Tolstoy and the Baha'is

Reading Tolstoy as an autodidact scholar of world religions, one inevitably confronts his ambivalent attitude towards the Baha'is. As was his wont, Tolstoy was both appreciative of the Baha'i movement and critical of it. Inspired by Tolstoy's example, I once investigated Baha'ism (and its precursor Babism) and came away with an impression similar to Tolstoy's: there is much to laud in the movement, and some things to be cautious about. But the overwhelming impression that I had then (almost 20 years ago) was reinforced when I recently dipped into Baha'i studies in an effort to refresh my recollection: in order to understand Baha'ism as an historical phenomenon, one must first investigate the modern history of Iran (in general) and the modern history of Iranian Shi'ism (in particular). In other words, one must undertake serious Islamic Studies.

I doubt that this is something that most self-identifying Baha'is ever bother to do--and it is a shame. Because the teachings of the Bab and his subsequent Baha'i interpreters is steeped in Islamic intellectual traditions and pietism. A knowledge of these facets of Islam would only enrich Baha'i self-understanding, in my view; indeed, it would make it clear why I consider Baha'ism to be an interesting attempt to adapt pre-modern Muslim religiosity to modern circumstances. Despite themselves, Baha'is are Muslims. They are, in fact, near cousins to the Ahmadis of South Asia: modern Muslim messianists.

But now, a word on the persecution of Baha'is in Iran: I condemn it without qualification. As a scholar, however, I must also attempt to understand it. As is typical of the U.S. media, the persecution of Baha'is by the Iranian government is routinely chalked up to the religious intolerance for which Islam is (in the MSM narrative) "famous." As is typical of such media accounts, the truth is far more complicated.

As a Tolstoyan, I would never be (nor would I ever be asked to be) a representative of a regime of a nation-state; but, as a Tolstoyan, I am able to imaginatively project myself into the shoes of someone who is.

If I were such an individual--i.e., someone who represented the present regime in Iran--I would find problematic the Baha'is' principled refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of the Iranian government by non-participation in the party politics established by the Iranian Constitution. Moreover, I would view with suspicion the degree to which well-heeled foreign nationals (many from Europe and the U.S.) have been involved in the movement from its earliest days. I would probably be somewhat envious of the amount of international funding that has supported the movement since its founding and that has allowed it to evolve with surprising speed from a local dispute among Iranian Muslims into a "world religion." My investment in the present status quo in Iran would prevent me from seeing the Baha'i phenomenon as just a matter of religious freedom. It would look to me to be a foreign-backed attempt at subversion, i.e., treason.

Unwilling to confront the Baha'is' principled non-participation in party politics as a legitimate mode of religious opposition to the State, I would adopt a strategy of attacking the Baha'is as heretics.

And this is what appears to be happening in Iran with the persecution of the Baha'is. Once again, I wish to emphasize that comprehension is not to be confused with condoning. I do not condone the persecution of Baha'is in Iran or anywhere else on this planet.

As a Tolstoyan, I proclaim my solidarity with all those who engage in principled opposition to the violence of State coercion. Furthermore, I lament the fact that the U.S. government is no less prone than is the Islamic Republic of Iran to employing such violence against principled dissent with respect to its own policies--indeed, with respect to the existence of the State itself. Witness the crushing of the OWS movement.

I take to heart Jesus' admonition to extract the plank from my own eye before attempting to remove the speck from the eye of my brother.