H-Bahai Documents on the Shaykhi, Babi and Baha'i Movements, Vol. 8, No. 1 (May 2004, updated 2013)

The House of Bahá’u’lláh, Baghdád ‘Iráq

 

Compilation

 

__________

 

The site of one of the foremost sacred Baha'i holy places, known as the the House of Baha'u'llah*, entitled The Most Great House, is the northern district of Baghdád, ‘Iráq known as Al Kazimiyah or Kazmain District --- a District regarded as a holy area in Shí‘ah Islam. Musa al-Kazim, the Seventh Imam and his grandson, the Ninth Imam, Muhammad at-Taqi, are both buried within the Al Kadhimiya Mosque-Shrine near to where the House of Baha'u'llah is located. Shí‘ah go on an annual pilgrimage to the Shrine in that district in August and September.

The site of the House of Baha'u'llah remains in the possession of Shí‘ah leaders, known to be used as a pilgrimage hostel for those visiting the Shrine of the Holy Imams by Shí‘ah pilgrims, but off limits to the Baha'is.

With recent political events in that country, and the re-establishment of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of ‘Iráq in 2004, after the banning of the Faith for over thirty years, could the House be returned in the coming years and become one of the foremost Baha'i Shrines and site of obligatory Bahá’í pilgrimage as envisioned by Bahá’u’lláh?

*Update 27 June 2013: The Universal House of Justice announced in a letter dated 27 June 2013 , the destruction of the House of Baha'u'llah in Baghdad -- presumably by adversaries of the Baha'i Faith.

National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of Iraq, 2004.
 © Bahá’í International Community. See: media. bahai. org

National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of ‘Iráq, 2004
© Bahá’í International Community. www.media.bahai.org

 

This is a partial compilation from Bahá’í sources and The League of Nations regarding the House of Bahá’u’lláh including letters from Shoghi Effendi and the Bahá’í Petition to the League of September 11, 1928.

In Adrianople (Edirne), Bahá’u’lláh wrote a number of tablets concerned pilgrimage (hajj) to Bahá’í holy places. Surat al hajj II (Lawh-i-Hajj II, or Sura al-Hajj), addressed to Mírzá Muhammad Nabíl-i Zarandí, describes the rites of the hajj to The Most Great House.   See Prof. Denis MacEoin's English translation of this tablet which first appeared in a paper entitled "Ritual and Self-ritual Observances in Bábísm and Bahá’ísm" presented at the Fourth Annual Bahá’í Study Seminar, Lancaster University, Lancaster, England, 1980. This paper has since been republished as a monograph, Rituals in Babism and Baha'ism, London: British Academic Press, 1994. See Appendix XXV. MacEoin's source for his translation is Mírzá Asadu'lláh Fádil-i Mázandarání's Amr wa khalq, Vol. IV, pp. 109-17.




Photos and Plan of the House of Bahá’u’lláh

Photos 1 - 4 from The Bahá’í World, Vol. V, 1932-1934, p.136, after restoration.
Photos 5 and 6 from The Bahá’í World, Vol. III, 1928-1930, p. 230, during restoration.
Photo 7. Restored.
House plan from The Bahá’í World, Vol. VI, 1934-1936, p.437.


Photo 1 Photo 2 Photo 3 Photo 4 Photo 5 Photo 6 Photo 7 Plan


An explanation of the League of Nations case is found in:

Arnold J. Toynbee. Survey of International Affairs 1934. London: Oxford University Press, 1935. Pages 116-122.

Title p. 116 p. 117 p. 118 p. 119 p. 120 p. 121 p. 122

 

 

__________________________________

 

 

Letters of Shoghi Effendi Compiled from Bahá’í Administration

New York: Bahá’í Publishing Committee, 1928.

 

Pages 94-95

International Bahá’í Shrine

The sad and sudden crisis that has arisen in connection with the ownership of Bahá’u’lláh’s sacred house in Baghdád has sent a thrill of indignation and dismay throughout the whole of the Bahá’í world. Houses that have been occupied by Bahá’u’lláh for well nigh the whole period of His exile in ‘Iráq; ordained by Him as the chosen and sanctified object of Bahá’í pilgrimage in future; magnified and extolled in countless Tablets and Epistles as the sacred center “round which shall circle all peoples and kindreds of the earth”—lie now, due to fierce intrigue and ceaseless fanatical opposition, at the mercy of the declared enemies of the Cause.

I have instantly communicated with every Bahá’í center in both East and West, and urgently requested the faithful followers of the Faith in every land to protest vehemently against this glaring perversion of justice, to assert firmly and courteously the spiritual rights of the Bahá’í Community to the ownership of this venerated house, to plead for British fairness and justice, and to pledge their unswerving determination to insure the security of this hallowed spot.

Conscious of the fact that this property has been occupied by Bahá’í authorized representatives for an uninterrupted period of not less than thirty years, and having successfully won their case at the Justice of Peace and the Court of First Instance, the Bahá’ís the world over cannot believe that the high sense of honor and fairness which inspires the British Administration of ‘Iráq will ever tolerate such grave miscarriage of justice. They confidently appeal to the public opinion of the world for the defense and protection of their legitimate rights now sorely trampled under the feet of relentless enemies.

Widespread and effective publicity along these lines, in well-conceived and carefully worded terms, is strongly recommended for it will undoubtedly serve to facilitate the solution of this delicate and perplexing problem.

Having exerted ourselves to the utmost of our ability let us rest assured in the power of the Lord, who keepeth watch over His house, and who will, no matter how dark present prospects appear, assure for generations yet unborn His cherished and holy edifice. I shall acquaint you with every development of the case, and will advise you as to the measures that should be taken whether we decide to institute fresh proceedings or to appeal to higher legal authorities in London. ….

 

Assuring you of my deep appreciation of your continued efforts, and of my unceasing prayers on your behalf,

I am your grateful brother,

SHOGHI.

Haifa, Palestine,
November 6, 1925.

 

 

 

Page 114

 

Shrine at Baghdád

From Baghdád, moreover, where the sacred habitation of Bahá’u’lláh has been violated by a relentless enemy and converted into a rallying center for the corrupt, the perverse, and the fanatical, there comes the news, highly reassuring to us all, of the satisfactory progress of the negotiations which, we are informed on high authority, will soon lead to the expropriation of the property by the State, culminating in the fullness of time in its occupation by the triumphant followers of God’s holy Faith. The case of the houses, so ably presented, so persistently pursued, above all reinforced by the vigilant and protecting power of our departed Master, will eventually triumph, and by its repercussions in Persia as in the world at large, will lend a powerful impetus to the liberation of those forces which will carry the Cause to its ultimate destiny. I will, when the occasion presents itself, inform the believers through their respective National Spiritual Assemblies to address messages of appreciation and gratitude to the authorities concerned in view of their unrelaxing efforts for the triumph of right and justice.

For the present, we cannot but rejoice and feel profoundly thankful as we witness in so many directions the welcome signs of the gradual emancipation of the struggling Faith of Bahá’u’lláh, of the increasing recognition on the part of both the high and lowly of its universal principles —all so rich in their promise of ultimate victory.

Your true brother,

SHOGHI.

Haifa, Palestine,
October 29, 1926.

 

 

 

Pages 164-165

 

Bahá’u’lláh's House at Baghdád

…..What we have already witnessed in connection with the latest developments regarding the case of Bahá’u’lláh’s House in Baghdád affords abundant evidence of the truth of the observation that has just been made. In its initial stages appearing to the superficial observer as a petty dispute submitted to an obscure and antiquated Shiite court, the case has gradually evolved into a paramount issue engaging the attention of the highest tribunal of ‘Iráq. In its latest stages, it has gathered such strength, secured such publicity, and received such support from the chancelleries of Europe, as to become a subject fit for the consideration not only of the specific international Commission ultimately responsible for the administration of Mandated Territories but of the leading Signatories of the Covenant of the League of Nations that are represented in the Council of the League itself.

Few if any among those closely associated with the case did at first imagine or expect that dwellings which to outward seeming appeared only as a cluster of humble and decrepit buildings lost amid the obscure and tortuous lanes of old Baghdád could ever obtain such prominence as to become the object of the deliberations of the highest international Tribunal that the hand of man has thus far reared for the amicable settlement of his affairs. Whatever the decision of the world's highest Tribunal regarding the petition submitted to it by the Bahá’ís of ‘Iráq —and none can deny that should its verdict be in our favor, a triumph unparalleled in its magnitude will have been achieved for our beloved Faith —the work already accomplished is in itself an abundant proof of the sustaining confirmations that are being showered upon the upholders of the case from the realm on high.

I cannot refrain from giving expression in this connection to my feelings of profound appreciation of the ceaseless vigilance and marked distinction with which our precious brother and fellow-worker, Mr. Mountfort Mills, has undertaken and is still shouldering this sacred and historic mission committed to his charge. His unremitting labors, despite ill-health and domestic anxieties and cares, are worthy of the highest praise and will be gratefully recorded in the annals of an immortal Cause.

Surely, if we read the history of this case aright, we cannot but discern the direction which the forces, released by these prophetic utterances of Bahá’u’lláh sixty years ago, are destined to take in the eventual solution of this mighty issue:—

“In truth I declare, it shall be so abased in the days to come as to cause tears to flow from every discerning eye.... And in the fullness of time shall the Lord, by the power of truth, exalt it in the eyes of all the world, cause it to become the mighty standard of His Dominion, the Shrine round which shall circle the concourse of the faithful.”

Your true brother,

SHOGHI.

Haifa, Palestine,
January 1, 1929.

 

 

 

Pages 175-180 (also in The Bahá’í World, Vol. III, p. 206)

 

To the beloved of the Lord and the handmaids of the Merciful throughout the West.

Dearly-beloved brothers and sisters in ‘Abdu’l-Bahá:

With a heart overflowing with thankfulness and joy I take my pen to share with you tidings that eloquently testify to the triumphant majesty and unconquerable spirit of the Faith of Bahá’u’lláh. From Geneva, the seat of the League of Nations, there comes the news that the fervent plea addressed by the Bahá’ís of ‘Iráq to the world's supreme Tribunal regarding an issue that for a time has stirred the Bahá’í world to its foundation has at last met with a noble and most gratifying response.

You will recall the references made in my previous communications, dated November 6, 1925, October 29, 1926, and January 1, 1929, to the forcible seizure of Bahá’u’lláh’s sacred house by the Shí’ah of Baghdád, to the appeals which from almost every quarter of the globe have showered upon the authorities of ‘Iráq for its restitution, to the long and unsuccessful legal proceedings to which the representatives of the Faith in that land have resorted, and lastly to the petition which they have addressed to the League's Permanent Mandates Commission setting forth the history of the case and appealing for the intervention of the Council in their behalf. I am now informed that after mature deliberation the conclusion arrived at by the Mandates Commission, urging that prompt action be taken to redress the wrong suffered by the Bahá’ís, has been duly communicated to, and adopted by, the Council of the League, which in turn will formally communicate the recommendations of its Commission to the Mandatory Power.

 

Decision of League of Nations

From the official text of the minutes of the meeting of the Mandates Commission*, as well as from its authorized report to the Council, both of which have been made public, it is clear and evident that the terms of the conclusion arrived at are neither vague nor evasive, but set forth in unmistakable language the legitimate aspirations of an oppressed and struggling Faith. The decision neither implies compensation to the Bahá’í Community for the loss of the sacred buildings, nor does it expressly provide for the expropriation of the property by the State. To quote from the text of the official document, the Commission has resolved “to recommend the Council to ask the British Government to call upon the Government of ‘Iráq to redress without delay the denial of justice from which the petitioners have suffered.” (*Minutes of the Fourteenth Session of the Permanent Mandates Commission, held at Geneva from October 26th to November 13th, 1928, C. 568, M. 179; 1928, VI.)

A glance at the minutes of the Commission's meeting will suffice to reveal that in the course of the lengthy discussions conducted by the members of the Commission the following important facts have been stressed and recognized. The British accredited representative, present at the sessions of the Commission, has declared that “it was a fact that the Mandatory Power had recognized that the Bahá’ís had suffered an injustice and, ever since the award made by the High Court, the High Commissioner had been considering what means could be found to remove, either by an executive act or otherwise, the unjust effects of that decision.” Moreover, it has been acknowledged by the accredited representative that the Bahá’ís had been in bonafide occupancy of the property, that they had expended on it sums that exceeded the value of the site itself, and were thus, in accordance with the provision in the still operative Turkish Law, entitled to purchase the site. Allusion has also been made in the course of the deliberations of the members of the Commission to the fact that the action of the Shí’ah community with respect to Bahá’u’lláh's sacred house constituted a breach of the Constitution and the Organic Law of ‘Iráq which, according to the testimony of the British accredited representative, expressly provided for the unfettered freedom of conscience. A question from one of the members had even elicited from the representative of the British Government the reply assuring the Commission that the Mandatory Power actually possessed means of exercising pressure on the authorities in order, if necessary, to insure that so fundamental an article in the Constitution would be respected. Furthermore, the opinion has been strongly expressed that the matter had assumed an “importance which exceeded that of the individual case of the Bahá’ís,” inasmuch as “the judgment of the High Court was suspected of having been inspired by political prejudice,” with the consequent impression on the Commission that "from a moral point of view, conditions in ‘Iráq were not improving; that religious passions still ran high and that peace had not yet been brought about between the various religious communities.” It has even been proposed to supplement the report submitted to the Council with the observation that, in the opinion of the Commission, “a country in which the Sovereign and the highest law courts are capable of so flagrant a denial of justice would probably not be considered to be eligible to become a Member of the League of Nations.” The minutes of the Commission’s meeting further indicate that the contents of the letter addressed by the Prime Minister of ‘Iráq to the British representative in Baghdád and which accompanied the text of the petition of the Bahá’ís do not in the opinion of the Commission “meet any of the allegations of the petitioners” and are confined to a mere assertion that the judgment of the Court of Appeal was pronounced in accordance with the laws of the land. As to the memorandum submitted by the Mandatory Power in connection with the Bahá’í petition, and to which the minutes briefly refer, it is expressly stated that His Britannic Majesty's Government considers the ejectment of the Bahá’ís while the case was still undecided to have been an illegal action, that the reasons adduced to justify such action were hardly admissible, and that the final verdict of the Court of Appeal is unsustainable, contrary to the law, and tainted by political considerations. The minutes further declare that although any petition presented to the Commission appealing from a decision given by a Court of Law is to be considered as not being in order, yet as the petition submitted by the Bahá’ís reveals such a state of partiality, servility and sectarianism it has been found desirable to depart from the general rule and to regard the petition in question as receivable by the Commission. And among the concluding observations in the minutes of the Commission's meeting regarding the Bahá’í petition is this significant passage: “The revelations made in connection with this petition show the present position in ‘Iráq in an unfavorable light. In a country where the conduct of the highest authorities has led the Mandatory Power to pass such severe criticisms, where the Supreme Court of Justice is under legitimate suspicion, and where religious fanaticism pursues minorities and controls power, a state of affairs prevails which is not calculated to insure the development and well-being of the inhabitants. The petitioners have suffered a serious denial of justice the direct responsibility for which rests on the authorities of ‘Iráq. The fact that this denial of justice could not be prevented or immediately made good was due to the weakening of the Mandatory Power's control in ‘Iráq. The Mandatory attempted, but in vain, to redress the injury done to the petitioners by using the means of influence at its disposal under the regime set up by the 1922 Treaty vis-a-vis King Feisal and the ‘Iráq Government. These efforts would not appear to correspond fully to the engagements resulting from the British Government’s declaration, which was approved by the Council on September 27, 1924, and renewed by the British Government in 1926, whereby the Treaty of Alliance between the British Government and ‘Iráq ‘was to insure the complete observance and execution in ‘Iráq of the principles which the acceptance of the mandate was intended to secure.’”

This grave censure pronounced by the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations on the administration of justice and the general conduct of affairs in ‘Iráq, as well as the association of the humiliation afflicting Bahá’u’lláh’s sacred dwelling-place with the obligations implied in the Treaty of Alliance binding the Governments of Great Britain and ‘Iráq, not only proclaim to the world the enhanced prestige of that hallowed and consecrated spot, but testify as well to the high sense of integrity that animates the members of the League's honored Commission in the discharge of their public duties. In their formal reply to the Bahá’í petitioners, the members of the Permanent Mandates Commission have, with the sanction of the Council of the League of Nations, issued this most satisfactory declamation: “The Permanent Mandates Commission, recognizing the justice of the complaint made by the Bahá’í Spiritual Assembly of Baghdád, has recommended to the Council of the League such action as it thinks proper to redress the wrong suffered by the petitioners.” A similar passage inserted in the report of the Finnish Representative to the Council of the League runs as follows: “The Commission has also considered a petition from the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of ‘Iráq, a community which has been dispossessed of its property by another community and has been unable to recover it by legal means. The Commission is convinced that this situation, which is described as an injustice, must be attributed solely to religious passion, and it asks that the petitioner’s wrongs should be redressed. I venture to suggest that the Council should accept the Mandate Commission’s conclusions on this case, which is an example of the difficulties to be met with in the development of a young country.” This report, together with the joint observations and conclusions of the Commission, have been duly considered and approved by the Council of the League, which has in turn instructed the Secretary-General to bring to the notice of the Mandatory Power, as well as the petitioners concerned, the conclusions arrived at by the Mandates Commission.

Dearly-beloved co-workers! Much has been achieved thus far in the course of the progress of this complicated, delicate and highly significant issue. The Bahá’í world is eagerly expectant, and fervently prays, that the Almighty may graciously assist the Government chiefly responsible for the well-being of ‘Iráq to take “without delay” such steps as will insure the execution of the considered judgment of the representatives of the Sovereign States, members of the Council, and signatories of the Covenant, of the League of Nations.

I will, if deemed proper and advisable, inform you of the manner in which the admiration and the gratitude of the National Spiritual Assemblies, representative of the divers communities in the Bahá’í world, should be expressed and tendered to the authorities of the League of Nations who have been chiefly responsible for this noble, this epoch-making decision. For none can doubt that the published verdict pronounced by the Mandate Commission sets the seal of international sanction on the triumph of God's persecuted Faith over the ecclesiastical and civil powers of hostile Islam. Within the ranks of the orthodox Sunnis and of the bitter and fanatical Shí’ah, the chief sects of the Muslim Faith and constituting respectively the bulk of the ruling class and the population of ‘Iráq, a feeling of consternation must necessarily prevail. For however obscured their vision they still can recognize in this historic judgment the herald of that complete victory which is destined to establish the ascendancy of what, in the words of the members of the Commission, is but “a small minority, drawn from a lower social grade, and possessing neither political nor social influence,” over the combined forces of the Islamic population of ‘Iráq.

I must not fail in conclusion to refer once again to the decisive role played by that distinguished and international champion of the Faith of Bahá’u’lláh, our dearly-beloved Mountfort Mills, in the negotiations that have paved the way for the signal success already achieved. The text of the Bahá’í petition, which he conceived and drafted, has been recognized by the members of the Mandates Commission as “a document well-drafted, clear in its argument and moderate in tone.” He has truly acquitted himself in this most sacred task with exemplary distinction and proved himself worthy of so noble a mission. I request you to join with me in my prayers for him, that the Spirit of Bahá’u’lláh may continue to guide and sustain him in the final settlement of this most mighty issue.

Your true brother,

SHOGHI.

Haifa, Palestine,
March 20, 1929.

 

__________________________________


 

 

From Shoghi Effendi's God Passes By, 1944, pp. 356-360:

 

Of a more serious nature, and productive of still greater repercussions, was the unlawful seizure by the Shí'ahs of Iraq, at about the same time that the keys of the Tomb of Bahá'u'lláh were wrested by the Covenant-breakers from its keeper, of yet another Bahá'í Shrine, the House occupied by Bahá'u'lláh for well nigh the whole period of His exile in Iraq, which had been acquired by Him, and later had been ordained as a center of pilgrimage, and had continued in the unbroken and undisputed possession of His followers ever since His departure from Baghdád. This crisis, originating about a year prior to `Abdu'l-Bahá's ascension, and precipitated by the measures which, after the change of regime in Iraq, had, according to His instructions, been taken for the reconstruction of that House, acquired as it developed a steadily widening measure of publicity. It became the object of the consideration of successive tribunals, first of the local Shí'ah Ja'faríyyih court in Baghdád, second of the Peace court, then the court of First Instance, then of the court of Appeal in Iraq, and finally of the League of Nations, the greatest international body yet come into existence, and empowered to exercise supervision and control over all Mandated Territories. Though as yet unresolved through a combination of causes, religious as well as political, it has already remarkably fulfilled Bahá'u'lláh's own prediction, and will, in its own appointed time, as the means for its solution are providentially created, fulfill the high destiny ordained for it by Him in His Tablets. Long before its seizure by fanatical enemies, who had no conceivable claim to it whatever, He had prophesied that "it shall be so abased in the days to come as to cause tears to flow from every discerning eye."

The Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of Baghdád, deprived of the use of that sacred property through an adverse decision by a majority of the court of Appeal, which had reversed the verdict of the lower court and awarded the property to the Shí'ahs, and aroused by subsequent action of the Shí'ahs, soon after the execution of the judgment of that court, in converting the building into waqf property (pious foundation), designating it "Husayníyyih," with the purpose of consolidating their gain, realized the futility of the three years of negotiations they had been conducting with the civil authorities in Baghdád for the righting of the wrong inflicted upon them. In their capacity as the national representatives of the Bahá'ís of Iraq, they, therefore, on September 11, 1928, through the High Commissioner for Iraq and in conformity with the provisions of Art. 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, approached the League's Permanent Mandates Commission, charged with the supervision of the administration of all Mandated Territories, and presented a petition that was accepted and approved by that body in November, 1928. A memorandum submitted, in connection with that petition, to that same Commission, by the Mandatory Power unequivocally stated that the Shí'ahs had "no conceivable claim whatever" to the House, that the decision of the judge of the Ja'faríyyih court was "obviously wrong," "unjust" and "undoubtedly actuated by religious prejudice," that the subsequent ejectment of the Bahá'ís was "illegal," that the action of the authorities had been "highly irregular," and that the verdict of the Court of Appeal was suspected of not being "uninfluenced by political consideration."

"The Commission," states the Report submitted by it to the Council of the League, and published in the Minutes of the 14th session of the Permanent Mandates Commission, held in Geneva in the fall of 1928, and subsequently translated into Arabic and published in Iraq, "draws the Council's attention to the considerations and conclusions suggested to it by an examination of the petition... It recommends that the Council should ask the British Government to make representations to the Iraq Government with a view to the immediate redress of the denial of justice from which the petitioners have suffered." The British accredited representative present at the sessions of the Commission, furthermore, stated that "the Mandatory Power had recognized that the Bahá'ís had suffered an injustice," whilst allusion was made, in the course of that session, to the fact that the action of the Shí'ahs constituted a breach of the constitution and the Organic Law of Iraq. The Finnish representative, moreover, in his report to the Council, declared that this "injustice must be attributed solely to religious passion," and asked that "the petitioner's wrongs should be redressed."

The Council of the League, on its part, having considered this report as well as the joint observations and conclusions of the Commission, unanimously adopted, on March 4, 1929, a resolution, subsequently translated and published in the newspapers of Baghdád, directing the Mandatory Power "to make representations to the Government of Iraq with a view to the immediate redress of the injustice suffered by the Petitioners." It instructed, accordingly, the Secretary General to bring to the notice of the Mandatory Power, as well as to the petitioners concerned, the conclusions arrived at by the Commission, an instruction which was duly transmitted by the British Government through its High Commissioner to the Iraq Government.

A letter dated January 12, 1931, written on behalf of the British Foreign Minister, Mr. Arthur Henderson, addressed to the League Secretariat, stated that the conclusions reached by the Council had "received the most careful consideration by the Government of Iraq," who had "finally decided to set up a special committee ... to consider the views expressed by the Bahá'í community in respect of certain houses in Baghdád, and to formulate recommendations for an equitable settlement of this question." That letter, moreover, pointed out that the committee had submitted its report in August, 1930, that it had been accepted by the government, that the Bahá'í community had "accepted in principle" its recommendations, and that the authorities in Baghdád had directed that "detailed plans and estimates shall be prepared with a view to carrying these recommendations into effect during the coming financial year."

No need to dwell on the subsequent history of this momentous case, on the long-drawn out negotiations, the delays and complications that ensued; on the consultations, "over a hundred" in number, in which the king, his ministers and advisers took part; on the expressions of "regret," of "surprise" and of "anxiety" placed on record at successive sessions of the Mandates Commission held in Geneva in 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1933; on the condemnation by its members of the "spirit of intolerance" animating the Shí'ah community, of the "partiality" of the Iráqí courts, of the "weakness" of the civil authorities and of the "religious passion at the bottom of this injustice"; on their testimony to the "extremely conciliatory disposition" of the petitioners, on their "doubt" regarding the adequacy of the proposals, and on their recognition of the "serious" character of the situation that had been created, of the "flagrant denial of justice" which the Bahá'ís had suffered, and of the "moral debt" which the Iraq Government had contracted, a debt which, whatever the changes in her status as a nation, it was her bounden duty to discharge.

Nor does it seem necessary to expatiate on the unfortunate consequences of the untimely death of both the British High Commissioner and the Iráqí Prime Minister; on the admission of Iraq as a member of the League, and the consequent termination of the mandate held by Great Britain; on the tragic and unexpected death of the King himself; on the difficulties raised owing to the existence of a town planning scheme; on the written assurance conveyed to the High Commissioner by the acting Premier in his letter of January, 1932; on the pledge given by the King, prior to his death, in the presence of the foreign minister, in February, 1933, that the House would be expropriated, and the necessary sum would be appropriated in the spring of the ensuing year; on the categorical statement made by that same foreign minister that the Prime Minister had given the necessary assurances that the promise already made by the acting Premier would be redeemed; or on the positive statements made by that same Foreign Minister and his colleague, the Minister of Finance, when representing their country during the sessions of the League Assembly held in Geneva, that the promise given by their late King would be fully honored.

Suffice it to say that, despite these interminable delays, protests and evasions, and the manifest failure of the Authorities concerned to implement the recommendations made by both the Council of the League and the Permanent Mandates Commission, the publicity achieved for the Faith by this memorable litigation, and the defense of its cause--the cause of truth and justice--by the world's highest tribunal, have been such as to excite the wonder of its friends and to fill with consternation its enemies. Few episodes, if any, since the birth of the Formative Age of the Faith of Bahá'u'lláh, have given rise to repercussions in high places comparable to the effect produced on governments and chancelleries by this violent and unprovoked assault directed by its inveterate enemies against one of its holiest sanctuaries.

"Grieve not, O House of God," Bahá'u'lláh Himself has significantly written, "if the veil of thy sanctity be rent asunder by the infidels. God hath, in the world of creation, adorned thee with the jewel of His remembrance. Such an ornament no man can, at any time, profane. Towards thee the eyes of thy Lord shall, under all conditions, remain directed." "In the fullness of time," He, in another passage, referring to that same House, has prophesied, "the Lord shall, by the power of truth, exalt it in the eyes of all men. He shall cause it to become the Standard of His Kingdom, the Shrine round which will circle the concourse of the faithful."

__________________________________

 

 

 

The Bahá’í World, Volume II, 1926-1928

 

 

Extract from

 

Survey of Current Bahá’í Activities in the East and West

 

By Horace Holley

 

 

The Near East

 

Page 32

 

…..The report of current activities furnished by the Spiritual Assembly of Baghdád conveys the information that during the autumn of 1927 the local Bahá’ís took possession of a house which had been purchased for dedication and use as a Mashriqu’l-Adhkár. A group of three buildings nearby will also be acquired in the near future, and devoted to the application of those social ideals which so vitally relate the Mashriqu’l-Adhkár to the needs of the present age.

 

Page 33

 

The  Baghdád believers are also taking steps to secure photographs of the cave in the Sargul Mountain near Sulimaniyye where Bahá’u’lláh spent two years in solitude during the time He and His followers were banished by the Persian Government to Baghdád. It was this period of voluntary seclusion, following shortly after the execution of the Báb in 1850, which bequeathed to history irrevocable proof that Bahá’u’lláh and not His half-brother, Subhi-Ezel, was in reality the one celebrated by the Báb and for Whom the Bábí Movement was the spiritual preparation. For by this act of voluntary retirement, Bahá’u’lláh gave Subhi-Ezel unhampered opportunity to exercise the spiritual leadership over the Bábís which the latter claimed as his right. The result, however, demonstrated Subhi-Ezel’s utter incapacity to maintain unity among the Bábís, inspire them with faith and confidence sufficient to meet their many difficulties and guide them along lines of true future progress. Nothing but the return of Bahá’u’lláh could re-quicken the flames of their ardor or supply them with the more universal principles of conduct and faith required to transform the Bábí Movement into a world religion.

 

At Baghdád, as in Egypt, an incident of utmost importance to all Bahá’ís has taken place. A house occupied by Bahá’u’lláh during His exile at Baghdád and indicated by Him to be a permanent Bahá’í Shrine and a center of pilgrimage commemorating the gloomiest days and bitterest experiences of the Cause, some years ago was seized from its Bahá’í custodians by the local mullás and placed under Muslim jurisdiction. In connection with the episode, the American National Spiritual Assembly received the following statement written by the Guardian of the Cause on November 6, 1925:

 

“The sad and sudden crisis that has arisen in connection with the ownership of Bahá’u’lláh’s sacred house in Baghdád has sent a thrill of indignation and dismay throughout the whole of the Bahá’í world. Houses that have been occupied by Bahá’u’lláh for well nigh the whole period of His exile in ‘Iráq; ordained by Him as the chosen and sanctified object of Bahá’í pilgrimage in future; magnified and extolled in countless Tablets and Epistles as the sacred center “round which shall circle all peoples and kindreds of the earth”—lie now, due to fierce intrigue and ceaseless fanatical opposition, at the mercy of the declared enemies of the Cause.….

 

“Conscious of the fact that this property has been occupied by Bahá’í authorized representatives for an uninterrupted period of not less than thirty years, and having successfully won their case at the Justice of Peace and the Court of First Instance, the Bahá’ís the world over cannot believe that the high sense of honor and fairness which inspires the British Administration of ‘Iráq will ever tolerate such grave miscarriage of justice. They confidently appeal to the public opinion of the world for the defense and protection of their legitimate rights now sorely trampled under the feet of relentless enemies.”

 

 [from Bahá’í Administration, pp. 94-97]

 

 

Aroused by this unjustifiable seizure, the National and Local Spiritual Assemblies of all countries instantly communicated an appeal to the local authorities at Baghdád and also to the British Colonial Office. It may be of interest here to quote a few passages from the letter addressed to King Feisal by the American National Spiritual Assembly:

 

“We are prepared to recognize that the case must, for the present at least, be considered from the point of view of public policy rather than of simple equity, since the fanatical minority hostile to the Bahá’í Religion —those responsible for the seizure —have so little title to the property that their action can only be regarded as one more evidence of their desire to persecute the Bahá’ís. And where this spirit of religious intolerance is fanned to flame, matters of simple equity are all too frequently lost sight of in the graver public issues involved.

 

“Therefore we urge your Majesty to appreciate our feeling of special rever-

 

 

page 34

 

ence for the habitation occupied by Bahá’u’lláh during the period of His exile in Baghdád, our deep spiritual devotion for this scene of His loving sacrifice in behalf of universal truth, our whole-hearted resolution to assert the rights of the Bahá’ís in every legitimate way at our command, an attitude fully shared by our fellow believers in all lands. The case cannot be considered as merely temporary and unimportant issue between Muslim leaders on the one hand and Bahá’í heretics on the other, nor as a dispute which can be measured in terms of the value of the property as real estate. The Cause of Bahá’u’lláh transcends the limits of  ‘Iráq or Persia. It is no movement of heresy or reform contained within the boundaries of the Muslim Faith. The teachings of Bahá’u’lláh, and the glorious influence of His son, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, have penetrated to the West as to the East, and the Cause stands ever more visibly as an independent Religion whose object is to promote the unity of mankind.

 

“If any of those opposing the Bahá’ís in ‘Iráq should protest that, as between Muslim leaders and the Bahá’ís the former deserve the support of the civil authorities because of their loyalty to the Religion of Muhammad, it can be asked by the Bahá’ís what Muslim leader ever inspired thousands of Christians with true reverence for Muhammad as a Messenger of God? Yet this superhuman task has been accomplished by Bahá’u’lláh and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, whose writings on this subject have been published and broadcast throughout Europe and America, as we can make evident if required…

 

“But perhaps there are those who will admit these facts, yet insist that the rights of the Bahá’ís to these shrines need not be observed for the reason that the religion founded by Bahá’u’lláh is feeble and unimportant, lacking accumulated treasurers, impressive edifices, public influence and famous names. If this view should be advanced, the answer of the Bahá’ís is no less sufficient and clear. We need not point out, while a prisoner and an exile, Bahá’u’lláh revealed certain spiritual messages to many rulers and kings —to the Sháh of Persia, the Sultán of Turkey, to queen Victoria, Napoleon III, the Czar of Russia, the King of Prussia and to the Emperor of Austria-Hungary. A similar message was sent also to the President of the United States. In these letters Bahá’u’lláh established the ideal of universal peace, invoking the powerful rulers to observe this ideal, and prophesying the utter ruin of those who continued injustice toward their subjects and neglect the religion of God. Has this not all come to pass? Have not the tyrannical thrones been overturned, while the ideal of universal peace now rules the hearts of men? By this and similar events too numerous to mention, the power which spoke through Bahá’u’lláh has been made manifest and the degradation of injustice been upheld for the whole world to behold. As between spiritual power and material force, surely they are blinded who weight the importance and success of a religion in the scales of wealth, property and even numbers of adherents alone.”

 

The determination of the Bahá’ís to spare no efforts until these shrines have been restored, can be measured by the following reference to them in the words of Bahá’u’lláh:

 

“Remember that which hath been revealed unto Our servant Mihdí in the first year of Our exile in the Land of Mystery (Adrianople). Therein We have predicted that which will befall the house in the days to come, lest he be grieved over that which hath been wrought by the robber and aggressor in days past. Verily, the Lord thy God knoweth all that is in heaven and earth. We thus declared: Know thou in truth, this is not the first humiliation suffered by My house, for in days gone by the hand of the oppressor abased and dishonored it. In truth I declare it shall be so abased in the days to come as to cause tears to flow from every discerning eye. Thus have We unfolded to thine eyes that which lieth hidden beyond the veil, inscrutable to all

 

 

 

page 35 [two photos, the Bahá’ís of Baghdád and of  Egypt]

 

 

page 36

 

but God, the Almighty, the All-praised, and in the fullness of time, shall the Lord by the power of truth exalt it in the eyes of all the world, cause it to become the mighty standard of His dominion, the Shrine round which shall circle the concourse of the faithful. Thus hath spoken the Lord thy God ere the day of lamentation is at hand. We have revealed it unto to thee in this Our sacred epistle, lest thou shouldst sorrow at that which hath befallen the house through the assaults of the enemy. All praise to God, the All-knowing, the All-wise.”

 

 

__________________________________

 

 

 

The Bahá'í World, Volume III, 1928-1930

 

 

page 198

 

THE CASE OF BAHÁ’U’LLÁH'S HOUSE IN BAGHDÁD

BEFORE THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS

 

Text of the Petition.

To the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations.

From the Bahá'ís of ‘Iráq.

 

 

To the Permanent Mandate Commission of The League of Nations

 

Sirs,

 

In conformity with the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, placing the well-being of the peoples of Mandated territories under the protection of the League, your petitioners respectfully appeal to you for protection and aid in their grievous suffering through the invasion of their right to complete freedom of religious belief and freedom to practice forms of worship in accordance with their customs; a right guaranteed by the enlightened conscience of civilized mankind and by the specific provisions of the Mandate of the League; of article 3 of the Treaty of October 10th, 1922, between His Britannic Majesty and His Majesty the King of ‘Iráq, and of articles 6 and 13 of the Organic Law of ‘Iráq. (Cf. Annex No. 1.)

 

Your petitioners and their fellow believers in all parts of the world are followers of the spiritual teachings of Bahá’u’lláh (1817-1892), Whom they look to and revere as the One Whom Siyyid ‘Alí Muhammad, the Báb (1819-1850) had heralded as “He Whom God would make manifest”; a universal spiritual Teacher soon to appear, Who by the inspired understanding and power of His life and precepts would remove the differences separating the religions of the world today and usher in the era promised by them all of the ultimate spiritual unification of mankind.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

page 199

 

and treaty guarantees that your petitioners seek your aid and protection.

 

The holy places in question consists of dwelling houses in Baghdád occupied by Bahá’u’lláh and His family when they were driven into exile from Persia in 1852. For eleven years Bahá’u’lláh resided in these houses and at the close of this momentous period of His life, while still in Baghdád, He declared Himself to be the universal Teacher heralded by the Báb. Thus these houses embody associations peculiarly sacred to His followers and, in addition, Bahá’u’lláh Himself set them apart in His Writings as a place of special significance in Bahá'í worship.

 

When Bahá’u’lláh came to Baghdád this property was owned by one of His followers. Later Bahá’u’lláh Himself acquired ownership of the houses. So bitter, however, was the feeling against Him among the Shí‘ahs who formed then as now a considerable and influential group in Baghdád —and so insecure was the protection offered by the government of ‘Iráq at that time, that it was not considered expedient that the property should be openly known as belonging to Him. Accordingly it has always been held in the name of some of His followers. Also no use of the houses that might draw attention to their nature as a holy place was permitted by Bahá’u’lláh during the Turkish regime in ‘Iráq.

 

That this caution was not due to imaginary fears on the part of the Bahá'ís unhappily is only too clearly proven by the unbroken record of persecution, pillage, torture and death inflicted upon them by the Shí‘ahs since the beginning of the mission of the Báb, who Himself was martyred in Tabríz in 1850. History reveals no religious persecution more pitiless, more inhuman in the unspeakable tortures inflicted, more devastating in its confiscation of private property and its ruthless taking of human life than this chapter —not yet closed —of Shí‘ah determination to destroy the faith of your petitioners and their fellow believers. Mercifully, since the adoption in Persia of a constitution guaranteeing religious freedom and since the accession of the Pahlavi dynasty, conditions there have somewhat improved; but even as recently as July, 1926, eight Bahá'ís were brutally murdered in Jahrum and since then isolated instances of persecution in different parts of that country have continued to this day. Almost without exception in this long record of pillage and murder none of its perpetrators has been brought to justice, so powerful has been the influence of the Shí‘ah leaders. Thus, fearing similar outbreaks against them in ‘Iráq, where two of the most important centers in Shí‘ah Islam are situated, the Bahá'ís in Baghdád since the days of Bahá’u’lláh had gathered together in private and made no public use of these sacred buildings.

 

After the Great War, however, the situation changed. Under the Covenant of the League of Nations ‘Iráq was mandated to Great Britain. The treaty between Great Britain and ‘Iráq and the Organic Law of ‘Iráq followed, and, as pointed out in the opening paragraph of this petition, all three of these solemn instruments guarantee freedom from interference with their religious worship to all peoples of ‘Iráq. None welcomed this great step forward in the advancing of civilization of ‘Iráq with a more profound gratitude and eager hope than did the followers of Bahá’u’lláh. At last, after long years of enforced repression, they believed themselves free to express openly their cherished convictions and the deepest longings of their hearts.

 

At once ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, eldest son of Bahá’u’lláh and leader of the movement since His father's death in 1892, gave instructions that the long neglected and unused property in Baghdád should be put in repair and made suitable for the use in their worship so long prayed for by the Bahá'ís. Considerable sums of money were expended for this by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá — several thousand pounds. No sooner was this activity openly begun, however, than the still smouldering fire of fanatical hatred of the Bahá'ís burst into flame once more among the Shí‘ah leaders and a plot was set in motion by them to seize for themselves these monuments so precious to the Bahá'ís and thus deprive the Bahá'ís for evermore of their use as a holy place.

 

But under the new political status of ‘Iráq, resort to the method of open attack,

 

 

 

page 200

 

followed so long and so successfully where no restraint by the State authorities was to be feared, was not possible. More subtle means were adopted. The courts in ‘Iráq were made the instruments of their purpose.

 

Your petitioners will not go into the details of the long litigation which ended in the success of the Shí‘ah plot and the deprivation of the Bahá'ís from any further enjoyment of their property through a decision of the Court of Appeals in ‘Iráq. These details are set out fully in a memorandum of the case and in the majority and dissenting opinions of the Court of Appeals embraced in Annex No. 2 hereto attached. Your petitioners feel, however, that it is important to note here that the decision of the Court of Appeals was reached by a divided court, in which the British Presiding Justice dissented from the finding of his four native associates; and also to draw attention to certain salient points in the litigation bearing upon the claim of your petitioners that the suit, though brought, as will appear, in the names of private individuals, was actually instigated by the Shí‘ahs.

 

The proceedings were begun by obtaining an order from the Shí‘ah Qádí of the Sharí’ah Courts, stating that the last owner of record of the property in question had died in testate and without heirs. Upon this order an exparte application was made to the same Shí‘ah Qádí for an appointment of a Shí‘ah Trustee to seize the property, take it over and administer it.  Fortunately the agent in charge of the premises for ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and acting under His instructions was able to defeat this attack by an appeal to the Government authorities, who intervened and had the court proceedings quashed on the ground that if the lawful owner of the property had died in testate and without heirs the property would escheat to the State and that the Sharí’ah Courts, consequently, had no jurisdiction to appoint trustees. Thus this first attempt by the Shí‘ahs ended in failure. Shortly afterward, however, a new attack was made.

 

This time again an order was obtained from the same Shí‘ah Qádí. Curiously, however, this order stated as fact the exact reverse of the previous order granted by the same Qádí. This new order declared that the self-same deceased, referred to in the previous order as having died without heirs, died with heirs, then deceased in turn, but through whom succeeded two heirs, brother and sister, then living. And the testimony of a number witnesses who at the first hearing has sworn that there were no heirs of the deceased owner of record was accepted as valid by the Qádí on this second application when these same witnesses completely forswore their former testimony and now testified that this brother and sister were the heirs of the deceased.  Upon this new order was based an application to the Baghdád Peace Court for the eviction of the defendants from the property in favor of these newly discovered alleged heirs. This was not a court of competent jurisdiction of the subject matter of the case, which the Shí‘ahs well knew, and the decision again went against them. But they cleverly used the trail as a basis for creating public opinion against the Bahá'ís and of raising a political issue through which they forced the Government to take an attitude that it is difficult to consider as other than hostile to the Bahá'ís.

 

Pending decision of the Court and while the Bahá'ís still occupied the property the Government arbitrarily intervened and ousted them from possession, giving the keys of the houses into the custody of the Governor of Baghdád. Though subsequently the decision of the Court sustained the right of the Bahá'ís to the property and later they even obtained an order from the Court directing the Governor of Baghdád to deliver the keys them, the Government again intervened and prevented execution of the Court’s order.

 

By this intervention of the Government in the Court proceedings the Bahá'ís were deprived of their property in the summer of 1922, never again retaining possession of it, though their legal right to it was unquestionable until the doubtful decision of the Court of Appeals late in 1925. In the meantime this attitude taken by the Government greatly embarrassed and weakened the Bahá'ís and added corresponding assurance and strength to the Shí‘ahs.

 

Finally an action was brought in the civil Court of First Instance of Baghdád. This

 

 

 

Page 201

 

action again was based upon the second order of the Shí‘ah Qádí, as in the case brought before the Peace Court; the same alleged heirs were named as plaintiffs and it was again sought to have them adjudicated the lawful owners of the property and so to oust the representative of  ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and the Bahá'ís from possession. This application was also denied, chiefly on the ground that the Bahá'í representative had been in undisputed possession of the property for more than fifteen years required by the law of ‘Iráq to establish the right to possession as against any adverse claimant.

 

On appeal from this ruling, however, the Court of Appeals by a majority decision, the British Presiding Judge dissenting, reversed the finding of the lower court and decreed the plaintiffs the lawful owners of the premises, basing its decision largely upon the second order of the Shí‘ah Qádí above referred to, the contradictory order affirming that the plaintiffs were the lawful heirs of the last owner of record of the property.

 

Your petitioners believe that a careful reading of the record of the court proceedings as set forth in the papers of Annex No. 2 will support their own view that, even on the merits of the case, the majority opinion of the Court of Appeals has resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice and that the dissenting opinion of Justice Alexander, the British Presiding Justice of the Court, represents the sound and equitable conclusion from the facts before the Court. But your petitioners would again point out that it is not their purpose in this petition to discuss the decision of the Court of Appeals save only to those features of it which, in the opinion of your petitioners, so clearly point to their contention that the entire proceeding was brought in bad faith, with the real purpose of harassing the Bahá'í Community, not at all to establish the rights of parties unjustly deprived of their property.

 

Immediately after execution of the judgment of the Court of Appeals the victorious plaintiffs in the action created a Shí‘ah waqf of the premises in favor of a Shí‘ah shrine of pilgrimage, and the buildings have become the gathering place of Shí‘ah pilgrims known as Husayniyyih.

 

There is thus this sequence of events in the record:

 

1.          The uninterrupted persecution of the Bahá'ís by the Shí‘ahs from the days of the Báb, the forerunner of the movement, in 1844.

2.          The sacred character to the Bahá'ís of the property in Baghdád.

3.          The long private occupation and uncontested control of the property by representatives of the Bahá'ís.

4.          The open acknowledgement by the Bahá'ís of its ownership and preparations for its use by them as a place of worship as soon as protection in their worship was guaranteed under the Mandate for ‘Iráq.

5.          The immediate attempt by the Shí‘ahs to seize the property and to have Shí‘ah trustees appointed to take charge of it upon the basis of an order issued by the Shí‘ah Qádí stating that the last owner of record of the property had died without heirs.

6.          The failure of this attempt through intervention of the State, claiming the right of escheat in the property of a deceased person having no heirs.

7.          The further attempt to seize the property through suits brought in the Baghdád Peace Court and in the civil Court of First Instance, on the basis of an order issued by the same Shí‘ah Qádí stating that the last owner of record of the property had died leaving heirs and naming heirs, in flat contradiction of the order issued by him a short time before.

8.          The failure of the Peace Court action, and the decision of the Court of First Instance in favor of the defendant Bahá'ís, mainly on the ground that the alleged heirs plaintiffs had done nothing to assert their alleged rights for a period extending far beyond the statutory time barring such claims against an occupant claiming ownership.

9.          Appeal by the plaintiffs to the Court of Appeal.

10.       Decision by a majority of the Court of Appeals, the British Presiding Jus-

 

 

 

page 202

 

          tice, dissenting, reversing the decision of the lower court and awarding the property to the alleged heirs plaintiffs chiefly on the basis of the second, contradictory order of the Shí‘ah Qádí.

11.      No pretense, even, by the successful plaintiffs of enjoying the ownership of their newly acquired property themselves, but their immediate dedication of premises as a Shí‘ah waqf.

12.       The complete success of the Shí‘ah plot to interfere with the worship of the Bahá'ís by seizing from them and obtaining control of these sacred buildings.

 

 

Two of these vents are so important and bear so directly upon the claim of your petitioners that it is felt they warrant a closer examination, —the two contradictory orders of the Shí‘ah Qádí. Concerning these the British Presiding Justice says in his dissenting opinion:

 

“Indeed, I go further and hold that this court when shown two different orders, one declaring no heirs existed and another that an heir did exist, is entitled to say that it cannot say which is the right order, and may therefore reject the claim in default of the plaintiff forthwith proving the matter in the proper religious court.”

(Cf. last paragraph, page 4, Dissenting Opinion—Annex No. 2.)

 

 

Yet the second of these orders thus characterized by the British Presiding Justice was accepted as competent by the majority Court without further proofs and forms the foundation upon which this litigation rests. But it will be remembered that this second order that this second order was sought only after the first attempt of the Shí‘ahs to obtain control of the property had failed. Can it reasonably be doubted that if they had succeeded in having a Shí‘ah trustee appointed to take over and manage this property under the first order of the Shí‘ah Qádí that these alleged heirs created by this second order would have been heard of? Previous to this second order they had had no existence whatsoever in relation to the property. Neither they nor their ancestors intervening between them and the last owner of record of the premises had ever made the slightest claim to its proprietorship during the many years of its well-known occupation by the representatives of Bahá’u’lláh and his family, although one of them, at least, lived in its immediate neighborhood. They are brought into being only after the complete failure of the Shí‘ah plan without them. And —important to note —instantly the plot finally succeeds and the property is wrested from the Bahá'ís, the houses become a Shí‘ah waqf. Thus the fruits of the victory gained in the name of these plaintiffs and ostensibly on their behalf are never enjoyed by them but pass at once into the hands of the Shí‘ahs, and these alleged heirs again sink into the oblivion in relation to the property where they had always been until the dilemma of the Shí‘ahs called them forth. Their entire life as the alleged lawful owners of the property is measured exactly by the Shí‘ah need of them in the execution of their purpose. It is submitted that the suspicion with which the British Presiding Justice regarded these two orders of the Shí‘ah Qádí was well founded; that they are inexplicable excepting as they form another link in the long, unbroken chain of Shí‘ah persecution of the Bahá'ís and that, coupled with the other undisputed facts of the record, they fully justify the charge of your petitioners that their constitutional right to freedom of religious worship has been made a mockery, and that the courts of their country, the very bulwarks designed for their protection, have been used against them for their oppression.

 

In addition to the evidence in support of this contention afforded by the legal record of the case itself, the outward accompanying facts that surrounded the litigation from its inception offer strong corroborative proof. In the proceedings before the two informal courts where the first attempts to secure their ends were made, the Shí‘ahs crowded the courtroom and through menacing gestures and speech exerted their utmost efforts to intimidate and influence the court; and throughout the case powerful pressure was brought to bear by the Shí‘ahs upon its issue through political channels, the press

 

 

Page 203  [two old photos of the House of Bahá’u’lláh being restored]

 

Page 204

 

and other means of publicity, Finally, direct intimidation of the eminent counsel employed by your petitioners to defend their cause was resorted to and so insistent and so alarming did these threats against his personal safety become that he at length felt obliged in self-defense to withdraw from the case at a moment most critical for the interests of your petitioners. Under these circumstances other counsel was secured with difficulty at the last moment, and in spite of his courage and devotion to the interests of your petitioners the presentation of their cause was severely handicapped.

 

Also, your petitioners feel that the attitude of the Mandatory Power since the decision of the Court of Appeals is a vindication of the justice of their claim. Appeal for aid in the intolerable situation created by the decision was at once made to his Excellency, the High Commissioner for ‘Iráq, and to his Excellency the secretary of State for the Colonies of his Britannic Majesty. Both of their Excellencies recognized the justice of the appeal and your petitioners are informed have brought strong pressure to bear to induce the Government of ‘Iráq to remedy this grievous wrong. Your petitioners also have reason to believe that, through the representations to them of their Excellencies, the ‘Iráq Government recognize the justice of your petitioner’s claim.

 

A letter dated 9th February, 1927, addressed from the office of his Excellency the Secretary of State for the Colonies of the Mandatory Power to the representative of you petitioners, reads in part”

 

“I very much regret that we are still not in a position to let you know that a satisfactory solution of the Bahá'í question has been reached.

 

“The matter is under active consideration by the new Cabinet in ‘Iráq, but they have not yet arrived at a decision. In a letter addressed to the High Commissioner on the 12th of January, ‘Iráq Prime Minister expressed the hope that he would be ‘able to effect an early settlement of this question.’

 

“Sir H. Dobbs, in reply to an inquiry, has assured me that he has been pressing the new Cabinet ever since his return to ‘Iráq.

 

“He adds that he thinks that the Cabinet will really try to do something now, either to expropriate or to induce the Court of Cassation to review its judgment.

 

“May I add that I greatly appreciate the patience which you have shown in the face of hope so often deferred?”

 

None the less, the efforts of the Mandatory Power for nearly three years to induce the Government of ‘Iráq to act have so far been futile and your petitioners are now informed by the Mandatory Power that it considers that its further action in the matter would be fruitless. In a subsequent letter, dated 7th May, 1928, from the office of his Excellency the secretary of State for the colonies of the Mandatory Power, it is stated:

 

“I have now learnt from Sir H. Dobbs the result of his conversation with King Feisal. It appears that he discussed the case with both the King and the Prime Minister. They expressed their great regret that, in the changed circumstances and the face of constantly developing Shí‘ah agitation, they see no prospect of being in a position to give effect to the arrangement agreed upon.

 

“On receipt of Sir H. Dobbs’ report I lost no time in submitting the whole case once more to the secretary of State. Mr. Amery directs me to express to you his keen regret that, after a delay which must have been a severe trial to your patience, the negotiations should have reached so unsatisfactory an outcome. He feels, however, that it would be useless for the present at any rate, to bring further pressure to bear upon King Feisal or the ‘Iráq Government.”

 

Your petitioners believe that this ineffectiveness of the efforts of the Mandatory Power is due to the exceptional characteristics of the Mandate for ‘Iráq. Under the terms of the treaty form of this mandate far greater independence is granted to the Mandated State than in the case of any other of the mandated territories. And

 

 

 

Page 205

 

Your petitioners believe that it is because of its loyalty to the terms of this treaty that the Mandatory Power has felt unable to exercise that greater degree of pressure necessary to induce action in this matter by the Government of ‘Iráq. Therefore your petitioners have regretfully felt compelled to appeal to the larger powers of supervision and control of the Mandated Territories that have been entrusted of the League of Nations.

 

Not that it is sought to restrict in any manner the independence enjoyed by ‘Iráq under its treaty with Great Britain. On the contrary, your petitioners are loyal citizens of ‘Iráq and desire to see their country attain as speedily as possible to that more complete independence entitling it to a place as full member of the League of Nations. But it is felt that this degree of national stability cannot be attained while the courts of the State themselves can be utilized to further so flagrant a breach of the Organic Law of ‘Iráq as has resulted in this instance. It is believed that then righting of this wrong and the institution of such measures as will make the recurrence of a like happening in the future impossible will redound, not only to the benefit of your petitioners and their fellow believers throughout the world, but also to the lasting benefit of ‘Iráq itself, through the stabilization of its judicature and the consequently increased confidence in this department of its government among those States which still look with doubt upon its administration of justice.

 

Your petitioners are informed that the attitude of the Government of ‘Iráq, vis-à-vis the representations of the Mandatory Power in this matter, is due to its unwillingness, for political reasons, to risk an affront to the powerful Shí‘ah element among its constituents. It is submitted that such a consideration of temporary political expediency has little weight when balanced against a consideration of the permanent welfare of the State, as it is in this case where the courage and power of the Government to enforce the fundamental law of the State has been directly challenged. For more than three quarters of a century the followers of Bahá’u’lláh have suffered from the influence of Shí‘ah Islám over courts and governments in states of backward civilization. Your petitioners feel assured that merely to suggest that this influence is to be allowed to insinuate itself into and corrupt the administration of justice in a State whose law and institutions are under the jurisdiction and control of the League of Nations is to refute any such possibility.

 

It has been intimated that open use of the buildings by the Bahá'ís for public worship might conduce to conflict with the Shí‘ahs and possible riots and bloodshed and so be detrimental to public safety or order and contrary to the Organic Law. The followers of Bahá’u’lláh have always been known as peace-loving, industrious and law-abiding citizens wherever they are found, and their religious observances are of the simplest form —gatherings where alone prayers are recited, the teachings of Bahá’u’lláh and all the Prophets of the past read and explained, and refreshment and hospitality exchanged. By no possibility could these observances, in themselves, arouse antagonism. It is respectfully submitted that if there is danger of such peaceful practices becoming the object of fanatical attack and resulting disorder, it is the duty of the State to restrain the aggressors and to protect to the full extent of its power those conducting their observances in an entirely lawful manner. Otherwise, it is submitted, the very foundations of the State are in danger.

 

 

“We desire but the good of the world and the happiness of the nations; yet they deem us a stirrer up of strife and sedition worthy of bondage and punishment… that all nations should become one in faith and all men as brothers; that the bonds of affection and unity between the sons of men should be strengthened; that diversity of religion should cease, and differences of race be annulled…what

 

 

page 206

 

harm is there in this?… Yet so shall it be; these fruitless strifes, these ruinous wars, shall pass away, the ‘Most great Peace’ shall come…. Is not this that which Christ foretold?… Yet do we see your kings and rulers lavishing their treasurers more freely on means for the destruction of the human race that on that which would conduce to the happiness of mankind. These strifes and this bloodshed must cease, and all men be as one kindred and one family… Let not a man glory in this, that he loves his country; let him glory in this, that he loves his kind.”

(Cf. Annex No. 3 for further Bahá'í teachings)

 

 

_______

 

Your petitioners feel that they cannot close their appeal without again expressing their profound regret that it has become necessary to present their Government in an unfavorable light before the League of nations, and rather than do so have suffered under this injustice for three years in the hope that it might be righted and such a measure so become unnecessary. They deplore having been obliged to lay open the sad history of Shí‘ah persecution of the Bahá'ís. They bear no ill will toward the Shí‘ahs but, on the contrary, desire to live beside them in peace and friendliness. They recognize that these persecutions find their motive in certain Shí‘ah beliefs, though they cannot but maintain that such beliefs are an anachronism in a civilized community and in this instance have led to acts expressly forbidden by the law of ‘Iráq. Alone the sacredness of its subject matter to your petitioners has compelled them most reluctantly to present this petition. They ask no favor. They seek only that the laws of their country be justly administered and that they be accorded the protection in their religious worship which those laws guarantee. They no leave their plea in your hands, confident that your high sense of justice and of the responsibility of the League of nations for the “well-being and development” of the peoples of the mandated territories, “a sacred trust of civilization,” will lead you in your wisdom to recommend to the Council of the League a suitable remedy for this grave injustice and also the safeguards necessary to prevent for the future any similar offense against the laws of ‘Iráq.

 

Respectfully submitted at Baghdád this eleventh day of September, 1928, through His Excellency, the High Commissioner for ‘Iráq.

 

The National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of ‘Iráq.

 

__________________________________

 

 

 

 

The Bahá’í World, Volume III, 1928-1930

 

Extract from

 

Survey of Current Bahá’í Activities 1928-1930

 

by Horace Holley

 

 

Page 50

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

Page 51

 

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

 

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

 

“Your petitioners and their fellow believers in all parts of the world are followers of the spiritual teachings of Bahá’u’lláh (1817-1892), Whom they look to and revere as the One Whom Siyyid ‘Alí Muhammad, the Báb (1819-1850) had heralded as “He Whom God would make manifest”; a universal spiritual Teacher soon to appear, Who by the inspired understanding and power of His life and precepts would remove the differences separating the religions of the world today and usher in the era promised by them all of the ultimate spiritual unification of mankind.”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

“In view of the lack of security which prevailed under the former system of government and the constant hostility of the Shiahs, Bahá’u’lláh decided never to reveal his ownership of the dwelling-houses in question, which to all appearance remained the property of one of his disciples, and for the same reasons the sect abstained from using these dwellings for the exercise of their religion, thus refraining from draw-

 

 

 

page 52

 

ing the attention to the sacred character which they attached to this property.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

page 53

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

5. Under the Ottoman Empire the Bahá’ís had done as little as possible to advertise their presence, and their ownership of this property. A change of régime, however, gave them confidence, and the heirs of Bahá’u’lláh, through their agents, the occupants, spent considerable sums on improving the property. This drew attention to the existence of property revered by Bahá’ís in the middle of the Shiah quarter, and incensed the Shiahs, who started a campaign to get rid of those whom they regarded as enemies of their religion. The first step in the campaign was an application by certain Shiahs to the Shiah Qadhi, in Janaury, 1921, to appoint agents to look after the property of Muhammad Hussain Babi, who had, they asserted (as indeed appears to be the case) died without heirs. This order was granted early in February, 1921, and the Bahá’í occupants were evicted by the execution department. On representation by certain Bahá’ís the Minister of Justice instructed the appellate court to look into the case, with the result that on the 3rd of April, 1921, the order of the Qadhi was quashed, on the ground that if Muhammad Hussain Babi had died without heirs, the property would have escheated to the State, and the Qadhi’s order putting in guardians at the request of persons was quite illegal. The Bahá’í occupants were consequently restored to possession.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

7. Armed with this declaration the Shiah claimants applied to the Peace Court early in 1922 for the ejectment of the Bahá’í occupants. This case was never heard on its

 

 

page 54

 

merits, as on February 22, 1922, His Majesty King Feisal issued an order to the Governor of Baghdad to turn out the Bahá’ís and take possession of the property in order to prevent a breach of the peace. The Bahá’ís no longer being in possession, the suit to eject them was dismissed on June 17, 1922.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

9. The Shiah case in the Court of First Instance then came up for hearing, and on June 8th, 1924, judgment against the Bahá’í occupants, or rather ex-occupants, was given in default. They entered an opposition in the same court on July 17th, which was admitted. On October 9th, 1924, the heirs of Bahá’u’lláh applied to be joined as parties, claiming ownership on the strength of an admission by the Bahá’í occupants that they were not the owners, but merely agents of the heirs. This application was admitted, and on April 5th, 1925, the Court gave judgment dismissing the case against the Bahá’ís, but making no mention of the claims of the heirs. Even, therefore, had this judgment stood, the ownership of the heirs would not have been established. The judgment was, however, upset on appeal, by a majority of four (one Jew, one Christian, and two Sunnis) to one (the British president). Copies of the majority and the dissenting Judgment are enclosed with the petition, and it is necessary to discuss them in detail here, but two points in the majority judgment, with both of which the president of the Court disagreed, need special notice. One is the contention that possession by an agent for the full period necessary to establish that right on behalf of the principal. The second is that the Bahá’í occupants, not having established, or indeed claimed, their ownership, had no right to challenge the (false) certificate of heirship issued by the Shiah Qadhi in November, 1921, vide paragraph 6 above, but that, if there were no real heirs, this could only be challenged by the state, and that, in the absence of any party with a right to challenge this certificate, it was not the duty of the court to enquire into the merits thereof.

 

Note. These two contentions may be challenged in the dissentient judgment of the President of the Court, but they cannot, not can the judgment based upon them, be described as unsustainable or contrary to law. A strong suspicion must, however, remain that the majority judgment was not uninfluenced by political consideration.

“General Note. Since the case was concluded on these lines efforts have been made to induce the ‘Iráq government to rectify the injustice the British government is compelled to recognize, in that property which has been for years in the possession of the Bahá’í, without its ownership

 

 

 

Page 55

 

 Being legally established, has passed into the ownership of persons who have no conceivable claim to it whatever. Neither His Majesty the King of ‘Iráq not the ‘Iráq government have seriously attempted to deny this; they have in fact agreed in principle to try and rectify the injustice. But on every occasion on which they have definitely been asked to take action they have found it impossible to do so, through fear of Shiah opposition. And it cannot be denied that in the present state of Shiah feeling against a predominantly Sunni Government their attitude is intelligible. Interference at an earlier stage to prevent injustice would have been far less difficult than would be interference at the present stage to remedy it. Unfortunately such interference as there was, though its sole object was to avoid disturbance, did more to promote than to prevent the injustice that has taken place. While, however, it is realized, that there has been an injustice, it must not be taken for granted that, had the cases been heard throughout by impartial tribunals, and with no interference from the executive, the heirs of Bahá’u’lláh would have attained the property. It might have been held that the only persons who could claim ownership were the Bahá’í occupants, who did not claim it, and that, no one else being able to establish a claim, the property had escheated to the State. If such had been the decision, the State could at all events have kept the building from falling into the hands of the fanatical opponents of the Bahá’ís and might have turned it into a useful public institution of some kind, which, it is understood, would have satisfied Bahá’í sentiment. As matters stand, the Shiah Waqf or Pious Foundation, which at once makes an attempt by the executive to expropriate it very difficult and also greatly aggravates the situtation in Bahá’í eyes. In short it cannot be disguised that the whole affair has from the beginning been mishandled by the ‘Iráq authorities and has now drifted into a position in which it is almost impossible to discover an immediate remedy.”

 

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

 

 

 

__________________________________

 

 

 

The Bahá’í World, Volume IV, 1930-1932

 

 

Extract from

 

Survey of Current Bahá’í Activities in the East and West

 

By Horace Holley

 

Page 75

 

 

‘IRÁQ

 

 

In April, 1931, a National Spiritual Assembly after the model of the American Assembly was duly elected by delegates representing the Bahá’í communities of Baghdád, ‘Aváshiq-Mosul, Basrih, Huvaydar, Ya‘qubiyyih and Adhyabil. Following its election, the National Spiritual Assembly has prepared a draft of a constitution and by-laws based upon the American Declaration of Trust conforming published elsewhere in the present volume. Steps have also been taken to apply to the civil government as a legal corporation. This accomplished, each local Spiritual Assembly will apply to the authorities for recognition of the legal status of its local jurisdiction under a Declaration of Trust conforming to the instrument adopted by the Bahá’í community of the City of New York.

 

The Bahá’ís of ‘Iráq are profoundly conscious of their high mission as trustees of a Faith so intimately associated with their native land. It was to Baghdád that Bahá’u’lláh was sent on the first stage of that long exile which, in conformity with ancient prophecy, culminated at ‘Akká, Palestine. It was near Baghdád that Bahá’u’lláh made the declaration of His Mission, transforming the Bábi Cause to the Bahá’í Faith. In Baghdád are situated those dwelling occupied by Bahá’u’lláh during his residence in that city, and by Him constituted a Bahá’í

 

 

Page 76  [photo of Bahá’í burial ground in ‘Akká]

 

 

 

Page 77

 

Shrine, a center of pilgrimage throughout future times.

 

The significant history of those houses —their seizure by Shiah Muhammadan enemies of the Cause about ten years ago, initiating a series of efforts by Bahá’ís to regain possession which led to a petition being made to the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations —was outlined in the previous volume of The Bahá’í World, and is continued in a later part of the present article.

 

Meanwhile, from a report prepared by the National Spiritual Assembly of ‘Iráq, it is of interest to note that the local press duly published the decision of the Council of the League affirming the recommendation made by the Mandates Commission that the mandatory power, Great Britain, should see to it that the ‘Iráq government restore the houses of Bahá’u’lláh to their rightful Bahá’í owners. The publication of this record made a tremendous impression upon the people of Baghdád, depressing the Shí’ahs and exalting the reputation of the Bahá’í Faith. The efforts of even a great number of Bahá’í teachers in promoting the Cause could not have accomplished so much result.

 

“For the first time,” the Assembly points out, “a public meeting has been held in Baghdád for non- Bahá’ís. The Y.M.C.A., a British organization, invited Dr. Aflatum, Vice-chairman of the National assembly, to address its members and guests on the subject of ‘The Bahá’í Cause: Its History and Teachings.’ This meeting took place in February, 1932, before members of the local British community as well as liberal minded ‘Iráqis….

 

“Last year the local daily Arabic papers began translating the full discussions of the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of nations, concerning the conditions of ‘Iráq, which included the case of Bahá’u’lláh’s House in Baghdád. This particular part of the discussions created a general impression as to the possibility of expropriation, and caused a widespread anxiety, nay, even rage; and in particular among the Shí’ite Ulemas who did all in their power to stir and excite the common people against the League’s decision. For nearly three months scarcely a day passed without one or more of the daily papers remarking on the ‘Bahá’í House.’ Thus everyone in this country came to realize at last that there is

 

 

Page 78

 

in the world a movement called the Bahá’í Faith which has its faithful adherents all over the world.”

 

 

­­­_______

 

 

 

Page 97

 

 

THE HOUSES OF BAHĀ’U’LLĀH AT BAGHDĀD

 

The unusual chain of circumstances which have led from the houses occupied by Bahá’u’lláh during His exile in Baghdád, to the Council of the League of Nations, was described in this survey two years ago. The last link in the chain at that time was the decision of the League Council approving the recommendation of the Mandates Commission and instructing the secretary General to bring to the notice of the mandatory power, Great Britain, as well as to the petitioners (the Bahá’í community of Baghdád) the views and conclusions of the Mandates Commission.

 

This placed upon Great Britain a certain degree of responsibility in taking steps toward having the ‘Iráq government, whose membership as member in the League of nations was already imminent, restore to the Bahá’ís the houses unjustly seized by Shí’ih Muhammadan leaders of  ‘Iráq and by them constituted an Islámic holy place —which action had the intention of making it impossible for the civil government to restore the property without arousing intense fanaticism. On learning of the League’s decision, Bahá’ís of East and West awaited the next step in this important case with profound interest.

 

It must be borne in mind that ‘Iráq had

 

 

Page 98

 

 

Already applied for membership in the League, and that acceptance of ‘Iráq as member state would terminate the mandate held by Great Britain. The situation, then, has been that refusal of  ‘Iráq to heed the advice of the mandatory power would mean that the League of Nations in September, 1932, will be passing formally upon the acceptance of a new member state which has, to say the least, neglected to carry out a definite resolution voted by the Council. It would mean, further, that the mandatory power, which has spared no effort to see that justice is done to the Bahá’ís of Baghdád (as related in previous volumes of this work), will be obliged to approve the application of  ‘Iráq as member state before ‘Iráq has enabled Great Britain to discharge her responsibility as mandatory power in carrying out the decision recommended by the Permanent Mandates Commission.

 

Carrying the matter forward to April, 1932, the following statement summarizes events since the last Bahá’í World was published.

 

The British authorities have strongly pressed the ‘Iráq government to find a solution of the case. The latter body proposed that the Bahá’ís of Baghdád accept financial payment in lieu of the restoration of property all Bahá’ís regard as a Sacred Shrine, an offer which the Bahá’ís refused. At the Sixteenth Session of the Permanent Mandates Commission, the Commission acted to urge Great Britain to remedy the injustice suffered by the Bahá’ís. The matter was then unfortunately delayed by the sudden death of the British High Commissioner, who knew the details of the case intimately, and of Sir ‘Abdu’l-Muhsin. Following the drawing up of the new formal Treaty between Great Britain and ‘Iráq, the government of ‘Iráq appointed a strong committee to take up the question afresh. This committee reported the recommendation that the government expropriate the Bahá’í property together with a large area surrounding it and devote it to public use. This recommendation, politically advantageous because it denied the claim of the Bahá’ís at the same time that it removed the houses from Shí’ah control, was approved by the Government of ‘Iráq.

 

Meanwhile, it had been suggested that the case be referred to the Permanent Court of International Justice, but this proved impracticable; doubtless because it involved asking that Court to pass upon the power of the League Council to act.

 

On January 12, 1931, the British Government, in a letter signed by C. W. Baxter on behalf of Mr. Arthur Henderson, Minister of Foreign affairs, communicated to the League Secretariat the report of the special committee, mentioned above, appointed by the Government of  ‘Iráq and transmitting also the measures taken by the ‘Iráq Government in execution of the committee’s recommendations. Two months previously the Permanent Mandates Commission, meeting at Geneva, had recorded in its minutes that “The Permanent Mandates Commission would not lose interest in the fate of this small community so long as it had not been granted the reparation which was its due. The way in which the government dealt with this question would be the criterion of the spirit of the government and the people.”

 

The letter dated January 12, 1931, is reproduced elsewhere in the present volume.

[see below]

 

To complicate the case even more, it appears that the Shí’ahs of  ‘Iráq, who religiously are affiliated with Persian Muhammadans more closely than with Sunnís of Turkey, have appealed to the Persian Government and this body in turn seems to have attempted to bring indirect pressure upon the League at Geneva.

 

As was made clear in previous references to this case, Bahá’ís see it a working of Providence to compel the world to realize the power of Bahá’u’lláh. In His own time, the houses will be made an international Bahá’í Shrine.

 

_______

 

 

Page 237

 

 

 

FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS IN

THE CASE OF BAHĀ’U’LLĀH’S 

HOUSE IN BAGHDĀD

 

EXTRACTS FROM THE MINUTES OF THE

PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION

OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS

 

1.

EXTRACTS FROM THE MINUTES OF THE

SIXTEENTH SESSION

 

Held in Geneva from November 6th to 26th, 1929

 

 

M. PALACIOS said that one matter which might throw light on the question of the degree of maturity of the ‘Iráq people and on that of the relations between the British Government and the Government of  ‘Iráq was the problem of the Bahá’í sect, a matter which had already been before the Commission.

 

In its report on the work of its fourteenth session the Commission had recommended that the council should invite the British Government to request the Government of  ‘Iráq to redress the injustice of which the Bahá’ís had been the victims. This recommendation had been made by the Commission as a result of its examination of a petition from the Bahá’í Spiritual Assembly and of the observations of the British Government on the petition. M. Orts had been the Rapporteur.

 

The annual report of the mandatory Power did not refer to the matter, and it would be interesting to obtain from the accredited representative as exact information as possible regarding the measures taken by the British Government and by the ‘Iráq authorities as a result of the Council decision.

 

Mr. BOURDILLON said that the British authorities had informed the Government of  ‘Iráq of the request of the Council, and had strongly pressed it to find a solution. The Government had suggested a compensation on a monetary basis. The British authorities, although not considering this solution satisfactory, had, nevertheless, felt called upon to submit to the Bahá’ís any proposal that the ‘Iráq Government had made. As it had been expected, this proposal had not been accepted. The Bahá’ís themselves had contemplated presenting a further petition, but, after discussing the question with the High Commissioner and the British advisers, they had agreed that it would not be in their best interests to do so.

 

Settlement of the question had been further delayed by the death of Sir Gilbert Clayton, and it would take some time for the new High Commissioner to make himself acquainted with all the details. In the meanwhile, however, the Acting High Commissioner and the Bahá’ís’ representative were following up the matter actively.

 

Mr. Bourdillon added that in the course of the last few days he had further discussed the question at Geneva with the Bahá’ís’ representative, and that, during this discussion, a solution had been suggested which he hoped would be ventilated shortly.

 

M. PALACIOS did not think this reply wholly satisfactory. He recognized that for

 

 

 

Page 238

 

Reasons of domestic policy it might be advisable to employ this roundabout method. On the other hand, both the Mandatory Power and the Mandates Commission had admitted that injustice had been done. It was desirable therefore that this injustice should be removed without delay; such action would serve as an example.

 

The CHAIRMAN recalled that the Council had endorsed the Commissioner’s opinion and that, as a result, the Mandatory Power had to follow it. The present state of affairs was, therefore, all the more serious.

 

M. RAPPARD said that he might employ the Bahá’í case as an argument for the contention which has already been advanced. There could be no clearer example of the necessity for action by the Mandatory Power in order to prevent injustice.

 

M. BOURDILLON said that it was his firm conviction that a similar injustice would not be committed at the present time. Every effort was being made to remedy this particular injustice, but he would recall that it was very difficult to provide an immediate remedy for such cases.

 

The CHAIRMAN asked what steps were being taken to carry out the decision of the Council. What means existed for the administration of justice when the League of Nations demanded it? A solution of this question would be very difficult to find. Mr. Bourdillon should examine the question not, of course, from the historic point of view, but in order to settle it.

 

 

 

2.

EXTRACTS FROM THE MINUTES OF THE

NINETEENTH SESSION

 

Held in Geneva from November 46th to 19th, 1930

 

It will be noticed that there is no mention of what is called the Bahá’í case in the report under review. This is because the year 1929 closed while the matter was still under consideration, and no definite decision had been taken. The position when I arrived in  Baghdád as acting High Commissioner at the end of September last year was that the late Sir Gilbert Clayton had been taken the matter up strongly with the ‘Iráq Government, and that the then Prime Minister, Sir ‘Abdu’l-Muhsin Sa’dún, had undertaken to investigate the whole question with a view to deciding what steps could be taken to satisfy the claims of the Bahá’í community. The tragic death of Sir Gilbert Clayton and Sir ‘Abdu’l-Muhsin naturally resulted in a certain amount of delay; but the first action of the present ‘Iráq Government, after the conclusion of the Treaty negotiations, was to appoint a strong Committee to go into the whole question. The terms of reference of the Committee were as follows:

 

“To consider the question of the claim of the Bahá’í community to certain houses in Baghdád, and, without going into the past history of the case, to indicate as soon as possible, what line of action the Government should adopt for disposing of this long-outstanding question.”

 

The Chairman of the Committee was the British President of the Court of Appeal, and the three ‘Iráqi members were the Director-General of the Interior, the Amínu’l-‘Asimih, or Lord Mayor of Baghdád, and the Director of Judicial Administration. Their report was considered by the ‘Iráq Government as soon as possible after the return of the Prime Minister from London in September, and I am authorized to say that the ‘Iráq Government has decided to proceed in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee.

 

The decision of the ‘Iráq Government is that the property in question, together with a considerable area surrounding it, should

 

 

 

Page 239

 

Be expropriated by the Government for a public purpose —for example, for a school, dispensary, or public gardens.”

 

Statement by the Accredited Representative,

Major Young.

 

 

 

In connection with the question of minorities, Mr. Orts asked whether the solution contemplated in the Bahá’í case was such as would satisfy that community. How could the transformation of its properties into a school, dispensary or public gardens constitute that reparation which, according to the recommendation of the Council of the League of nations, ought to be granted to the Bahá’í community for the injustice of which it was the victim?

 

M. Orts wished to make it quite clear that the Permanent Mandates Commission would not lose interest in the fate of this small community so long as it had not been granted the reparation which was its due. The way in which the Government dealt with this question would be a criterion of the spirit of the Government and the people.

 

The Commission notes a statement by the accredited representative that the ‘Iráqi Government has appointed a Commission to propose some method of providing redress for the wrong done to the Bahá’í sect by the denial of justice to that sect. It regrets that such redress has not yet been given, in spite of the Council’s endorsement on March 4th, 1929, of the Commission’s conclusions.

 

 

 

Letter from the Accredited Representative, dated December 5th, 1930.

 

I have had the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter No. 6A/ 22103 /655 of November 20th, enclosing an advance copy of the observations of the Permanent Mandates Commission drawn up as a result of the Examination, at its recent session, of the administration of ‘Iráq.

 

2. The only comment I have to offer is that, in special observation No. 3, on the subject of the Bahá’í case, the impression might be perhaps given that the strong Commission appointed by the ‘Iráqi Government to consider this question had not yet presented its report, whereas the facts are, as I had the honour to explain to the Permanent Mandates Commission, that the report has been presented and accepted by the ‘Iráqi Government.

 

(signed) Hubert Young

 

 

 

 

 

3.

EXTRACTS FROM THE MINUTES OF THE

TWENTIETH SESSION

 

Held at Geneva From June 9th to June 27th, 1931

 

M. RAPPARD observed that this point was important in view of the Commission’s present task. It had to consider what hope there was of getting loyal cooperation as regards guarantees for minorities.

 

He noted one passage in the last part of the statement: “The ‘Iráqi State.” He read, “has shown itself jealous of the sanctity of international engagements.” He thought that the Bahá’í question and the question of the Kurds were not very significant of such an attitude.

 

Sir Francis HUMPRYS observed that the international engagements to which he had referred were chiefly with Great Britain, Turkey, the Nejd and Persia —that was to say, with ‘Iráq’s neighbours, with whom the ‘Iráqi had a good reputation for keeping faith. There was also the list of international Conventions given on page 37 of the report. He must join issue with M. Rappard on the suggestion that the Bahá’í case could be classed in the category of international engagements.

 

He agreed that the decision in this case had been unfortunate; the question now was how to deal with a res judicata in a manner that was strictly legal. The idea of taking it before the Permanent Court of Interna-

 

 

 

Page 240

 

[ Photos of Bahá’ís of Pretoria, South Africa and the Hazíratu’l-Quds of the Bahá’ís of ‘Avashiq, ‘Iráq]

 

 

 

Page 241

 

tional Justice had been abandoned, but he hoped to be able to show the Commission that the matter was being dealt with satisfactorily.

 

M. ORTS recalled the severe criticisms made by both the Mandates Commission and the British Government itself of the supreme judicial authority of ‘Iráq and the highest authorities in the country for their partiality and weakness in connection with the Bahá’í affair in Baghdád. This affair was an example, which has not yet been forgotten, of the annoyance to which the minority was exposed at a time when the British authorities were still in a position to make their influence felt.

 

It was said that a Special Committee which had been instructed to examine the case in question had come to a decision which appeared to have been satisfactory to both parties. The decision was to expropriate the land on which were situated the buildings of which the Bahá’ís had been unjustly deprived, and to convert the buildings into public dispensaries.

 

It must be recognized that, if the Bahá’ís were satisfied with the decision reached, they were not difficult to satisfy. The expropriation had led to indemnities and the latter would be paid, not to the victims of the miscarriage of justice, but to those who benefited from judicial decisions which were notoriously biased.

 

At the last session the accredited representative had stated that similar occurrences could not now arise. It seemed, however, that the desire to conform with the recommendations of the Council, which should at the moment influence the actions of the ‘Iráq Government, had not been sufficient to cause it to resist the tendencies of one section of public opinion.

 

Sir Francis HUMPHRYS replied that the house in question had never been formally registered in the name of the Bahá’ís. In the case before the Court there had been some false swearing on both sides. The Court consisted of a British President with two other members, one of whom was a Jew and the other a Sunní Muslim. The British President had thought the decision constituted a miscarriage of justice, and the British Government agreed with that view. The case had created much feeling, not on in Baghdád and elsewhere in ‘Iráq, but also among the Shíahs of Persia. The highest court in the country had pronounced in favour of the Shíahs by two votes to one. Sir Francis Humphrys asked the Mandates Commission how this decision could be legally reversed, as there was no higher court in the country. If the Government had ordered the Shíahs to evacuate the property and had returned it to the Bahá’ís, this would have been an illegal act.

 

Sir Francis Humphrys admitted there had been considerable delay in arriving at a settlement. In the first place, enquiries had been made as to whether this case could be brought before the Permanent Court of International Justice. On this solution proving impracticable, it had subsequently been decided to appoint a Special Committee, with a British judge as Chairman, to suggest a practical solution which would be in accordance with the law. This committee suggested expropriating for purposes of public benefit, not only this house, but others in the district in connection with a town-planning scheme. It was not the intention that the structure of the house should be interfered with, but only that the necessary internal alterations should be made in order to convert the house into a dispensary. This had satisfied the Bahá’í as they were willing that the house should be put to some useful purpose.

 

Sir Francis again pointed out that, as there was no higher court in the country, any other solution of the question would have been illegal.

 

M. ORTS fully realised the legal difficulties. In his opinion this did not alter the fact that the case was indicative. He would like to know, however, whether the Bahá’ís who had not obtained material satisfaction had at least obtained moral satisfaction.

 

Sir Francis HUMPHRYS replied that he thought the decision must have given the Bahá’ís some moral satisfaction, since they would have access to the house when it was

 

 

 

Page 242

 

situated in a public garden. Moreover, they were satisfied with the use of the house as a dispensary, as it would be used for the alleviation of misery to which the Bahá’í religion attached great importance.

 

M. ORTS asked whether it could not be decided that no change should be made in the arrangements of the buildings which were of sentimental value to the Bahá’ís. Such an assurance would, no doubt, give them moral satisfaction.

 

Sir Francis HUMPHRYS repeated that the intention was that the building should remain, only internal changes being made for the purpose of its conversion into a dispensary.

 

M. RAPPARD supposed, with regard to the question of moral satisfaction that it could not be expected that the Bahá’ís would be satisfied before the solution prepared by the Government was finally adopted. But it was too soon for them to feel this satisfaction, as the funds had not yet been voted by Parliament.

 

The Bahá’í case was, however, not only a regrettable incident. Had it not a more general significance? An injustice had been committed which would doubtless have been avoided if the Mandatory Power had maintained greater control. If the Mandatory Power had previously withdrawn from ‘Iráq, as it now proposed to do, the injustice would not even come to the notice of the League. The Commission was now asked to approve the withdrawal of the Mandatory Power. Was this not a very serious responsibility?

 

Sir Francis HUMPHRYS did not understand how the Mandatory Power could have intervened in a judicial matter, or why there should be less likelihood of such cases being brought to notice in future.

 

M. RAPPARD replied there would be no possibility of appeal to the League.

 

Sir Francis HUMPHRYS supposed that a case might occasionally happen in other countries that the ownership of property in dispute might be awarded to the wrong person.

This was the only case in eleven years in which the justice of a decision by the ‘Iráqí Courts had been questioned by His Majesty’s Government.

 

M. VAN REES asked whether there was a sentiment of hostility towards the Bahá’ís in ‘Iráq which might lead them to feel that they were in constant danger. He asked whether the judgement of the High Court reflected this sentiment of hostility or was merely a miscarriage of justice.

 

Sir Francis HUMPHRYS replied that he knew of no cases where Bahá’ís were apprehensive for their safety. In the present case he thought the action was taken merely to obtain possession of the property and was not particularly directed against the Bahá’ís.

 

M. VAN REES explained that he had asked this question, as he had heard that the Bahá’ís felt themselves to be menaced.

 

Sir Francis HUMPHRYS replied that he had no knowledge of it.

 

Sir Francis HUMPHRYS explained that he had understood Mt. Ruppel’s question to be influenced by anxiety as to the position of foreigners. He had therefore quoted from a document which was primarily concerned with that question. The intention was that the ‘Iráqís should benefit equally with the foreigners from the strengthening of the judiciary.

 

The CHAIRMAN asked whether the British judge would not always be in a minority, since there were judges in each Court. This had happened in the Bahá’í case.

 

Sir Francis HUMPHRYS said that this had been the position throughout the period under review, and pointed out that the Bahá’í case was the only case of a serious miscarriage of justice which had come to light during these eleven years. It was to be hoped that such a case would not occur again.

 

 

Page 243

 

He (M. MERLIN) was very sorry he could not share that conviction of the accredited representative. He had reprehensions on the subject, which had been strengthened by the Bahá’í case and other cases connected with Kurds. He noted from page 78 of the report that certain changes in the judicial system were proposed. Again, on page 83, it was said that the advocates were far from competent. He was glad to see that British judges would remain for ten years, as he considered they supplied the surest guarantee of justice. He, like M. Ruppel, considered that, far from being restricted, as was proposed in the 1930 treaty, the number should be increased.

 

 

 

4.

LETTER FROM THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT

 

Dated January 12th, 1931, Transmitting the Report of the Social Committee Appointed by the Government of ‘Iráq to Examine the Claim of the Bahá’í Spiritual Assembly, Baghdád, and Communicating the Measures Taken by the Government of Bahá’í in Execution of the Recommendations Contained in the Report.

 

London, Janaury 12th, 1931.

         With reference to the last paragraph of your letter No. 6A/9245 /516 of March 25th, 1929, in which you brought to the notice of His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom the conclusions reached by the Council of the League of Nations in regard to a petition from the Bahá’í Spiritual Assembly of Baghdád, I am directed by Mr. Secretary Henderson to inform you that these conclusions have received the most careful consideration by the Government of ‘Iráq.

 

2. The Government of ‘Iráq finally decided to set up a special Committee under the Chairmanship of Mr. G. Alexander, President of the ‘Iráqí Court of Appeal, to consider the views expressed by the Bahá’í Community in respect of certain houses in Baghdád and to formulate recommendations for an equitable settlement of this question. I am now to transmit to you the accompanying report submitted by this committee to the ‘Iráqí Government on August 27th, 1930, and to request that it may be communicated to the members of the Permanent Mandates Commission for their information.

 

3. I am to ask that the members of the Permanent Mandates Commission may at the same time be informed that the ‘Iráqí Government have decided to accept the recommendations contained in the report, which have also been accepted in principle on behalf of the Bahá’í community, and have directed that detailed plans and estimates shall be prepared, with a view to carrying these recommendations into effect during the coming financial year.

 

(Signed) C. W. Baxter

 

 

 

 

Translation of Report on the Bahá’í Case

 

         In accordance with the Secretary to the Council of Ministers’ letter No. 2003, dated July 12th, 1930, addressed to the Ministries of the Interior and Justice, stating that we were appointed to form a special Committee to consider the case of the claim of the Bahá’í community relating to certain houses in Baghdád and to examine the “method” which the Government should adopt for dealing with (or remedying) this question, we have held three meetings —on July 28th, 1930, August 25th, 1930, and August 27th, 1930 —and, having gone through the proceedings of the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations  and previous papers on the case and note by the Chairman of our Committee notifying that the Prime Minister has authorised him to inform the Committee that the object of its formation was to find out what measures can be adopted to constitute a suitable solution of the Bahá’í case referred to above, having regard to existing circumstances and conditions, and after careful discussion and deliberation on the subject, we have resolved as follows:

 

 

Page 244

 

1. The competent courts have already considered the dispute over the houses in question which arose between two Bahá’í individuals by the name of Muhammad Hasa and Núrí, heirs of Bahá’u’lláh, of one part, and Muhammad Javád and Bíbí, two Shias, of the other part, and issued final judgement to the effect that the first party had no right to the said houses. Therefore it is neither possible nor justifiable to consider the case from the aspect of the claim of the first party to the ownership of the houses.

2. If there be any justification at all to consider this case, it can only be on the ground of state interests and policy. On this assumption and having regard to the principles of the laws in force in this country and to present conditions and circumstances, only one course of action is possible —namely that of appropriating the houses for purposes of public benefit by means of expropriation for such purposes of public benefit.

3. Such expropriation may be carried out either for the public benefit of the Government or for that of the Municipality. As, however, the case regarding the houses has a “past reputation” (sic) arising from the fact that it had arisen between two parties of different creeds, and that their expropriation now is likely to be taken as a pretext for taking away the houses from those whose possession they are at present, who belong to a special creed, and as such will give rise to public agitation among the followers of this creed, and in order to avert such a risk, the operation of expropriation should be an extensive one and should cover the said houses and properties in order to give out that the purpose is one of public benefit. Assuming that the expropriation is to take place, we suggest that the operation of expropriation should be extensive so as to cover the properties surrounding the houses in question for the opening of a road or the laying out of a garden if expropriation is to be made for municipal purpose, or for a hospital (or dispensary) or a school, to be built in the middle of a square, if the expropriation is to be on behalf of and for the Government.

It should be observed that the state of the houses at Shaykh Bashshár quarter is such as will justify Government action in opening a wide square adequate for laying out a garden, or especially a play-ground for children and a promenade ground for women. The success of the children’s play-ground and women’s recreation ground at North Gate furnishes the strongest proof that such a project of public benefit is essential.

As houses in Baghdád West are crowded and in a bad state and there are no play-ground for children, it appears to us that the Government will be perfectly in the right in expropriating a number of the houses surrounding the Bahá’í houses and in the laying out of a public garden (park). If necessary, these (the Bahá’í) houses may be used for the construction of a special dispensary for women and children.

The existing dispensary to the North near Parliament House is common for both sexes. If the Bahá’í houses are used for a dispensary for children and women, such dispensary will be centrally situated among the crowded quarters and not on their extremity. As such, it should prove very useful for the inhabitants.     

4. As will be plainly observed from the above details, the scheme will have to take financial conditions into consideration, as it will require a large provision of money. Also political considerations should be attended to, since religious feelings may be involved.

         Therefore, and as the Council of Ministers are more competent to appreciate these circumstances, we leave it to them to consider what is advisable in the circumstances.

 

Dated August 27th, 1930.

 

(Signed)  G. ALEXANDER

NASRAT EL FARISI

SUBHI AL DAFTARI

NASHAT AS SINAWI

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 245

 

[Photos of the early believers of Sísán, Persia and the Hazíratu’l-Quds of the Bahá’ís of Tihran]

 

 

 

Page 246

 

 

5.

EXTRACTS FROM THE MINUTES OF THE

TWENTY-FIRST SESSION

 

Held at Geneva from October 26th to November 13th, 1931.

 

M. ORTS wished to know whether the question raised by the Bahá’ís petition had at last been settled. The Mandates Commission had examined this petition in November 1928,[1] and, on the basis of its report, the Council of the League[2] had, in March 1929, invited the British Government to remedy the wrong done to those people.

At the twentieth session of the Mandates Commission[3] the accredited representative had said that no steps had yet been taken. As the accredited representative was now perhaps before the Commission for the last time, M. Orts wished to ask him whether effect had been given to the Council’s resolution. It might be argued that, as so much time had elapsed, the affair was of no further interest. It was, however, characteristic of the Muslim spirit of intolerance and the fears that spirit caused the ‘Iráqí Government. Those fears seemed to be stronger than the Government’s desire, particularly at the present time, to avoid any appearance of disregarding the opinion of the League Council.

 

Sir Francis HUMPHRYS repeated the explanations which he had given at the June session. There was, unhappily, no doubt in the mind of His Majesty’s Government that a miscarriage of justice had taken place, and he explained at length the various difficulties, legal and otherwise, which stood in the way of a revised settlement. The ‘Iráqí Government had, however, accepted in principle a solution of the problem which he regarded as satisfactory, and was determined to carry it out.

If the case had been cognisable by the Permanent Court of International Justice, it would no doubt have been settled by now, and he reminded the Commission that occasional miscarriages of justice were not peculiar to ‘Iráq. He much regretted the delay which had occurred and hoped the matter would be disposed of before next summer.

 

M. ORTS fully appreciated the difficulties of the situation. It should not be forgotten, however, that the ‘Iráqí courts had created that situation by their partiality and the ‘Iráqí Government by its weakness. He noted that no progress had been made in the matter. Religious passion was at the bottom of this injustice and it was clear that the delays in righting the wrong were due to the same cause; the ‘Iráqí Government was not strong enough to make a majority respect the right of a minority. That was a point which should not be forgotten.

M. Orts thought that the Commission would have to report to the Council that its 1929 resolution had remained without effect.

 

M. RAPPARD concluded from the explanations given that the case would have been settled if it had been subject to the jurisdiction of a supreme court. This would seem to denote, therefore, that there was merely a legal difficulty. He asked whether it would have been possible to overcome the legal difficulty if there had been no question of any religious fanaticism.

 

Sir Francis HUMPHRYS replied that the legal difficulty was that the highest court in the country had awarded the property to the people who were now in possession, and there was no appeal against that judgement. Up to now, it had not been found possible

 

 

 

Page 247

 

To settle the matter by negotiation out of court.

 

         M. ORTS observed that the effect of the denial of justice had been to deprive the lawful owners —namely the Bahá’ís —of their property. The solution of expropriating that property could hardly be accepted as a reparation for the denial of justice. The present holders, who had no right to the property, would receive the compensation for expropriation, whereas the despoiled — would obtain no other satisfaction than being, like every other inhabitant of Baghdád, allowed to enter the public garden and apply to the dispensary. At the very least, a decree might have been issued (as had already been suggested) that no change should ever be made in the arrangement of the places to which they attached a sentimental value.

 

Lord LUGARD asked whether it would be possible for the ‘Iráqí Government to make restitution by an Act of Parliament without reversing the judgement.

 

Sir Francis HUMPHRYS replied that a majority would not be obtained in Parliament.

 

M. RAPPARD asked whether the mandatory Power had had any hope of redressing the legal judgement when it enquired into the matter. Had there been any subsequent occurrence to destroy that hope?

 

         Sir Francis HUMPHRYS said there must have been, he thought, over a hundred consultations with the King, the Prime Minister, legal advisers, etc., with a view to fining a solution, but without success. He referred to his remark at the previous session[4]    that this was the only case in eleven years in which the justice of a decision by the ‘Iráqí courts had been questioned by His Majesty’s Government. He would do his best to see that the proposed solution was put into effect next summer.

 

 

6.

         Extracts from the Report to the Council of the League of Nations on the ordinary work of the Twenty-First Session of the Permanent Mandates Commission, held at Geneva from October 26th to November 13th, 1931.

            “The Commission learned with regret that the Mandatory Power had not yet succeeded in obtaining redress for the Bahá’í Community in respect for the miscarriage of justice of which it was the victim and to which allusion was made in the Commission’s two previous reports to the Council on ‘Iráq.”



[1] See Minutes of the Fourteenth Session of the Permanent Mandates Commission (document C.568.M.179.1978.VI), pages 189 and 190, 221 and 222, 261 to 264, 276.

[2] See Official Journal, April 1929, Minutes of the Fifty-fourth Session of the Council, page 506.

[3] See Minutes of the Twentieth session of the Permanent Mandates Commission (document C,422M.176.1931.VI), pages 127 to 129.

[4] See Minutes of the Twentieth Session of the Permanent Mandates Commission (document C.422.M.176.1931.VI), page 129.