Baha’ism and Politics

Seyyed Mostafa Taqavi

Following the execution of Ali Mohammad Bab, the hostility rose among his followers which led to the split in this religion. There appeared two branches: Azali Branch under Mirza Yahya Sobhe Azal and the Baha’is under Mirza Hossein Ali Baha. These two leaders were brothers. Mirza Hossein Ali Baha who introduced himself as Bahaullah died in 1891-92. Again the question of succession was brought forth. Mirza Hossein Ali had called all his children as Aqsan(branches) and named Mirza Abbass Qosne Aazam (The biggest branch) and Mirza Mohammad Ali as Qosne Akbar (the bigger branch). In his will, he says that \"God has chosen Mirza Abbass before Mirza Mohammad Ali and this is God\'s order.\"

But these two brothers did not remain loyal to this order of God, and the fight over succession began. The Baha’is were splitted into Resolute Baha’is, following Mirza Abbass, and Unitarians Baha’is following Mirza Mohammad Ali. The followers of Mirza Abbass called the others violaters, and the followers of the latter called the followers of the former, as atheists. However the adherents of Mirza Abbass were in majority.

Mirza Abbass called himself AbdolBaha, and became the known successor of Bahaullah.

Against all the spiritual aura which surrounded him, Abdolbaha\'s words and deeds were absolutely controversial. AbdolBaha says that: there should be distinction between religion and politics. And the religious leaders are assumed not to intervene in political affairs. The adherents living in any country, should obey the rules of the same country.

Politics is a transient matter, and anybody who has enjoyed God\'s love, will not meddle himself is such matters.

Now, against all these fatwas (religious edicts) AbdulBaha, himself was a political activist. He had relations with the British and the Americans; prayed for the British king. George V and received the title of Sir from the British. Iran\'s contemporary history is rank with the continuous political activities of Abdul Baha\'s followers and their presence in the key appointments of the Constitutional period and the first and the second Pahlavis. Now the question is how the paradox can be analyzed. Should we deny the realities of the history or the righteousness of the Fatwa and its issuer?

http://iichs.org/