BAHAISM, as a new religion bidding for popular favour, should be considered in its relation to the State, for this is an important factor in forming our judgment of it. As it historically sprang from Babism, it is well to review, first of all, the political relations of Babism.
I. Babism in Persia was a form of Mahdiism. Mirza Ali Mohammed, the Bab, claimed to be the Mahdi, the Kaim, the twelfth Imam returned. According to Shiah doctrine, the rulership of the State by divine law belongs to the Imam. The Kajar Shahs had the right to kingship only in the absence of the Imam. Their authority would cease with his appearance. This is so universally recognized that the constitution of Persia drawn up by the Parliament in 1906-1907 contains in the preamble the provision that it shall continue only till the manifestation of the Imam.
In accordance with this principle the Babis looked upon Mohammed Shah and Nasr-ud-Din Shah as no longer the rightful rulers. They were, ipso facto, supplanted by the Bab, the Sahib-i-Zaman or Lord of the Age. The Kajars were called by them "unlawful kings." Hazrat-Kuddus says,[265] "We are the rightful rulers; know that Nasr-ud-Din is no true king and that such as support him shall be tormented in hell-fire." Disloyalty was an essential corollary of Babism and not a consequence of the repression and persecution which it met. The measures of the Persian Government were caused by this knowledge. The rebellions of the Babis were justified in their eyes by self-preservation as well as by the desire to remove, if possible, the Shah and make way for the reign of the Bab. Professor Browne's opinion on these points is conclusive. He says:[266]—
"The Babis looked for their immediate triumph over all existing powers, culminating in the universal establishment of the true faith and the reign of God's saints on earth.... They intended to inherit the earth; they held those who rejected the Bab as unclean and worthy of death, and they held the Kajar Shahs in a detestation which they were at no pains to hide.... They did not make any profession of loyalty to or love for the reigning dynasty.... Unbelievers were flouted with scorn because they supposed that the Promised Deliverer would confirm the authority of the Shahs."
The "Bayan," the chief book of the Bab, anticipates the time when the Shah's government shall be superseded by a Babi state, which shall prevail in Persia. It gives the laws for this Babi state as well as regulations for the distribution of the spoils of war and for the Jahad,[267] showing that the Bab anticipated religious wars. The kings of the Bayanic dispensation are directed what they should do. In the five chief provinces of Persia, no unbelievers are to be allowed to live, except some foreign Christian merchants. They are not to be killed, but to be driven out and their property confiscated.[268] Directions are given as to the use of their property. The strongly intolerant doctrine is set forth[269] that "unbelievers have no right to anything, not even to a believing wife. All that thou seest in the hands of unbelievers is not theirs by right. If the manifestation has power, he would even forbid their breathing."
Babism, therefore, was a political as well as a religious movement. As such it fought and with some prospect of success, for, as Browne says, "it seemed at one time to menace the supremacy alike of the Kajar dynasty and of the Mohammedan faith in Persia."[270]
The Bab was executed in 1850. The Babi insurrections were suppressed. Terrible reprisals followed the attempt on the life of Nasr-ud-Din Shah. The leaders fled into exile to Turkey. Babism, repressed and forced into concealment, entered upon a new phase. It emerged somewhat changed as Bahaism (1867).
II. Bahaism should be considered in its political aspects in relation to the Government of Persia.
(a) In Persia, the issue of the sword had declared against the Babis. Baha Ullah adopted a policy aptly called "political opportunism."[271] He proclaimed the loyalty of himself and his followers to the Shah, denounced the attempted assassinations, wrote prayers to be said for the Shah,[272] and pleaded for the toleration of the sect as one without political aspirations. Bahai apologists condemned the Bab and the conduct of the Babis, declaring it contrary to the principles of the Bab.[273] Mirza Abul Fazl, on trial before the Persian Government, repudiated the Babis, denounced their actions as unseemly and bad,[274] and declared with emphasis that Bahaism was an entirely different religion. He pronounced the Shah free from blame regarding the death of the Bab[275] and the persecutions of the Babis, casting the responsibility and reproach on the mullahs and the Ministers of State.[276] He even made a show of blaming the attendants for the death of Badi, the messenger who bore Baha's epistle to the Shah, and made as though the Shah regretted it. The "New History" and the "Traveller's Narrative" are both tendency writings, following out the same purpose, glossing over the facts as given in the contemporary narrative of Mirza Jani, putting the odium on the mullahs and asserting "that no particular blame attaches to His Most Sacred Majesty the Shah";[277] though other writings of Baha show a spirit of hostility to the Shah.[278] Following the policy of conciliation the Bahais made petition to the Shah stating that[279] "this sect has no worldly object nor any concern with political matters, it has nothing to do with affairs of Government neither has it any concern with the powers of the throne." They stated that[280] "they have made no disturbance, or rebellions, or any sign of sedition." So Baha[281] enjoined that "in every country they must behave towards the Government with faithfulness, trustfulness, and truthfulness." The Persian Government responded to this policy and ceased to persecute as before. During the past fifty years the Bahais have not been much molested. Their persecutions have been few and generally due to local causes. The number of Bahais who have lost their lives in the course of their history (after they cease to be Babis) is probably not more than 300, more than half of whom were killed in riots at Ispahan and Yezd in 1903. The Bahai historian[282] states that "on rare occasions certain Ulema, for their own personal and private advantage, molest one or two individuals of the sect." But the Shah's Government has tolerated them.[283] Not counting the present Holy War against the Christians, more have been killed in Persia in the half century than Bahais.[284] The Government has shown liberality towards Bahais by allowing them to occupy positions in the civil service, as clerks in the post, telegraph, customs, courts, and consulates, and has not discriminated against them.
(b) Coming to the period of the agitation for a constitution and the revolution, it is plain that the Bahais had little to do with the struggle. Neither they nor their teachings were the cause of it. The causes were the same, in general, as those which influenced Turkey and China towards constitutional reform. The occasions in local circumstances and politics had nothing to do with Bahaism. The leaders were enlightened Moslems, and even mullahs of the Shiahs. They were not Bahais. These held aloof from the propaganda and the struggle for popular liberties, took little part in the elections or in parliament, and joined neither the army of the constitutionalists nor that of the reactionaries. They displayed no love of country by striving for the cause of the people, nor any real love or loyalty to the autocratic Shah. Yet the influence of Abdul-Baha Abbas was thrown in favour of Mohammed Ali Shah, and after he had scattered parliament at the cannon's mouth and annulled the constitution, Bahais were granted appointments in the civil service and rejoiced in the reactionary régime. A tablet of Abdul Baha was circulated prophesying a long and prosperous reign for Mohammed Ali Shah, who before many months was driven from his throne into exile.