The Bahá’í Faith and the Iranian Constitutional Revolution (1905-1911)

Share/Save/Bookmark

faryarm
by faryarm
21-Sep-2010
 

While the Bahá’ís have generally rejected partisan politics in favor of grassroots service and bringing about unity among differing factions the Bahá’ís did engage in some political activity in the aftermath of the Revolution. Most significant was an attempt to have Bahá’ís represented by elected Bahá’í members in the Parliament. This plan never officially materialized. A study of the Bahá’í discourses on the Constitutional Revolution and the ensuing Bahá’í quietism is an issue that has not been addressed in any academic literature. There is ample literature, for instance on the role of the Azalís in the Constitutional Revolution.[3] Browne, Bayat and Afary all devote much attention to the Azali involvement in the Constitutional Movement. The Bahá’ís are, however, barely discussed. This despite the fact that the Bahá’ís numbered between 50,000-100,000 during this period and the Azalís were probably only about three to four thousand.[4] The Bahá’ís also had much more receptivity to possibility and advantages of a Constitutional Movement as suggested by many of Bahá’u’lláh’s writings.[5] The lack of academic literature on this issue probably stems from the primary sources and has been carried over to the secondary Western sources. This vacuum is the attention of this paper. I will begin with the most general of sources and will analyze the most specific surveys later. Not all sources are examined at the same level of detail, because the methodological approaches of some works require more discussion.

I wanted to draw the attention of those passionate historians amongst us to a series of enlightening articles appearing about a subject so relevant and critical in these momentous times; please see the site,
Postsecularism: Discourses on History, Sociology and Religion, and the latest piece about 


The Bahá’í Faith and the Iranian Constitutional Revolution (1905-1911) ن

Share/Save/Bookmark

more from faryarm
 
Sen McGlinn

Resaleh-ye Siyasiyeh

by Sen McGlinn on

I note that Aryana-Vaeja has referred to Abdu'l-Baha (Abbas Effendi) being "on the side of the Qajar autocracy at one critical point. For evidence of this fact see Abbas Effendi's Resalih-ye Siasiye.

In fact the Resaleh-ye Siyasiyeh was written before the critical point, at a time when there was not yet a conflict between Qajar autocracy and constitutional forces, and it is radically constitutional in its thinking, focussing entirely on the need for the separation of religion and politics. 

This principle is more basic to democratic government than the extent of the franchise, whether one has a monarch or a president, etc..  The mechanics of democratic government can only be built on the separation of church and state. In this, Abdu'l-Baha was ahead of the constitutionalists as a whole. The constitutional movement tried to utilise religious leaders and religion to modernise the system of government, and so smuggled into the revolution the agents of its downfall.

Abdu'l-Baha himself comments on his vain attempts to stop this folly:

"Refer to the Treatise on Politics, which was penned in 1310 (1892 A.D) ... and share it with others.  In it the current events are listed
unambiguously.  It is clearly written that if the clerics and
theologians intervene
in matters, it will be a repetition of the times
of Sháh Sultán Husayn, Fath-`Alí Sháh and the events leading to the removal of Sultán `Abdu’l-`Azíz.  In the time of Sháh Sultán Husayn due to the meddling of the leading clerics Iran fell into
the hands of Ottomans, Russians and Afghans.  During the reign of
Fath-`Alí Sháh the intervention of the same reckless elements half of Azerbaijan and the Caspian Sea were lost and heavy indemnities were imposed.  In the
`Abdu’l-Azíz affair interference of the `Ulamá and theologians and
seminary students of Istanbul and the clamour of “We want war! We want
war!” by the clerics in the streets half of Romalia was lost and large
portions of Anatolia were taken.  Commotions came about in Egypt that
results in the dissolution of the army.  Cyprus became separated. 
Bulgaria obtained independent.  Bosnia and Herzegovina fell into
Austrian hands.  Tunisia went to the French. 


In short, in that Treatise these issues are elaborated in detail.  Peruse it that you may know
that `Abdu’l-Bahá has not fallen short in counsel and guidance. However,
the ears were deaf and the eyes were blind."

(Milani's translation, from Makátíb-i-`Abdu’l-Bahá 5:173-176)

 

A second question, only relevant after one has established the separation of religion and politics, is whether parliament is elected or appointed. Abdu'l-Baha had already stated, in his Resaleh-ye Madaniyeh, that in his opinion the appointed regional councils that were functioning at that form should be transformed into elected bodies. Even earlier, Baha'u'llah had praised the British constitution for incorporating consultation with the people, and had predicted that power would be seized from both the kings and the ecclessiastics, and would fall in the hands of the people

 

It's not that Abdu'l-Baha was against the clerics and for royal absolutism (or vice versa), but that he was against either of them holding political power, which should be in the hands of the people and only the people. Any nation that does not understand that all forms of autocracy - religious and political - must be opposed simultaneously, will fall from one to the other and back again.  But "ears were deaf and the eyes were blind."

~~~~~~~~

What I can do, is keep my arm
from bringing others any harm.
How can I give the enviers ease?
They are themselves their own disease.
(Sa'di, Gulestan 1:5)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
//senmcglinn.wordpress


Aryana-Vaeja

اینکه نشد مطلب بحث، آقا فریار

Aryana-Vaeja


???

-

May we be amongst those who are to bring about the transfiguration of the Earth - Yasna XXX 9


faryarm

From the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh

by faryarm on

From the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh
 


Let nothing grieve thee, O Land of Tá (Tihrán), for God hath chosen thee to be the source of the joy of all mankind. He shall, if it be His Will, bless thy throne with one who will rule with justice, who will gather together the flock of God which the wolves have scattered. Such a ruler will, with joy and gladness, turn his face towards, and extend his favors unto, the people of Bahá. He indeed is accounted in the sight of God as a jewel among men. Upon him rest forever the glory of God, and the glory of all that dwell in the kingdom of His revelation."

         "Ere long will the state of affairs within thee be changed, and the reins of power fall into the hands of the people. Verily, thy Lord is the All-Knowing. His authority embraceth all things. Rest thou assured in the gracious favor of thy Lord. The eye of His loving-kindness shall everlastingly be directed towards thee. The day is approaching when thy agitation will have been transmuted into peace and quiet calm. Thus hath it been decreed in the wondrous Book."


Aryana-Vaeja

تاریخ بیداری ایران - میرزا محمدناظم‌الاسلام کرمانی

Aryana-Vaeja


Is not a bad source. It is not as exhaustive or comprehensive as Kasravi's history or subsequent studies. It was however one of E.G. Browne's leading sources for his own The Persian Revolution of 1905-1909.

Now as for the Baha'i polemic against Kasravi is concerned: it is rather a disengenuous one. Granted Kasravi was somewhat sweeping and uncritical in his indictment of an entire Islamicate tradition in its Persianate form (Islamicate and Persianate are technical terms coined by historian Marshall Hodgson), but on the facts alone minus his conclusions of those facts he is not off nor does he make anything up when presenting these facts. Kasravi's problem is that he appropriates an uncritical and largely uncompromising ultra-nationalist interpretative narrative that doesn't like dealing with nuances and ambiguities or analyzing them beyond surface appearances. In other words, the problem with Kasravi on Shi'ism, Sufism, Shaykhism and Babism, at least, is that his methodology and analysis can get rather tediously one-sided and simplisitc when interpreting these facts from the bigger complex perspective of details. But overall what is offered by Kasravi has its merits too. It just needs to be treated cautiously as to its final conclusions.

Now the claim by Baha'is that their religion is Iranian is grossly problematic, not to mention propaganda. Whether the official narrative presented by the Bahais be taken at face value that the inauguration of their creed occured in Baghdad in 1863 or the more critical and factual one that this event actually occured in Edirne on the Black Sea coast during the 1866-67 period, the obvious demonstrates that geographically Bahaism was born outside of Iranian territory. Where this whole 'Iranian religion' claim comes from is the Baha'i insistence in claiming the earlier Babi religion, a claim which has rightfully been called conflation by Denis Maceoin, when technically Babism or the Bayani faith is an independent entity altogether from Bahaism. As such if Bahaism is going to be called an "Iranian" creed it must be done so in brackets because clearly it is not. These days given the preponderance of ethnic non-Iranians at the helm of its leadership and given its self-professed globalist-internationalist tack, culturally Bahaism is anything but Iranian.

-

May we be amongst those who are to bring about the transfiguration of the Earth - Yasna XXX 9


faryarm

Kasravi and his Polemic

by faryarm on


Ahmad Kasravi (1890-1946) was a notable Iranian linguist, historian, and reformer.  Even though in his early years he was trained in a seminary, he soon found himself involved with the constitutional revolution of 1905-11, and a life devoted to writing and religious criticism.  He wrote several books critical of Shi’ism, Sufism and the Baha’i Faith (published in 1940s).  It is the latter polemic which is the subject of the recent monograph by Bahman Nikandish under the title Kasravi va Kitab-e Baha’igari uo [Kasravi and His Baha’ism].

Nikandish writes in a neutral, learned language, dealing with all the major criticisms raised by Kasravi, who, in his fairness, recognized the Baha’i Faith as an original Iranian religion – not, like so many other polemists, as a product of imperialism.  Nonetheless, against his own personal antagonism towards the Shi’a religion and Sufi proclivities, Kasravi dealt in a confused and rather hostile way towards the Baha’i Faith.  With great patience and facility, Nikandish untangles various issues raised by Kasravi and produces a brilliant and cogent analysis, completely demolishing Kasravi’s unfounded arguments.

This highly-recommended monograph is currently available in Persian, and can be found at:  //www.kasravi-va-bahaigari.com/.  It can also be downloaded here:Kasravi_Oct2008


Hoshang Targol

What do you folks think about " Tarikh Bidary Iranian?"

by Hoshang Targol on

 forget the authors name now, this is supposedly the book Kasravi and Adameit had as their "guide."


Aryana-Vaeja

Anahita

by Aryana-Vaeja on

Whatever we are we don't silence people or practice systematic censorship or the wholesale changing and sanitization of history like you Haifan Bahais do. Our notions of freedom also aren't like yours where freedom and liberty means to take away the freedom and liberty of whoever doesn't agree with our sectarian spins on history and impose our own by force like you do. Clearly we don't envision a post-IR Iran of the kind you are envisioning at all. In fact I believe you're going to find your hands very full with Bayanis, Zoroastrians, Sufis and a lot of other minorities after this regime falls who are not going to stand for your attempts to lord over and dominate over everyone. You will see.

As for this site: this site will give a free reign soap-box to the highest bidder and its webmaster is wellknown for opportunism. "Anti-Bahai partisans" such as I are here to set records straight and ensure that a balance is maintained and that you don't get to dominate all facets of a discussion. Tough luck if you have a problem with it. Welcome to real democracy and real pluralism!

-

May we be amongst those who are to bring about the transfiguration of the Earth - Yasna XXX 9


Aryana-Vaeja

Incidentally

by Aryana-Vaeja on

By Mansouri's standards Ahmad Kasravi is also an "anti-Bahai partisan" as is Fereydoun Adamiyat. These two are examples of the best of the Persian language historians of the Constitutional Revolution. Anyone who has ever told the truth about these cultists is a partisan whereas whoever has participated in their fiction-churning delusions, like that moron Alireza Maybodi, is a friend. These cultist recently only a few years ago showed their sleaze towards Homa Nateq who is, without a doubt, the greatest living sociologist of the Constitutional Revolution. Why? Because she also showed that these people were nobodies then as they are nobodies now and had nothing positive to do with those events.

-

May we be amongst those who are to bring about the transfiguration of the Earth - Yasna XXX 9


Aryana-Vaeja

Bollocks! Come out, come out wherever you are, Kavian

by Aryana-Vaeja on

Mr Milani has done nothing here other than reinforce the fact that Baha'is will do absolutey anything to rewrite history and spin it to put the spotlight on themselves in events they barely had a role in. His so-called scholarship and sourcing is also outright laughable. He has proven nothing here because the piece is transparent propaganda posing as history, like everything else these people write.

The facts are this: at the very beginning of the Constitutional Revolution Abbas Effendi had good things to say about it. Soon thereafter he forbad all the Bahais from participating any further in it, especially in standing for elections to the majlis. When pushed further on his opinion he penned the aforementioned Resaleye Sisasiye which is as anti-Constitutional a treatise as it comes. Clearly at the crucial moment of the Constitutional Revolution the Baha'is did not stand with the Revolution but rather with the Russian-propped Qajar throne of Muhammad Ali Shah.

The role of women and minorities in the Constitutional Revolution has been ably and most circumspectly, not to mention extensively, dealt with by both Mangol Bayat and Janet Afary, and in a range of journal articles and other monographs by various other people. People should actually read actual books more often.

Now Mr Mansouri is just a poster boy for others and really couldn't
argue his way out of a wet paper bag on his own, given his history of meaningless rantings and sectarian drivel. If he has the  manhood  and wherewithal I'd
like to invite Mr Milani himself to come here  himself and answer the embarrassing pseudo-intellectual araajeef he's cobbled together and calls history.

As for you Mr Tangol: I suggest that unless you know what you're talking about kindly stay out of a discussion which does not concern you.  You had no idea what you were saying re: Qurrat'ul-'Ayn on DirtyAngel's blog and here you have no idea what you're talking about either. Kindly take Mr Mansouri by the hand and go find the real men to have the debate with.

-

May we be amongst those who are to bring about the transfiguration of the Earth - Yasna XXX 9


Anita

نقش ازلی ها یا بیانی ها در انقلاب مشروطه؟

Anita


 

سالی که نیکوست از بهارش پیداست. از همان بیانی های استرالیایی پیداست که چه سهم مثبت و مهمی در اینده ایران عزیز و اتحاد ایرانی ها داشته اند و دارند!! تو همین سایت داریم می بینیم.

 :-)


faryarm

Only An Anti Bahai Partisan would call it Revisionism...

by faryarm on

It is not surprising that, only a well known Anti Bahai Partisan with a name like "wahid Azal" Calls it "Revisionism"...

Dr Milani  in this piece, is simply aiming to correct the historical imbalance by throwing more light on the subject with the help of more recent and  reliable and less partisan sources than the Azali accounts.

He states, "The lack of academic literature on this issue probably stems from the primary sources (Azalis !)  and has been carried over to the secondary Western sources.  This vacuum is the attention of this paper.  I will begin with the most general of sources and will analyze the most specific surveys later.  Not all sources are examined at the same level of detail, because the methodological approaches of some works require more discussion" ...

The Azalis remaining as a minority as confirmed by Prof Browne, became the main  manufacturers  and suppliers of anti Bahai Literature and material, some of which was subsequently conveniently used by both the Shia establishment and "Academics" in various early 20th century anti Bahai publications, all of which with the advent of today's access to more reliable  information by more respectable sources in deeper research has led to their wide discredit.

 


Hoshang Targol

Thank you both Messrs. Faryarm and Aryana-Vaeja

by Hoshang Targol on

for your  informed, extensive, partisan, and rather passionate knoweledge of the subject. Needless to say the  topic of religious minorities and thier contributions to Iranian culture,letters and political history has been vastly ignored. Hopefully in here we shall have the opportunity and space to remedy this substatantial viod. Looking forward to a lively, civil, enlightening discussion, sincerely yours,

-Hoshang


Aryana-Vaeja

Historical revisionism

by Aryana-Vaeja on

The paper by Mr Milani is an example of pure historical revisionism and so sanitized ahistorical hogwash peddled by Bahais as history when it is ahistory and re-Imagination attempting to rewrite history. In other words it is propaganda and pure fiction.  It is also a pretty laughable attempt at scholarship. The Baha'i involvement in the Constitutional Revolution was negligible and in fact even on the side of the Qajar autocracy at one critical point. For evidence of this fact see Abbas Effendi's Resalih-ye Siasiye.

Every Iranian historian of the Constitutional Revolution from Ahmad Kasravi to Fereydoun Adamiyat has pointed this out with evidence. Every Western language historian of the era, whether Browne, Bayat or Afary, have likewise dealt with the issue. In his The Persian Revolution of 1905-1909 Browne in fact does NOT highlight the Bayani (Azali Babi) involvement that much at all. He mentions names but barely any affiliations. He did this deliberately in order to protect sources who were still alive at the time of his writing. Bayat and Afary were really the two who highlighted the crucial role of the Bayani community.

But that aside, I don't know what the Baha'is think they stand to gain by yet again willfully trying to change the facts of history to make themselves relevent in events they were barely involved in. And let us not forget, it was Abbas Effendi himself who forbad the Baha'is of Iran from participating.

-

May we be amongst those who are to bring about the transfiguration of the Earth - Yasna XXX 9