It should be answered that we need dignified defense against the extravagant to establish the permanent peace. Because being surrendered against the tyrants doesn’t bring about peace. As the former Baha’i author and proselytizer narrates that during World War I (when the Iranian liberalists fought against the British and Russian Colonialists) he sent an article entitled “The darkness of war and enlightenment of peace” to Nobahar newspaper (Tehran publishing house). The manger of the newspaper, Malekushoara Bahar (the contemporary Iranian poet and political) prevented this article to be published and answered it with this interesting phrase: “Ready to fight if you wish peace.[1]”

While the Baha’i proselytizers who are the forerunners of the Baha’ism creed believe this kind of view is exactly similar to the western ones because the westerners even want to gain peace via fighting; as Abdul Baha said: “In the west, the phrase” if you ask for peace, prepare yourself for fighting) has a historical background in policy, science and philosophy[2].”

The answer to this deceptive look is that: 1) The Baha’ism leaders have made chicanery in this regard cos each common sense considers defending itself against the tyrants and dictatorships as necessary and essential. Anyway, the Baha’ism leaders have flatten the way for the supporters of Colonialism and ordered their follower to be surrenders against the aggressive.

2) The Baha’ism leaders have assumed fighting as bad and indecent. Why have the Baha’ism leaders considered fighting and massacre as indispensable in another places?! As Abdul Baha has said: “Imperialism is praiseworthy and fighting is sometimes the great basis of peace and repression is the cause of repair… as a matter of fact, this oppression is the essence of mercy and the tyranny is the essence of justice and this war is the basis of reconciliation.[3]”

Question: Can it be assumed in the current world that the universal government will be possible without fighting?