘Ali was summarily arrested, his hands were tied behind him, and he was taken to Tazarjan where they sought the permission of Mirza Ibrahim, the Imam-Jum‘ih of Yazd, who was visiting, to kill their prisoner. The ImamJum‘ih replied that, since he was not familiar with the character of the Siyyid, it was not possible for him to issue such a warrant. He advised them instead to take the Siyyid back to Manshad and inquire from the people of

[Page 34]34 WORLD ORDER: FALL 1996

that town about his character. Two hours before sunset the men entered the town of Mansltad, bringing with them Siyyid ‘All’. They had already decided to take him to Muhammad—i Kalantar and let him pronounce the verdict.

When they came to the town square, the Siyyid escaped from his three captors and sought refuge behind the palm.17 By now a group of townspeople had heard of their arrival and had come to see them. They circled the palm and surrounded the Siyyid who was holding fast to it. As the men prepared to take his life, a villager cried out that the palm was sacred and that his life should be spared until he released his hold on it. They ignored the man and shot Siyyid ‘Ali. Others continued to fire repeatedly at his motionless body. ‘3 That evening, his wife removed her husband’s remains from the scene and buried them in their home. He was thirty-five years old.

The three men who had arrested Siyyid ‘Ali and instigated his murder decided before leaving town to shed the blood of this set

17. Every year in the month of Muharram, the first month in the lunar calendar of Islam, the fihi‘is mourn the martyrdom of Imam Husayn, the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad, in Karbila in the year 61 A.H. As part of the rituals commemorating the events of Karbilá, a very large coffin resembling a palm tree is prepared and covered with expensive fabrics and decorated with daggers, swords, and mirrors. The believers carry the coffin, representing Imam Husayn’s coffin, the procession that passes through the Streets. It appears that such a coffin was in the town square and that the Siyyid sought refuge behind it. Hence the proteSts of the villagers that “the palm was sacred” and that “his life should be spared.”

18. fiulam—Rida Tazarjénr’ fired the first shot, which was followed by shots by Siyyid Sadiq Turanji and Mini Muhammad-‘Ali’ Tafti’.

19. The perpetuators were Mina Muhammad—‘Ali’ Tafti’, G_hulam—Ridé, the son of Husayn, and Muhammad—Sadiq Na‘im—Abadi.

20. G_hulam—Rida Tazarjani; Husayn-‘Ah’, the son of Haji’ Muhammad; and HaQim-i-Faytij.

vant. With this intention in mind they came to my home. I was alone when the three men entered my house. Since at the time I neither knew them, nor I was aware of their intentions, I greeted them warmly. A water pipe was offered, and tea was served. Then I asked them where they were from and what busiv ness brought them to Manflad, upon which they related to me the Story of Siyyid ‘Ali’s martyrdom. Upon hearing this, I was overwhelmed by sorrow and grief. Seeing my condition, the men immediately left my house. Outside, one of them asked the Other two why they had not killed me. They said that, since I had been so extremely kind and hospitable, they did nor have the heart to take my life.

That same afternoon, after the mob killed Siyyid ‘Alf, they returned to the home of Muhammad—i Kalantar, where Siyyid Béqir was imprisoned. It was late in the afternoon when they took him to a farm field known as the Turks’ farm. There he was martyred by gunshots.19 Later the believers took the remains and buried them next to the grave that contained the headless body of Aqa fibulamHusayn killed earlier in the day—his companion and fellow martyr. Siyyid Béqir was fifty—one years old.

Sunday, 1] july. The following day, Sunday, Aqa Muhammad, a son of Mulla Bahá’í, had taken refuge in his home when around noontime I saw three men going in that direction.20 I was grief—stricken, knowing their intent to commit yet another murder of some innocent Bahá’í, but I did not know where they were going. When the men reached the home of Aqa Muhammad, they entered it and brought him out. Aqa Muhammad requested that they delay their perfidious ad for an hour so that he might say farewell to his wife and young children and see them for one last time. The men, ignoring his plea, answered by sh00ting him. Then they tied a rope around his feet and dragged him back

home, where later that evening his wife

[Page 35]brought the body inside and laid it to reSt. He was twenty—three years old.

deesday, 14 july. The following Wednesday, Mulla Bahá’í, a brother of the famous martyr Rada’r-Rt’ih and father of the recently martyred Aqa Muhammad, found shelter in a friend’s home—Haji’ Muhammad—Hasan, a son of Hájí Qasim.21 One of the neighborhood women learned of his whereabouts and informed Manfléd’s populace. Soon a mob and many onlookers totaling over two hundred descended upon the house where Mulla Bahá’í had taken refuge. Several men entered the home and began searching the rooms. G_hulam-Ridé, the son of Husayn, came upon the room where Mulla Bahá’í and his son, Aqa Javad, were sitting in a dark corner. _G_hulam—Rida cried out that Mulla Bahá’í’ musr be shot right there, but, apprehensive of the harm that might befall his son, Mulla Bahá’í quickly surrendered instead.

Mulla Bahá’í’s hands were tied behind his back and, bareheaded and barefoot, he was led to the home of Haji Siyyid Husayn in the Mirzaha section of town to be killed. Another group captured Mulla Bahá’í’s son and brought him as well. Mulla Bahá’í, who was in the middle of the crowd, could not see his son; hence he asked Siyyid Husayn, if they had not yet killed his son, to bring him near so he could see him one last time. Siyyid Husayn agreed and brought the sonrnear. When the Mulla saw his son, his last spoken words were instructions to Aqa Javéd that, should he survive, he should arrange for the

21. Mulla Bahá’í had become a believer some fiftythree years earlier, during Vahid-i Daribi’s visit to Yazd in April 1850.

22. In addition to the account of the martyrdoms in Manfiad, Siyyid Muhammad Tabib-i Manfiadi also recorded the heinous martyrdoms in the nearby villages. Because of the importance of these materials, they have been translated as well.

THE MARTYRS or MANS_HAD 35

payment of a debt to a certain individual. Bidding him farewell, Mulla Bahá’í left the boy to the care of Siyyid Husayn, expressing the wish that he not be obliged to speak again and so remained silent.

Although the crowd wanted to kill the boy, Siyyid Husayn intervened and took him inside his own home. It was around noon that the crowd moved Mulla Baba’l’ once again toward the bazaar, near the shop of Zaynu’l—‘Abidin—i ‘Attar. With his hands still firmly tied behind him, Mulla Bahá’í was repeatedly stoned. A rock hurled at him by Mini Husayn, a son of Hajr’ Siyyid Mirza, the Imam Ju‘mih of Manflad, fractured his forehead, from which blood gushed forth, covering his radiant countenance. Time after time he was assaulted, until his white beard was soaked by his blood. He was then taken behind the home of martyred Aqa ‘Ali-Akbar where he was held for about ten minutes. During this entire time his gaze remained fixed in the direction of the Qiblih, the Sacred Threshold of his Beloved, as he whispered a quiet prayer. N0t one word was uttered by him in the face of his ordeal, so poignantly did he exemplify the lesson of true faith and sacrifice.

In the midSt of the chaos fiétir Hasani Ardikéni retrieved a can of kerosene from a nearby shop, poured it over Mulla Baba’l’ and ‘Ali—yi ‘Arab, set him ablaze. While the flames engulfed him, those who carried guns began to shoot him. Others were satisfied with clubbing and stoning him. Dragging him by his bound feet, he was taken to the home of a fellow believer, Siyyid Taqi, where he was later buried. Mulla Bahá’í was sixtyfive years old at the time of martyrdom.

Babd’z’ Martyrdom: in

Nearby Villages”

Village of Kdv-Afslydd. On the evening of Friday, 9 July, a memorial gathering in honor of the martyred Imam Husayn was held at the home of Haji Mulla Muhammad-‘Ali in

[Page 36]36 WORLD ORDER: FALL 1996

the village of Kav-Afshad where all the village men, including a Bahá’í named Ustad Rida, were in attendance. Sometime during the event a group of thugs from Manfiad arrived at the gathering and, on spotting Ustad Rida, attempted to martyr him then and there. However, some of the villagers became very agitated with such rude behavior on part of Manfiadis and argued fiercely that, in honor of Imam Husayn, killing was not permitted that night. After a period of heated confrontation the villagers managed to throw out the Manfiadi mob. At the end of the commemorations Ustéd Rida, apprehensive of his life, took refuge in the house of Hasan, the son Muhammad-i Kév-Afshadi, his sonin-law. However, after only two days, this treacherous son—in—law notified the Manghédi mob of Ustad Rida’s whereabouts. Thereupon the house was rushed by the thugs who quickly captured and removed UStad Rida to another neighborhood of the village, known as Sarmt’ir-i Kév—Affiad. Two of them, Muhammad-‘Ali, the son of Yadigér, and Siyyid Husayn Haddad, prepared to kill Ustad Rida, when Ustéd turned to them and said, “As my Beloved has taught us to kiss the hand of our executioners, grant me this one last favor.”23 On hearing this the two men extended their hands, which he kissed reverently. Then they tied a rope around his neck, and each held one end and pulled in such a manner that he was suffocated quickly. . . . His body was hung from a nearby tree until the next morning when it was lowered and buried by non-Bahá’ís. Ustad Ridé was fifty-six years old at time of his martyrdom.

23. This comment echoes the exhortation of Bahá’u’lláh in the Lawh—i—Shikar Shikkan. For the text of the tablet, see The Balm”! W/orld: An International Record, Volume XVIII, 1979—1983, comp. The Universal House of Justice (Haifa: Bahá’í World Centre, 1986) 11.

Village of Darrih. gm Hasan was a Babe“ from Yazd who, during this period of unrest, had moved to a nearby village of Tazarjan, where he was continuing his profession of baker. When the people of the village learned of the disturbances in Yazd, they surrounded Shatir Hasan with the intention of killing him. flétir Hasan was able to escape the crazed mob and quickly left the village for Manflad. Once in Mangéd he took refuge in the home of the martyred Aqa ‘Ali-Akbar.

Meanwhile, Mirza Ibrahim Tabib-i _Kh_urram§llahi, also a Bahá’í of Yazd, escaping the wrath of the people there, made his way to Manshéd. Upon entering the city, the people of Manghad attempted to kill him. However, as many did not know him, their aim was halted by others. On the first day of troubles, 26 June, some three hours before sunset, flatir Hasan and Mimi Ibrahim left Manflad for the village of Darrih. There they took a room in Qadr’jih Darvish’s house. When the villagers became aware of the two newcomers, they surrounded the house, and a few went inside and captured the two believers. As the villagers were not aware of the details associated with these two, they inquired of one another. Two of them, however, said to the crowd, “We know these two; both are Bahá’í’s and have just escaped from Manfiéd.”

The two believers were first undressed by the mob and then their hands were tied behind them. . . . Then they were asked to Start walking. The crowd followed behind them, moving toward a nearby field used for slaughtering sheep. On the way the Bahá’ís were stoned so severely and repeatedly that they passed on to the Abhá Kingdom before reaching their destination. They were thrown in an empty well, which was filled with dirt until their bodies were no longer visible. gum Hasan was thirty-five, and Mirza Ibréhim-i Tabib, sixty—five years old at the time of their martyrdoms.

[Page 37]37

Destiny My skin is

ebony, olive, copper, ivory. My eyes are brown, blue, black. My hair is blonde, dark, red; straight, curly, kinky. My features are conditioned by drifting gene pools climate and geography.

I am tall, short, medium—height.

I hurt—I bleed.

I rejoice—I laugh. I wait—I die.

I trust—I must.

I am humanity moving toward maturity.

My language is understanding. My generator is

love. —Monica A. Reller

Copyright © 1996 by Monica A. Reller

[Page 38]C n 7

[Page 39]39

The New Family: The Role of the F ather, The Role of the Mother

BY CONSTANCE M. CHEN

T HE world order of Bahá’u’lláh is based upon the family. To build this new order, it is necessary to start with the fundamentals. The building blocks of a spiritual civilization start with the individual and expand to the family, groups of which make up the community, form the nations, and finally the world. If a just and unified world is to be created, each element preceding it must also be just and unified. In the world order adumbrated in the Bahá’í writings there can be no macrocosm without the microcosm: Compare the nations of the world to the members of a family. A family is a nation in miniature. Simply enlarge the circle of the household, and you have the nation. Enlarge the circle of nations, and you have all humanity. The conditions surrounding the family surround the nation. The happenings in the family are the happenings

Copyright © 1996 by Constance M. Chen. This essay is based on a talk presented at the Conference on the New World Order in Bahá’í Perspective hosted by the Institute for Bahá’í Studies, January 26—28, 1996, in Evanston, Illinois.

1. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, TbePromulgatz'on of UniversalPeace: Talks Delivered by ?lba’u’l—Ba/m’ during His Visit to the United State: and Canada in 1912, comp. Howard MacNutt, 2d ed. (Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1982) 157.

2. Bahá’u’lláh, 7k Kitáb-i-Aqdas: The Matt Holy Boole, ps ed. (Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í Publishing Trusr, 1993), K182.

in the life of the nation. Would it add to the progress and advancement of a family if dissensions should arise among its members, all fighting, pillaging each other, jealous and revengeful of injury, seeking selfish advantage? Nay, this would be the cause of the effacement of progress and advancement. So it is in the great family of nations, for nations are but an aggregate of families.1 The Bahá’í writings delineate the path to the new world order. The Revelation of Bahá’u’lláh, the Founder of the Bahá’í Faith, tore asunder all the barriers that for centuries have stood between women and men. With one stroke of His pen Bahá’u’lláh abrogated old laws, old customs, and old traditions. Yet the overwhelming majority of the peoples of world still remain largely ignorant of the Source of the transformation. Few, even among the Bahá’ís themselves, have drunk deeply from the “ocean” of Baha’u’llé ’5 “words” and understood the ramifications of His teachings on the equality of the sexes.2 Regarding the family and the roles of mothers and fathers in the new world order, the Bahá’í writings have a number of illuminating things to say. In a letter to an individual written in August 1984, the Universal House of Justice, the supreme governing and legislative body of the Bahá’í Faith, writes: The great importance attached to the mother’s role derives from the fact that she is the first educator of the child. Her attitude, her prayers, even what she eats and

[Page 40]40 WORLD ORDER: FALL 1996

her physical condition have a great influence on the child when it is still in the womb. When the child is born, it is she who has been endowed by God with the milk which is the first food designed for it, and it is intended that, if possible, she should be with the baby to train and nurture it in its earliest days and months.3 This statement would seem to suggest a certain biological determinism. In second—wave feminism, which encompasses the women’s liberation movement in the United States during the late 19605 and early 19708, the cry was to make the personal political. Women were not just enlarged wombs—walking incubators—so the rhetoric went; they were human beings with needs, desires, and contributions to make all of their own. Although sex—based roles had historical antecedents, the reaction of the mid—twentieth century was against the stultifying gender roles of post-IndUStrial WeStern society, which made popular and possible the nonworking wife as status symbol. In particular, the reaction was against the separate spheres that had dictated that mothers and fathers live in two completely different worlds. The white middleclass wife and mother was idealized as the “angel of the house,” guarding hearth and home. The fact that the woman bore the children was assumed to mean that she was also best suited to cook the dinner, do the laundry, sweep the floors, and clean the house.

I);

When one examines the Baha 1 writings,

I);

one cannot help but wonder: Do the Baha 1

3. The Universal House of Justice, letter to two individuals, 23 August 1984, in “Women,” comp. Research Department of the Universal House of Justice, in The Compikztz'on Of Compikztz'om: Prepared by the Universal House of justice 1963—1990, vol. 2 (Australia: Bahá’í Publications Australia, 1991) 386.

4. The Universal House of Justice, letters, 16 June 1982 and 9 August 1984, in “Women,” in Compilation of Compilations, vol. 2, 385, 386.

writings also teach that biology means destiny? After all, what makes a woman female is her ability to bear children. To be a “good Bahá’í,” should a mother Stay at home? Does the faCt that a woman bears children destine

n;

her for a life of domesticity? Do the Bahai writings enforce separate spheres?

The Meaning of ‘Tirst Educator” IN a 1982 letter to an individual, the Universal House of Justice assured the recipient that “Homemaking is a highly honourable and responsible work of fundamental importance for mankind. . . .” Yet in another letter written two years later, the House of Justice said:

With regard to your queStion whether

mothers should work outside the

home. . . . This concept is based on the principle that the man has primary re sponsibility for the financial support of the family, and the woman is the chief and primary educator of the children. This by no means implies that these functions are inflexibly fixed and cannot be changed and adjusted to suit particular family situations, nor does it mean that the place of the woman is confined to the home. Rather, while primary responsibility is assigned, it

is anticipated that fathers would play a

significant role in the education of chil dren and women could also be breadwinners. As you rightly indicated, ‘Abdu’l Baha encouraged women to “participate

fully and equally in the affairs of the

world.”4

Hence it seems that “first educator” does not mean sole and exclusive educator. In spite of woman’s sole prerogative of child—bearing and breast—feeding, there is no necessary implication of her monopoly on all other parental roles, as is borne out by current research.

In surveying the literature on maternal employment and child behavior, no evidence suggests that children whose mothers have worked since infancy are necessarily deficient

[Page 41]in cognitive functioning, social skills, attachment to parents, obedience, sense of self, and so on.5 In fact, some research suggesrs that, when their mothers work outside the home, children grow up to be better socialized and more self—confident as adults.6 One article pointed out that the wealthier classes developed nursery schools and kindergartens to help their children become socialized and get a head start on learning at an early age.7 Such early institutions for learning were considered ways of placing the responsibility for child care in the hands of the community instead of solely in those of the individual mother.

5. See Sandra Scarr, Deborah Phillips, and Kathleen McCartney, “Working Mothers and Their Families,” AmericanPglc/Jologist44zll (1989): 1402—9;Alan B00th and Paul R. Amato, “Parental Gender Role Nontraditionalism and Offspring Outcomes,” journal of Marriage and the Family 56 (1994): 865—77; Theodore N. Greenstein, “Maternal Employment and Child Behavioral Outcomes: A Household Economic Analysis,” journal OfFamz'ly Issue: 14 (1993): 323-54.

6. See A. Clarke-Stewart, “Day Care: A New Context for Research and Development,” in M. Perlmutter, ed. , The MinnesotaSymposz'a on CkildPsyc/Jology: Vol. [Z Parent-C/Jz'ld Interaction and Parent-Cbz’la’ Relations in C/az'la’ Development (Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum) 61—100; C. Howes and M. Olenick, “Family and Child Care Influences on Toddlers’ Compliance,” Child Development 57 (1986): 202—16; C. Howes and P. Stewart, “Child’s Play With Adults, Toys, and Peers: An Examination of Family and Child-Cate Influences,” DevelopmentalPsyc/mlogy 23 (1987): 423 —30; Deborah Phillips, Kathleen McCartney, and Sandra Scarr, “Selective Review of Infant Day Care Research: A Cause for Concern!” Zero to Three 7.1 (1987): 18—21; and R. Ruopp et. al, Children at the Center: Final Results of the National Day Care Study (Boston: Abt Associates, 1979).

7. Sandra Scarr and R. A. Weinberg, “The Early Childhood Enterprise: Care and Education of the Young,” American Psychologist 41 (1986): 1140—6.

8. Bahá’u’lláh, Kitzz’b—i-Aqdas K48.

9. See Scarr, Phillips, and McCartney, “Working MOthers and Their Families” 1402-9.

10. See Greensrein, “Maternal Employment and Child Behavioral Outcomes: A Household Economic Analysis” 323-54.

THE NEW FAMILY 41

Bahá’u’lláh emphasized the community’s collective responsibility for children when He wrote that, if funds do not exist to care for a child, “the matter devolveth upon the House of Justice.” He went on to say that “He that bringeth up his son or the son of another, it is as though he hath brought up a son of Mine. . . .”8 One interpretation of Bahá’u’lláh’s statement may be that, as the family opens up to include the whole, the idea that children are the collective responsibility of the community will become less socially stigmatized in American culture. It is in this light that the public funding of child care has become one of the primary concerns of contemporary feminist activists. Proposing that children are the next generation for everybody, not just their immediate parents, activists seek to have the state subsidize child care and early education for children between the ages of one through five just as public education is funded for children from ages five through eighteen.9 Although such a proposal may seem unlikely to some, it is useful to remember that public education for children only gained popular acceptance in the nineteenth century. This coincided with the emergence of the Bahá’í revelation, which is the first in religious history to emphasize universal education.

Indeed, many children whose mothers work outside the home may actually benefit from their mother’s employment. They profit more from the increased sense of competency that some women seem to receive from outside stimulation and interaction, which redounds ultimately to the benefit of the child, than from the material advantage of the additional paycheck on which some researchers have focused.10 To further women’s work outside the home, the Bahá’í writings emphasize the importance of educating daughters precisely because it is believed that such education will one day benefit the children. The education of daughters is not suggested to deviate in any way from that of sons, with

[Page 42]42 WORLD ORDER: FALL 1996

girls specializing in home economics, art, and literature so that they may serve a decorative function in the home and boys in politics, science, and economics so that they can be players in world affairs. In a letter to the National Spiritual Assembly of New Zealand, the Universal House of Justice wrote that “A very important element in the attainment of such equality is Bahá’u’lláh’s provision that boys and girls must follow essentially the same curriculum in schools.”'1

With education, however, comes the inevitable desire to express the fruits of education in the world as well as in the home. This

11. The Universal House of Justice, letter to National Spiritual Assembly of New Zealand, 28 December 1980, in [Bahá’u’lláh, the Báb, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Shoghi Effendi, and the Universal House of Justice], Bahá’í Marriage and Famzly Lzfi’: Selection: flom the Writings of theBaha’ ’z’Faith, [comp. National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of Canada] (n.p.: National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of Canada, 1983) 60.

12. See Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique (New York: Dell, 1983).

13. See Sampson Lee Blair, “Employment, Family, and Perceptions of Marital Quality Among Husbands and Wives,” journal of Famibrlssue: 14 (1993): 2; Blaine J. Powers, “His and Her Marriage: A Multivariate Study of Gender and Marital Satisfaction,” Sex Role: 24:3—4 (1991): 209—21 ; Diane N. Lye and Timothy J. Biblarz, “The EffeCts of Attitudes Toward Family Life and Gender Roles on Marital Satisfaction,” journal of Family Issues 14:2 (1993): 157—88; Susan M. McHale and Ann C. Crouter, “You Can’t Always Get What You Want: Incongruence Between Sex-Role Attitudes and Family Work Roles and Its Implications for Marriage,” journal of Marriage and the Family 54 (1992): 537—47; John Mirowsky and Catherine E. Ross, “Belief in Innate Sex Roles: Sex Stratification versus Interpersonal Influence in Marriage,” journal of Marriage and the Family 49 (1987): 527—40; Scarr, Phillips, and McCartney, “Working Mothers and Their Families,” 1402—9; and Patricia Voydanoff and Brenda \W. Donnelly, “Work and Family Roles and Psychological Distress,” journal of Marriage andFamz'ly 51 (1989): 923—32.

14. Sean, Phillips, and McCartney, “Working Morhers and Their Families” 1404.

was first documented on a widespread scale in Betty Friedan’s book The Feminine My;tz'que, in which she discovered an entire generation of college—educated women who were firmly convinced that the ultimate meaning of womanhood was motherhood and wifehood. Yet these women—despite deeply entrenched beliefs that they “had it all”-—felt depressed and dissatisfied. ACting out feelings of unfulfillment on the next generation, many of these mothers lived vicariously through their children.12

Friedan’s book led to the women’s liberation movement in the United States, and her findings have since been well-established in more recent studies.13 In fact, in an article published in American Psychologist, it was reported that “mothers with previously high work commitments who stay home for five or more months after a birth report greater irritability, greater depression, decreased marital intimacy, and lower self-esteem than mothers with previously low work commitments.”14

Reevaluating the role of women with children is important because concepts such as “firsr educator” have traditionally been interpreted to instill guilt feelings in mothers who choose to work outside the home. It is easy to fall into the sentimental glorification of woman as mother figure that has characterized past generations. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Bahá’u’lláh’s appointed successor and the interpreter of His writings, says that the human race cannot move forward until women and men reach equality in every realm—social, political, educational. This is not to belittle motherhood in any way. The Bahá’í writings say that women are the “first educators”not the sole educators or the exclusive educators—of children. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá calls the “education and training of children” one of the “most meritorious acts of humankind” (emphasis added) and says “it is incumbent upon the father and mother to train their children both in good conduct and the Study

[Page 43]of books” (emphasis added).“5 Women are mothers, but so are men fathers. Just as men are people in their own right as well as fathers, so women are people in their own right as well as mothers.

Many women sacrifice their professions to raise their family. But by sacrificing their professions women may hurt others in addition to themselves. Children are affected by the exaggerated attentions of stay—at—home moms; society is robbed by the loss of female input in the workplace. Women’s contributions are needed in the outside world, but at the moment women who have families and who also want to help humanity become more balanced muSt attempt the role of “superwoman.” Mothers who hold paid positions must succeed in the workplace and are usually expected to run the household as well. Working fathers, for the most part, are given far more leeway to focus on their careers; if they happen to take on a few chores at home, all too often a big fuss is made to congratualte the man for his magnanimity. This is neither balanced nor just. What is needed is not accompanying “supermen” but, rather, a new race of men who see fatherhood and domesticity as items high on their own agendaso that men and women can truly be complements and helpmeets.16

‘Abdu’l-Bahá says that

The Status of women in former times was

15. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Selection: from the Writing: of 21/7quBa/Ja’, comp. Research Department of the Universal House of Justice, trans. committee at the Bahá’í World Centre and Marzieh Gail (Haifa: Bahá’í World Centre, 1978) 129, 127.

16. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Promulgation of Univmal Peace 182.

17. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Promulgatz'on 166.

18. Scarr, Phillips, and McCartney, “Working Methers and Their Families” 1402.

19. Linda and John Walbridge, “Bahá’í’ Laws on the Status of Men,” World Om’en 19.1—2 (Fall 1984/Winter 1984—85): 36.

THE NEW FAMILY 43

exceedingly deplorable, for it was the belief of the Orient that it was beSt for woman to be ignorant. It was considered preferable that she should not know reading or writing in order that she might not be informed of events in the world. Woman was considered to be created for rearing children and attending to the duties of the household. If she pursued educational courses, it was deemed contrary to chastity; hence women were made prisoners of the household. The houses did not even have windows opening upon the outside world. Bahá’u’lláh destroyed these ideas and proclaimed the equality of man and woman.17 To move forward in all realms, mothers must learn to share the responsibilities of parenthood with fathers. One survey reports that Women all over the world work longer hours than men. Mothers work lo nger hours than anyone else because their family responsibilities to household and children are not equally shared by father—anywhere. In industrialized countries, whether in the Western or Eastern worlds, mothers do the majority of the shopping, house cleaning, cooking, laundry, and child care, in addition to their paid employment. Whereas fathers in these societies work an average of 50 hours per week in combined employment and household work, mothers work an average of 80 hours per week at the same tasks.‘8 For the sake of the family, a balance needs to be made between the roles of mothers and fathers. The Meaning of “Primary Provider” IT has been suggested that, “if men are to be a real part of the family, they mu5t have an essential role in it. They muSt have the selfrespect that comes from providing for their families and the satisfaCtion of seeing their families as extensions of themselves.”19 In

[Page 44]44 WORLD ORDER: FALL 1996

contrast, in a 1915 article entitled “The Right of a Child to Two Parents,” Mary Ware Dennett, an early twentieth—century feminist, wrote: Some one has said that “the greatest effort of civilization up to date has been attaching man to the family.” Very likely, but in many ways the attachment has been bad for him and bad for the family. It has developed in him a pernicious type of pride which has led him to deem women and children as possessions—a pride no less false when sugar—coated with sentimental or chivalrous talk of the “my wife, my mother, my sister, my children” variety. Men’s families have been for the most part either a source of this false pride or else a mill stone around their necks; sometimes both. Most middle—class men are hopelessly dulled and stupefied by mere grubbing to get the family bills paid.20 Dennett’s point is that the separate spheres have been brutal to men as well as women. Men have been turned into money—making machines who must suppress their gentler sides in order to survive. Boys face societal pressure to hold back emotion and feelings from a very young age so that by the time they are grown they are forced to “live lives of quiet desperation,” so to speak. Whether men are breadwinners, men need to be recognized as necessary members of the family in and of themselves. After all, children are not produced by one person only, as both mother and father are biologically necessary to create a child. When given serious thought, it is horrifying to consider the family as simply an extension of the man. Men are needed

20. Mary Ware Dennett, “The Right of a Child to Two Parents,” The Century Magazine (1916): 107.

21. Dennett, “Right of a Child to Two Parents” 104.

22. Dennett, “Right of a Child to Two Parents” 108.

as fathers in the family on a par equal with the mothers.

Dennett begins her article with an image of the “padonna and child”: a young father tenderly holding his little baby in his arms. She points out that

Children are mostly brought up by their mothers, an arrangement which the world has accepted without question for centuries. But now, owing to the social ferment which, whether we like it or not, is disturbing the women’s traditional sphere, we find ourselves asking if that scheme of child—rearing is really best for the children; beSt for the mothers, and finally if it is best for the fathers.21

The creation of a new race of human beings is a serious matter. As Dennett wrote,

Child-rearing and home-making should

be human work, not limited to either sex,

but undertaken jointly and equally by both.

If bringing up children is really a serious,

inspiring work, as we are assured it is, then

by all means the men should not be barred out from its beneficent reactions. It is not possible for the selfsame work to be broadening and beautifying if women do it, and petty and inconsequential if men do it. When really pushed to be consistent on the subject, men are apt to resort to expounding about how women are specially fitted for the work, can do it gracefully, have a God-given faculty for it, etc. But really just all there is to it which is Godgiven is the physical ability to bear the children. All else is the result of practice, moral character, and love, three things which are human and not sex acquirements, and in which men can be quite as proficient as women if they will, and which, if God—given, are bestowed upon men and women and alike.22 While Dennett wrote this in 1915, studies conducted almost eight decades later confirmed what she had suspected about the importance of fathers. A 1990 study revealed

[Page 45]that the frequency of fathers’ visits with hospitalized premature infants correlated with babies’ gaining weight and leaving the hospital faster.23 Other studies have shown a correlation between paternal absence or rejection (whether real or imagined) with substance abuse; conversely, paternal affection has been found to be a “buffer” to substance abuse. The studies also suggested that early father-son involvement correlated with the level of empathy, self—worth, self—eSteem, and level of happiness and life satisfaCtion reported by adult sons.24

Such studies suggest that there is a need for fathers beyond what may have been previously imagined. Indeed, children without fathers seem to face special challenges in their development. That is, no matter how special a mothers’s love may be, it cannot be a substitute for a father’s love, which has its own benefits. The effects of early loss of the biological father, for example, can be catastrophic. The loss of the father as early as the first month of life is believed to affect the newborn, since findings show stable patterns of interaction between fathers and infants even at that age.25

Moreover, some researchers believe that parental influence for both fathers and mothers begins at conception, rather than after childbirth, as previously hypothesized. Postulating that there is an innate need for a father that is intrinsic to a child’s nature,

23. Edythe M. Krampe and Paul D. Fairweather, “Father Presence and Family Formation: A Theoretical Reformulation,” journal of Family Issue: 14:4 (1993): 572.

24. See, for example, Krampe and Fairweather, “Father Presence and Family Formation” 585.

25. Krampe and Fairweather, “Father Presence and Family Formation” 582.

26. Krampe and Fairweather, “Father Presence and Family Formation” 580.

27. Krampe and Fairweather, “Father Presence and Family Formation” 583.

THE NEW FAMILY 45

some claim an active psychological search for the father from the very beginning of the child’s life, while the child is still in the womb.26 According to these views, conception is more than a biochemical occurrence. Theories exist about the prenatal transmission of sound and energy from both parents through amniotic fluid. Such theories go on to suggest that when the psychic energy of the father is missing at conception, the fetus suffers.

The key to the father’s relationship with the fetus is his relationship with the mother. An emotional gulf between the father and the mother becomes a gulf between the father and the child. That is to say, spiritual unity between the parents is a necessary prerequisite for a sense of well-being to be translated to the child. Therefore, the quality of the presence of the father is ultimately determined not by specific role behavior but by the inner State communicated to the wife or partner:

For example, many men today attend the birth of their offspring. This is behavior, nor emotional enactment. . . . it is not enough for a man to show up in childbirth classes or in the delivery room. He musr be psychologically present in his relationship with his wife in a way that will support conception, pregnancy, and the exigencies of movement into birth. It may be the lack of the father’s emotional availability, rather than the lack of specific behavior in which he may or should engage, that generates father-related problems in family formation.27

In studies of parental behavior with newborns, it was shown that fathers were capable of being as involved with their babies as mothers. Fathers could be as nurturant in touching, vocalizing to, and kissing their offspring, and, outside of breast feeding, they were equally as competent as mothers in feeding infants. Differences in parent—infant interaction tended to appear in episodes of play, where fathers behaved more aggressively

[Page 46]46 WORLD ORDER: FALL 1996

and generated more excitement than did mothers. Fathers tended to engage in “physical, rough-and-tumble activities such as a ‘pull—to—sit’ games or bicycling the baby’s legs.”281ndeed, “doing things” for others, such as feeding and bathing the children, was seen to be consistent with most men’s external orientation to the world, as opposed to an internal orientation of exploring their emotional lives, which was considered to be something with which men traditionally have not been comfortable.29

In studying the formation of fatherhood identity, however, one of the most striking findings was that almost all new fathers perceived that they had no specific role models. Men’s own fathers only seemed to serve as negative role models or as reference points for what respondents wanted to change in their own lives.30 Biologically, men became fathers and women became mothers with the creation of their child. But fathers and mothers only became parents in a functional sense through daily care and in sustained emotional engagement in their child’s life. It was in getting beyond biological fathering to become functional parents that men seemed to have the most difficulty. While mothers were expected to become parents instantly, fathers were not. The translation of paternal identity into aCtual parenting has tradition

28. Krampe and Fairweather, “Father Presence and Family Formation” 575.

29. Alan J. Hawkins et. al, “Rethinking Fathers’ Involvement in Child Care: A Developmental Perspective,” journal of Family Issues 14:4 (1993): 543.

30. Kerry Daly, “Reshaping Fatherhood: Finding the Models,” journal of Family Issues 14:4 (1993): 517.

31. See Hawkins et. al, “Rethinking Fathers’ Involvement in Child Care” 538, and Krampe and Fairweather, “Father Presence and Family Formation” 542.

32. Bahá’u’lláh, The Kim’b—i—Aqda: K48.

33. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, in Baba’ ’z’Marrz'age andFamz‘lyLz'fe no.154.

ally been optional. As a result, the father’s involvement in parenting was more systematically related to and dependent upon marital interaction and spousal support than was the case for mothers}1 Certainly, the father is considered important in the Bahá’í writings. Bahá’u’lláh has written that Unto every father hath been enjoined the instruction of his son and daughter in the art of reading and writing and in all that hath been laid down in the Holy Tablet. He that putteth away that which is commanded unto him, the Trustees are then to take from him that which is required for their instruction if he be wealthy and, if not, the matter devolveth upon the House of Justice.32 Likewise, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá affirms that The father must always endeavour to educate his son and to acquaint him with the heavenly teachings. He must give him advice and exhort him at all times, teach him praiseworthy conducr and character, enable him to receive training at school and to be instructed in such arts and sciences as are deemed useful and necessary. In brief, let him instill into his mind the virtues and perfections of the world of humanity. Above all he should continually call to his mind the remembrance of God so that his throbbing veins and arteries may pulsate with the love of God.33 In creating the new world order, then, one consideration is how family roles can be restructured so that fathers are able to take on more personal responsibility for planning and implementing family life. “Old world order” assumptions about the peripheral role of fathers as parents leads to some thoughtprovoking findings: At present, many fathers are willing to “fill in” or “help out” with family chores that they and the society consider the mother’s responsibility. Indeed, such men are often heard to congratulate themselves on their

[Page 47]efforts to aid their wife in her chores. Fathers today “babysit” their children. Have you ever heard a mother say that she is “babysitting” her children? As late as 1989, even the U.S. Bureau of Census counted father—care as a form of child care alongside nonrelative care and child care centers. Attitudes must change to make the lives of working morhers more tolerable. One would not be likely to see an article on the effects of paternal employment on marital relations and child development, unless the father were unemployed.34 What happens is that the transition to parenthood often sets morhers and fathers on divergent developmental trajeCtories that eventually leave men and women in different developmental positions. Despite the best of intentions, men and women fall into traditional gender roles: Research on the transition to parenthood shows that despite egalitarian plans of husbands and wives for sharing the domestic world, when the baby arrives there is a distinct traditionalization of family role behavior; mothers take on a greater pro

34. Scarr, Phillips, and McCartney, “Working Mothers and Their Families” 1407.

35. Hawkins et. al, “Rethinking Fathers’ Involvement in Child Care” 538.

36. See Hawkins et. al, “Rethinking Fathers’ Involvement in Child Care” 531—49; Powers, “His and Her Marriage” 209—21; Suzanne L. Dancer and Lucia Albino Gilbert, “Spouses’ Family Work Participation and Its Relation to Wives’ Occupational Level,” Sex Role: 28:3—4 (1993): 127-45; Blair, “Employment, Family, and Perceptions of Marital Quality Among Husbands and Wives” 2; McHale and Crouter, “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” 537-47; and Voydanoff and Donnelly, “Work and Family Roles and Psychological Disrress” 923 —32.

37. Hawkins et. al, “Rethinking Fathers’ Involvement in Child Care” 533.

38. Bahá’u’lláh, 7776’ Kitáb—i—Aqa'a: note 76; The Universal House of Justice, letter to National Spiritual Assembly of New Zealand, 28 December 1980, in Bahá’í’ Marriage and Family Life 60.

THE NEW FAMILY 47

portion of daily family work, and fathers redirect time and energy to occupational pursuits. From an Eriksonian perspective, then, fathers’ underinvolvement in caregiving during the early parenting years puts men at a disadvantage.”

Furthermore, there is evidence that men and women become more different with the birth of children, and the larger the differences between them the more their marital satisfaCtion declines. Many studies consistently confirm that more gendered arrangements of child care and housework have negative effeCts on both women’s and men’s perceptions of marital relationships and on the mental health of women.36 One article called “Rethinking Fathers’ Involvement in Child Care” states that gendered arrangements “can have a negative impact on marital quality. . . . men’s intimate involvement in daily domestic work may help keep men’s and women’s development parallel and hence help maintain satisfying relationships.”7

For the new family to be strong, then, it may not be best for men and women to focus on their biological differences and the resulting separate spheres. While a man cannot bear children, today men and women have the same educational and social opportunities. Bahá’u’lláh has provided all the tools for establishing a strong family by proclaiming the uncompromising equality between the sexes, including equal education: “through educated mothers, the benefits of knowledge can be most effectively and rapidly diffused throughout society.” Organizations such as the World Bank, UNICEF, and the World Health Organization have come to similar conclusions and focus on maternal education in their programs to improve health care. Moreover, as has been noted, Bahá’u’lláh has emphasized that a “very important element” in attaining the equality of women and men is providing “essentially the same curriculum in schools” for girls and boys.38 Might this not suggeSt not only education in the sci [Page 48]48 WORLD ORDER: FALL 1996

ences and the technical fields for girls but also home economics and arts for boys?

The Meaning of Complementarity WHAT do the Bahá’í writings mean by complementarity? In the physical world male and female complementarity is a necessary prerequisite for the continuation of the human race. Each sex is necessary to form the next generation. Yet biological sex is not the same as gender. In sociological studies sex is defined to mean the natural creations of male and female, while gender is defined to mean the cultural construCtions of masculine and feminine. As a result, God—given sex roles have been unjustly extended in the pan to become the gender roles artificially (and perhaps arbitrarily) assigned by human beings. The consequence has been the unhappy story of men grubbing to pay the bills and women domesticized as ornaments and housekeepers.

As humankind strives to achieve a more balanced and integrated world, women and men need to assiSt and support each Other in the process of becoming more fully human. There is a mentoring role for mothers as the

fathers go through the challenging process of

39. Hawkins et. al, “Rethinking Fathers’ Involvement in Child Care” 542.

40. Dennett, “The Right of a Child to Two Patents” 108.

41. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Promulgatz'on of Universal Peace 182

becoming more nurturing, a process mothers may have learned at more rapid pace while receiving more support from others; correspondingly, there is a mentoring role for fathers as mothers attempt to achieve in the outside world.39 The necessary interconnections between men and women are important Steps to growth.

In considering how to apply Bahá’í teachings to the creation of a new family, one must strive for a family based on justice, a family in which both mother and father share comparable— not drastically diEerent—roles and in which they move in the same—not separate—spheres. This will make for a Stronger family in which the man and the woman have freely chosen to come together from positions of equality, not out of economic or some other kind of necessity, and in which each is encouraged to develop his or her full human potential—spiritually, emotionally, intellectually. This will be better for the children, as well. When both fathers and mothers are themselves more balanced, true equality will be possible. Dennett wrote that, “since it takes a man and a woman to produce a child, it should be the joint and equal business of both to tear it.” In this way, she says, both the man and woman will have helped “to erect a mile-stone on the road to civilization marked, ‘At this point children began to have two real parents.”40 In Bahá’u’lláh’s new world order, the roles of the number and the father in the family are to work and play together. This is what it means for each to be the “complement and helpmeet” of the other.41

[Page 49]Authors 8: Artists

NAGHMEH ASTANI works in the Human Resources Department of Kerr—McGee Corporation. Inspired by her father—in—law, who was killed for being a Bahá’í, she has spent the last three years translating the

histories and eyewitness accounts of Baha 18 who have suficered the same fate.

CONSTANCE M. CHEN, a master’s candidate in public health at the Tulane School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, plans to study medicine. She is a recent graduate from Harvard and Radcliffe, where she studied women’s issues and American history. She has been a regular contributor to New Directiomfbr Women, was 3 founding editor of Men’s journal, and this year published “TbeSesz'de oflz'fé”: Mary Wizre Dennett’st'oneerz'ngBattle for Birth Control andSex Education, a biography of an early twentieth-century feminist.

SIYYID MUHAMMAD TABIB-I MANinADI’ was born in Yazd, Iran, in 1863. After studying medicine in Tehran, he moved to Manshad around 1886. A number of times he witnessed the persecution of the Bahá’ís in that city, including the particularly severe episode in 1903, which he took pains to record. He died in 1918 and is buried in Manflad.

AHANG RABBANI, a statistician for Dupont, has published a number of articles in Persian on the Bahá’í writings. He has books forthcoming on the life and writings of Quddt'ls (in Persian) and on the martyrs of Nayriz (in English).

MONICA RELLER, a poet who received her BA. degree in general studies and liberal arts from Washington State University at the age of sixty—five, writes for newspapers; teaches piano, voice, reflexology, and natural vision training; and is an awardwinning collage artist.

VERONICA SHOFFSTALL is an aide to the editor of One Country, the newsletter of the Bahá’í International Community. Her interests include hiking, writing, people,

and photography.

ART CREDITS: Cover design by John Solarz; cover photograph, Steve Garrigues; p; 1, photograph, Glenford E. Mitchell; p. 6, photograph, Steve Garrigues, p. 11, photograph, Mary Ann Gorski; pp. 20, 38, photographs, Steve Garrigues.