Documents on the Shaykhi, Babi and Baha'i Movements, Vol. 8, No. 1 (May 2004, updated 2013) |
__________
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 ‘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.
| |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Photo 1 | Photo 2 | Photo 3 | Photo 4 | Photo 5 | Photo 6 | Photo 7 | Plan |
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
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, 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, 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, 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, __________________________________
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. __________________________________ Extract from 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 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 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 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.”
November 6, 1925.
October 29, 1926.
January 1, 1929.
March 20, 1929.
The Bahá’í World, Volume
II, 1926-1928
Survey of Current Bahá’í Activities
in the East and West
Survey of Current Bahá’í Activities
1928-1930
‘IRÁQ
FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS IN
[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.