historical error

Submitted by Peter Terry (United States), Nov 24, 2005 at 01:39

There are undoubtedly a lot of accurate portrayals of fact in this article. What I am concerned about are the inaccuracies in point of fact. The author writes that "The British often conspired in Iran. After signing a treaty in 1814, the British negotiator privately held that, to assure India's security, "it would be better policy to leave Persia in her present state of weakness and barbarism, than pursue an opposite plan."

In 1834, when Fath 'Ali Shah died, the British assured his son Muhammad of the throne against his two uncles; and when Muhammad himself died fourteen years later, the British and Russians helped Nasir ad-Din ascend to power. In 1845, they intervened to protect a leader of the emerging Baha'i religion."

What evidence does the author cite in support of his allegations? None. In 1845, the founder of the Baha'i religion did not need protection, nor did he receive any from the British government or any other government. In 1852 he received protection from representatives of the Russian Empire. It was not until around 1917 that the British government afforded protection for a Baha'i leader, and this was the son of its founder, Sir 'Abbas Effendi, also known as 'Abdu'l-Baha.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".