More Proof of Exclusive British Support for Bahaism: under the Iraqi Mandate

[Death to Haifan Bahaism]

http://www.aina.org/books/bbota.htm

II. Other Minorities
Time has not permitted me to deal with the grievances of the still
smaller minority groups in Iraq but the reader will have gathered that
their lot is in no way better than that of the larger minority groups.
The Bahais, for instance, have had their property illegally taken from
them by Moslem (but by order of the law courts). Sir Francis Humphrys
admitted the illegality of the action. The League of Nations on four
occasions drew the attention of the mandatory power to the grave
miscarriage of justice done to this unfortunate minority and despite
the strong representations at Geneva, Sir Francis was unable to see
that justice for which Britain was once upon a time famous, is carried
out.
I do not think the Moslems in India would have been antagonized if
justice had been allowed, in this and other cases, to take its course!
The minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission on the Bahai minority
(1930/32) are most interesting to read as they clearly show in what
manner Great Britain has fulfilled her obligations in Iraq."

See also,
HOSTAGE TO KHOMEINI by Robert Dreyfuss (New Benjamin Franklin House:
New York, 1980) pp.117-118 (Pdf pages 73-74)

http://www.wlym.com/pdf/iclc/hostage.pdf


&


http://www.archive.org/details/HostageToKhomeini


...Today the Bahai cult is hated in Iran, and is considered correctly
to be an arm of the British Crown. During the destabilization of the
Shah in 1978, it was widely reported that in several instances the
Bahai cult secretly funded the Khomeini Shi’ite movement. In part,
the
money would have flowed through the cult’s links to the same
international ‘human rights’ organizations, such as Amnesty
International, that originally sponsored the anti-Shah movement in
Iran. These movements also derive from the “one world” currents
associated with the Bahais since the early 1900s. (If any Iranians
have been misled on the question of the Bahais by the supposed
antipathy of Khomeini’s clique to the Bahais, it should be noted that
the Bahai cultists often deliberately encouraged anti-Bahai
activities
as camouflage)...


Also see pp. 115-116 (Pdf page 72)


About the author:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dreyfuss
-


See also,
By Bill Clinton's old mentor, Carroll Quigley, THE ANGLO-AMERICAN
ESTABLISHMENT
http://www.scribd.com/doc/431914/Carroll-Quigley-The-Anglo-American-Establishment

And,

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=RvttAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22The+Handbook+of+Palestine%22&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=JdrNTRAM0B&sig=wdp57J6z7xs6FJ_jffdzqJTb9pQ&ei=rkyRSYj1H4mGsQOV7-y1Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result&pgis=1


Sir 'Abbas Effendi 'Abdu'l Baha had travelled extensively in Europe
and America to expound his doctrines, and on the 4th December, 1919,
was created by King George V. a K.B.E. for valuable services rendered
to the British Government in the early days of the Occupation. For
farther information on Babism and Baha'ism the reader is referred to
the works of Professor E. G. Browne, published by the Cambridge
University Press.


Reference :
PALESTINE


EDITED BY : HARRY CHARLES LUKE, B.Lr1r., M.A.


ASSISTANT GOVERNOR OF JERUSALEM AND
EDWARD KEITH-ROACH ASSISTANT CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
PALESTINE


WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY
The Right Hon. SIR HERBERT SAMUEL, P.C., G.B.E.
HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR PALESTINE


Issued under the Authority of the Government of Palestine


MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED
ST. MARTIN'S STREET, LONDON
1922

-
Note,
British All-Parliamentary Baha'i Group
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=All-Party_Parliamentary_Group

[Death to Haifan Bahaism]

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/BA/ba-166.html


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 176 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.”

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 177 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 178 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 régime set up by the 1922 Treaty
vis-á-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 179 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 Islám. Within the ranks
of the orthodox Sunnís 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 180
small minority, drawn from a lower social grade, and possessing
neither political nor social influence,” over the combined forces of
the Islámic population of ‘Iráq.

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

Your true brother,

SHOGHI.
Haifa, Palestine,
March 20, 1929.

[Ruhaniya]

Post by Death to Haifan Bahaism
http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/BA/ba-166.html
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 176 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.”
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 177 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
“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 178 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 régime set up by the 1922 Treaty
vis-á-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 179 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 Islám. Within the ranks
of the orthodox Sunnís 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 180
small minority, drawn from a lower social grade, and possessing
neither political nor social influence,” over the combined forces of
the Islámic population of ‘Iráq.
I must not fail in conclusion to refer once again to the decisive role
played by that distinguished and international champion of the Faith
of Bahá’u’lláh, our dearly-beloved Mountfort Mills, in the
negotiations that have paved the way for the signal success already
achieved. The text of the Bahá’í petition, which he conceived and
drafted, has been recognized by the members of the Mandates Commission
as “a document well-drafted, clear in its argument and moderate in
tone.” He has truly acquitted himself in this most sacred task with
exemplary distinction and proved himself worthy of so noble a mission.
I request you to join with me in my prayers for him, that the Spirit
of Bahá’u’lláh may continue to guide and sustain him in the final
settlement of this most mighty issue.
Your true brother,
SHOGHI.
Haifa, Palestine,
March 20, 1929.

[Death to Haifan Bahaism]

http://www.bahai-library.org/published.uhj/century.light/century10.html

Shoghi Effendi took up this legacy almost immediately upon beginning
his ministry. As early as 1925, he encouraged the interest of an
American
[page 115] believer, Jean Stannard, to establish an "International
Bahá'í Bureau", directing her to Geneva, seat of the League of
Nations. While the Bureau exercised no administrative authority, it
acted, in the Guardian's words, "as intermediary between Haifa and
other Bahá'í centers" and served as an information "distributing
center" in the heart of Europe, its role being formally recognized
when the League's publishing house solicited and published an account
of the Bureau's activities.[133]

As has so often been the case in the history of the Cause, an
unexpected crisis served to greatly advance Bahá'í involvement with
the larger society at the international level. In 1928, Shoghi Effendi
encouraged the Spiritual Assembly of Baghdad to appeal to the League's
Permanent Mandates Commission against the seizure, by Shí'ih
opponents, of Bahá'u'lláh's House in that city. Recognizing the wrong
that had been done, the Council of the League unanimously called on
the British mandate authority, in March 1929, to press the Iraqi
government "with a view to the immediate redress of the injustice
suffered by the Petitioners". Repeated evasions by the Iraqi
government, including the violation of a solemn pledge on the part of
the monarch himself, resulted in the case dragging on for years
through successive sessions of the Mandates Commission, leaving the
House in the hands of those who had seized it, a situation that
remains to this day uncorrected.[134] Undeterred by this failure,
Shoghi Effendi focused the attention of the Bahá'í community on the
historic benefit that the campaign had won for the Cause. As had
earlier been the case with the Sunni Muslim court's rejection of the
appeal of an Egyptian Bahá'í community regarding marriage, the
Guardian pointed out:

Suffice it to say that, despite these interminable delays, protests
and evasions ... the publicity achieved for the Faith by this
memorable litigation, and the defence 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.[135]

The birth of the United Nations opened to the Faith a far broader and
more effective forum for its efforts toward exerting a spiritual
influence on the life of society. As early as 1947, a special
"Palestine Committee" of the United Nations solicited the views of the
Guardian

[Seon Ferguson]

The leadership in the Catholic church is corrupt. Does that mean we should
execute all Catholics?

Post by Death to Haifan Bahaism
http://www.aina.org/books/bbota.htm
II. Other Minorities
Time has not permitted me to deal with the grievances of the still
smaller minority groups in Iraq but the reader will have gathered that
their lot is in no way better than that of the larger minority groups.
The Bahais, for instance, have had their property illegally taken from
them by Moslem (but by order of the law courts). Sir Francis Humphrys
admitted the illegality of the action. The League of Nations on four
occasions drew the attention of the mandatory power to the grave
miscarriage of justice done to this unfortunate minority and despite
the strong representations at Geneva, Sir Francis was unable to see
that justice for which Britain was once upon a time famous, is carried
out.
I do not think the Moslems in India would have been antagonized if
justice had been allowed, in this and other cases, to take its course!
The minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission on the Bahai minority
(1930/32) are most interesting to read as they clearly show in what
manner Great Britain has fulfilled her obligations in Iraq."
See also,
New York, 1980) pp.117-118 (Pdf pages 73-74)
http://www.wlym.com/pdf/iclc/hostage.pdf
&
http://www.archive.org/details/HostageToKhomeini
...Today the Bahai cult is hated in Iran, and is considered correctly
to be an arm of the British Crown. During the destabilization of the
Shah in 1978, it was widely reported that in several instances the
Bahai cult secretly funded the Khomeini Shi’ite movement. In part,
the
money would have flowed through the cult’s links to the same
international ‘human rights’ organizations, such as Amnesty
International, that originally sponsored the anti-Shah movement in
Iran. These movements also derive from the “one world” currents
associated with the Bahais since the early 1900s. (If any Iranians
have been misled on the question of the Bahais by the supposed
antipathy of Khomeini’s clique to the Bahais, it should be noted that
the Bahai cultists often deliberately encouraged anti-Bahai
activities
as camouflage)...
Also see pp. 115-116 (Pdf page 72)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dreyfuss
-
See also,
By Bill Clinton's old mentor, Carroll Quigley, THE ANGLO-AMERICAN
ESTABLISHMENT
http://www.scribd.com/doc/431914/Carroll-Quigley-The-Anglo-American-Establishment
And,
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=RvttAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22The+Handbook+of+Palestine%22&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=JdrNTRAM0B&sig=wdp57J6z7xs6FJ_jffdzqJTb9pQ&ei=rkyRSYj1H4mGsQOV7-y1Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result&pgis=1
Sir 'Abbas Effendi 'Abdu'l Baha had travelled extensively in Europe
and America to expound his doctrines, and on the 4th December, 1919,
was created by King George V. a K.B.E. for valuable services rendered
to the British Government in the early days of the Occupation. For
farther information on Babism and Baha'ism the reader is referred to
the works of Professor E. G. Browne, published by the Cambridge
University Press.
PALESTINE
EDITED BY : HARRY CHARLES LUKE, B.Lr1r., M.A.
ASSISTANT GOVERNOR OF JERUSALEM AND
EDWARD KEITH-ROACH ASSISTANT CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
PALESTINE
WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY
The Right Hon. SIR HERBERT SAMUEL, P.C., G.B.E.
HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR PALESTINE
Issued under the Authority of the Government of Palestine
MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED
ST. MARTIN'S STREET, LONDON
1922
-
Note,
British All-Parliamentary Baha'i Group
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=All-Party_Parliamentary_Group

[Aor]

Post by Seon Ferguson
The leadership in the Catholic church is corrupt. Does that mean we should
execute all Catholics?

Don't confuse the issues. The ad hoc Bahaim leadership in Iran are the
only individuals presently under trial at the moment with the
possibility of the death penalty hanging over their heads should they
be found guilty. That is hardly all of anything. These fascists you
work for claim 100,000+ Bahaim and even 300,000 in Iran. Since when
have seven individuals constituted all 100,000 or 300,000?

You yourself have given the number of 200 executed. What is the
percentage of 200 (or even 300) to 100,000 or 300,000. You claim you
have a university education - which I dispute. But work out the math
(s) here.

W

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by Seon Ferguson
The leadership in the Catholic church is corrupt. Does that mean we should
execute all Catholics?

That's not really an argument, Seon, and doesn't really address the
issue here. The issue here is about potential espionage and the covert
agendas/mechanisms of Imperial powers, and the guises under which such
powers operate.

Post by Seon Ferguson

Post by Death to Haifan Bahaism
http://www.aina.org/books/bbota.htm
II. Other Minorities
Time has not permitted me to deal with the grievances of the still
smaller minority groups in Iraq but the reader will have gathered that
their lot is in no way better than that of the larger minority groups.
The Bahais, for instance, have had their property illegally taken from
them by Moslem (but by order of the law courts). Sir Francis Humphrys
admitted the illegality of the action. The League of Nations on four
occasions drew the attention of the mandatory power to the grave
miscarriage of justice done to this unfortunate minority and despite
the strong representations at Geneva, Sir Francis was unable to see
that justice for which Britain was once upon a time famous, is carried
out.
I do not think the Moslems in India would have been antagonized if
justice had been allowed, in this and other cases, to take its course!
The minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission on the Bahai minority
(1930/32) are most interesting to read as they clearly show in what
manner Great Britain has fulfilled her obligations in Iraq."
See also,
New York, 1980) pp.117-118 (Pdf pages 73-74)
http://www.wlym.com/pdf/iclc/hostage.pdf
&
http://www.archive.org/details/HostageToKhomeini
...Today the Bahai cult is hated in Iran, and is considered correctly
to be an arm of the British Crown. During the destabilization of the
Shah in 1978, it was widely reported that in several instances the
Bahai cult secretly funded the Khomeini Shi’ite movement. In part,
the
money would have flowed through the cult’s links to the same
international ‘human rights’ organizations, such as Amnesty
International, that originally sponsored the anti-Shah movement in
Iran. These movements also derive from the “one world” currents
associated with the Bahais since the early 1900s. (If any Iranians
have been misled on the question of the Bahais by the supposed
antipathy of Khomeini’s clique to the Bahais, it should be noted that
the Bahai cultists often deliberately encouraged anti-Bahai
activities
as camouflage)...
Also see pp. 115-116 (Pdf page 72)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dreyfuss
-
See also,
By Bill Clinton's old mentor, Carroll Quigley, THE ANGLO-AMERICAN
ESTABLISHMENT
http://www.scribd.com/doc/431914/Carroll-Quigley-The-Anglo-American-E...
And,
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=RvttAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22The+Handboo...
Sir 'Abbas Effendi 'Abdu'l Baha had travelled extensively in Europe
and America to expound his doctrines, and on the 4th December, 1919,
was created by King George V. a K.B.E. for valuable services rendered
to the British Government in the early days of the Occupation. For
farther information on Babism and Baha'ism the reader is referred to
the works of Professor E. G. Browne, published by the Cambridge
University Press.
PALESTINE
EDITED BY : HARRY CHARLES LUKE, B.Lr1r., M.A.
ASSISTANT GOVERNOR OF JERUSALEM AND
EDWARD KEITH-ROACH ASSISTANT CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
PALESTINE
WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY
The Right Hon. SIR HERBERT SAMUEL, P.C., G.B.E.
HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR PALESTINE
Issued under the Authority of the Government of Palestine
MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED
ST. MARTIN'S STREET, LONDON
1922
-
Note,
British All-Parliamentary Baha'i Group
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=All-Party_Parliamentary_Group

[Seon Ferguson]

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Seon Ferguson
The leadership in the Catholic church is corrupt. Does that mean we should
execute all Catholics?

That's not really an argument, Seon, and doesn't really address the
issue here. The issue here is about potential espionage and the covert
agendas/mechanisms of Imperial powers, and the guises under which such
powers operate.

I was making a point. If the Bahai leaders in Iran are corrupt it doesn't
mean the followers should be punished. Just like the Catholics Jews,
Christians etc

[Ruhaniya]

On Feb 20, 9:18 am, PaulHammond <***@onetel.net.uk> wrote:

"First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
that he is probably working for them."

-- Eric Stetson, September 2003

And why would the British government have the remotest of reasons or
interests of doing so to a fairly new and totally numerically
unrepresentative community in Iraq?

Well, why shouldn't they?

Because on the obvious face of things bahaism was then as it is now
completely irrelevent to the greater demographics of the newly founded
Iraqi state and its groupings.

Why weren't they doing the same
sort of advocacy for, say, the far, far older community of Mandaeans
in southern Iraq in the Basran marshes -

Do you KNOW that we weren't?

Yes, I know you weren't.

On the contrary, and both the local population as well as Faisal's
government thought the British advocacy for the numerically irrelevant
Bahaim was quite odd, fishy and suspicious.

And of course YOU are entitled to speak for them.

Yes, I am ENTITLED to speak for THEM, in the same way as your have
given yourself entitlement to speak for the imperial policies of your
government's former mandate over Iraq and the completely irrelevant
minority it used as a political pawn throughout the Middle East as its
own fifth column.

Well, I've made my opinion clear.

Your opinion - bullshit as it is and as widely detested as it is - is
the verbatim opinion of British imperial policy in the Mid East.

Well, one of these days I'm sure you'll make up your mind whether I'm
a British government official or a Baha'i Secret Service official.
Get back to me on that.

There is no difference and there is no separation, since it is pretty
well established that the Haifan Bahaim organization is a longstanding
extension of your government and its establishment.

In the meantime, I AM certainly proud to be British.

Good for you. As for me I say with PRIDE, FUCK BRITANNIA!

 And you are,
certainly, a disgrace to Iran.

Says who? Says you or your stupid paid lackies and puppeteered
mouthpieces who haven't set foot in Iran for the past 30 years and
actively engage in treachery and fifth columnist behavior as your
servile lackies against Her greater national security interests?
Neither you nor your servile lackies count in the true Iranian scheme
of things. No, I am not a disgrace to Iran. I am Iran's scourge
against you lowlife British cunts and your scum-sucking bahaim
puppets.

<bs snip>

DEATH TO BRITANNIA! DEATH TO PAUL HAMMOND!

W

[PaulHammond]

Post by Ruhaniya
"First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
that he is probably working for them."
-- Eric Stetson, September 2003

And why would the British government have the remotest of reasons or
interests of doing so to a fairly new and totally numerically
unrepresentative community in Iraq?

Well, why shouldn't they?

Because on the obvious face of things bahaism was then as it is now
completely irrelevent to the greater demographics of the newly founded
Iraqi state and its groupings.

I know that's why YOU think they shouldn't. But you hate Baha'is, so
obviously you think trying to save their holy places was a wrong move.

But why, apart from your personal animus, do you say this action was
wrong?

Post by Ruhaniya

Why weren't they doing the same
sort of advocacy for, say, the far, far older community of Mandaeans
in southern Iraq in the Basran marshes -

Do you KNOW that we weren't?

Yes, I know you weren't.

Of course *I* wasn't. I was born in the 1970s. But do you know for a
fact that the humanitarian interests of these other Iraqi communities
were ignored by the Brits in the 1930s?

Because I don't, and won't believe it just because you say so.

Post by Ruhaniya

On the contrary, and both the local population as well as Faisal's
government thought the British advocacy for the numerically irrelevant
Bahaim was quite odd, fishy and suspicious.

And of course YOU are entitled to speak for them.

Yes, I am ENTITLED to speak for THEM, in the same way as your have
given yourself entitlement to speak for the imperial policies of your
government's former mandate over Iraq and the completely irrelevant
minority it used as a political pawn throughout the Middle East as its
own fifth column.

So, how long have you been an Iraqi, Nima?

Did Saddam pay you to speak on behalf of the past Iraqis?

Post by Ruhaniya

Well, I've made my opinion clear.

Your opinion - bullshit as it is and as widely detested as it is - is
the verbatim opinion of British imperial policy in the Mid East.

My opinion is worth at least as much as yours, bullshitter.

And you characterising me as a jolly old British Imperialist is about
as far off the mark as it's possible to be.

But never let the facts get in the way of a good old racist rant about
me, eh?

Post by Ruhaniya

Well, one of these days I'm sure you'll make up your mind whether I'm
a British government official or a Baha'i Secret Service official.
Get back to me on that.

There is no difference and there is no separation, since it is pretty
well established that the Haifan Bahaim organization is a longstanding
extension of your government and its establishment.

"pretty well established" means "no evidence for it exists except that
I rant and accuse about it all the time" in Captain Nemo's bizzaro
world, natch.

Or have you actually got evidence that I'm either a member of the
British government or a member of the Baha'i Secret Service?

And if you've got this evidence, why are you sitting on it?

Post by Ruhaniya

In the meantime, I AM certainly proud to be British.

Good for you. As for me I say with PRIDE, FUCK BRITANNIA!

And you are,
certainly, a disgrace to Iran.

Says who?

Says me, clearly. As I say with PRIDE, fuck Wahid Azal, and all who
sail on him.

Says you or your stupid paid lackies and puppeteered

Post by Ruhaniya
<bs snip>
DEATH TO BRITANNIA! DEATH TO PAUL HAMMOND!

Cluck, cluck, cluck, Holy Chicken. Why didn't you come and get me
when you had the chance then?

P

[Ruhaniya]

On Feb 21, 3:06 am, PaulHammond <***@onetel.net.uk> wrote:

"First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
that he is probably working for them."

-- Eric Stetson, September 2003

Post by PaulHammond
My opinion is worth at least as much as yours, bullshitter.

Your opinion means fuck-all, nada, niente, as you are a paid hack and
misinformation liason connected to the British Labour Party and the
government(s) of Blair-Browne and the Haifan Bahaim cult. It is your
paid obligation of service to obfuscate, misdirect, lie and deceive in
order to 1) to defend the imperial and colonialist policies of your
government and 2) the Haifan Bahaim cult which they have propped up
going well over a century now. That is the only worth of your opinion,
i.e. for documentation purposes connecting the government and
establishment of the Great Britian directly to this infernal
organization.

W

[Ruhaniya]

Post by Death to Haifan Bahaism
http://www.aina.org/books/bbota.htm
II. Other Minorities
Time has not permitted me to deal with the grievances of the still
smaller minority groups in Iraq but the reader will have gathered that
their lot is in no way better than that of the larger minority groups.
The Bahais, for instance, have had their property illegally taken from
them by Moslem (but by order of the law courts). Sir Francis Humphrys
admitted the illegality of the action. The League of Nations on four
occasions drew the attention of the mandatory power to the grave
miscarriage of justice done to this unfortunate minority and despite
the strong representations at Geneva, Sir Francis was unable to see
that justice for which Britain was once upon a time famous, is carried
out.
I do not think the Moslems in India would have been antagonized if
justice had been allowed, in this and other cases, to take its course!
The minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission on the Bahai minority
(1930/32) are most interesting to read as they clearly show in what
manner Great Britain has fulfilled her obligations in Iraq."
See also,
New York, 1980) pp.117-118 (Pdf pages 73-74)
http://www.wlym.com/pdf/iclc/hostage.pdf
&
http://www.archive.org/details/HostageToKhomeini
...Today the Bahai cult is hated in Iran, and is considered correctly
to be an arm of the British Crown. During the destabilization of the
Shah in 1978, it was widely reported that in several instances the
Bahai cult secretly funded the Khomeini Shi’ite movement. In part,
the
money would have flowed through the cult’s links to the same
international ‘human rights’ organizations, such as Amnesty
International, that originally sponsored the anti-Shah movement in
Iran. These movements also derive from the “one world” currents
associated with the Bahais since the early 1900s. (If any Iranians
have been misled on the question of the Bahais by the supposed
antipathy of Khomeini’s clique to the Bahais, it should be noted that
the Bahai cultists often deliberately encouraged anti-Bahai
activities
as camouflage)...
Also see pp. 115-116 (Pdf page 72)
About the author:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dreyfuss
-
See also,
By Bill Clinton's old mentor, Carroll Quigley, THE ANGLO-AMERICAN
ESTABLISHMENThttp://www.scribd.com/doc/431914/Carroll-Quigley-The-Anglo-American-E...
And,
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=RvttAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22The+Handboo...
Sir 'Abbas Effendi 'Abdu'l Baha had travelled extensively in Europe
and America to expound his doctrines, and on the 4th December, 1919,
was created by King George V. a K.B.E. for valuable services rendered
to the British Government in the early days of the Occupation. For
farther information on Babism and Baha'ism the reader is referred to
the works of Professor E. G. Browne, published by the Cambridge
University Press.
PALESTINE
EDITED BY : HARRY CHARLES LUKE, B.Lr1r., M.A.
ASSISTANT GOVERNOR OF JERUSALEM AND
EDWARD KEITH-ROACH ASSISTANT CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
PALESTINE
WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY
The Right Hon. SIR HERBERT SAMUEL, P.C., G.B.E.
HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR PALESTINE
Issued under the Authority of the Government of Palestine
MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED
ST. MARTIN'S STREET, LONDON
1922
-
Note,
British All-Parliamentary Baha'i Grouphttp://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=All-Party_Parliamentary_Group

[Ruhaniya]

Post by Death to Haifan Bahaism
http://www.aina.org/books/bbota.htm
II. Other Minorities
Time has not permitted me to deal with the grievances of the still
smaller minority groups in Iraq but the reader will have gathered that
their lot is in no way better than that of the larger minority groups.
The Bahais, for instance, have had their property illegally taken from
them by Moslem (but by order of the law courts). Sir Francis Humphrys
admitted the illegality of the action. The League of Nations on four
occasions drew the attention of the mandatory power to the grave
miscarriage of justice done to this unfortunate minority and despite
the strong representations at Geneva, Sir Francis was unable to see
that justice for which Britain was once upon a time famous, is carried
out.
I do not think the Moslems in India would have been antagonized if
justice had been allowed, in this and other cases, to take its course!
The minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission on the Bahai minority
(1930/32) are most interesting to read as they clearly show in what
manner Great Britain has fulfilled her obligations in Iraq."
See also,
New York, 1980) pp.117-118 (Pdf pages 73-74)
http://www.wlym.com/pdf/iclc/hostage.pdf
&
http://www.archive.org/details/HostageToKhomeini
...Today the Bahai cult is hated in Iran, and is considered correctly
to be an arm of the British Crown. During the destabilization of the
Shah in 1978, it was widely reported that in several instances the
Bahai cult secretly funded the Khomeini Shi’ite movement. In part,
the
money would have flowed through the cult’s links to the same
international ‘human rights’ organizations, such as Amnesty
International, that originally sponsored the anti-Shah movement in
Iran. These movements also derive from the “one world” currents
associated with the Bahais since the early 1900s. (If any Iranians
have been misled on the question of the Bahais by the supposed
antipathy of Khomeini’s clique to the Bahais, it should be noted that
the Bahai cultists often deliberately encouraged anti-Bahai
activities
as camouflage)...
Also see pp. 115-116 (Pdf page 72)
About the author:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dreyfuss
-
See also,
By Bill Clinton's old mentor, Carroll Quigley, THE ANGLO-AMERICAN
ESTABLISHMENThttp://www.scribd.com/doc/431914/Carroll-Quigley-The-Anglo-American-E...
And,
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=RvttAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22The+Handboo...
Sir 'Abbas Effendi 'Abdu'l Baha had travelled extensively in Europe
and America to expound his doctrines, and on the 4th December, 1919,
was created by King George V. a K.B.E. for valuable services rendered
to the British Government in the early days of the Occupation. For
farther information on Babism and Baha'ism the reader is referred to
the works of Professor E. G. Browne, published by the Cambridge
University Press.
PALESTINE
EDITED BY : HARRY CHARLES LUKE, B.Lr1r., M.A.
ASSISTANT GOVERNOR OF JERUSALEM AND
EDWARD KEITH-ROACH ASSISTANT CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
PALESTINE
WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY
The Right Hon. SIR HERBERT SAMUEL, P.C., G.B.E.
HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR PALESTINE
Issued under the Authority of the Government of Palestine
MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED
ST. MARTIN'S STREET, LONDON
1922
-
Note,
British All-Parliamentary Baha'i Grouphttp://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=All-Party_Parliamentary_Group