Search for tag "New History Society"
||The New History Society was founded in New York by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s former secretary and interpreter Ahmad Sohrab along with Lewis Stuyvesant Chanler and his wife Julie as an indirect way of spreading the teachings of the Baha'i Faith. The New History Society gave rise in 1930 to the Caravan of East and West and the Chanler's New York house was now called Caravan House. This foundation was designed to prepare children and youth to join the New History Society. This group had a quarterly magazine called The Caravan. [BRRSM124, LDG2p134] iiiii
||New York; United States
||New History Society; Ahmad Sohrab; Lewis Stuyvesant Chanler; Julie Chanler; Caravan of East and West; Caravan House; The Caravan; Z****
|1930 30 May
||The New History Society came into conflict with the local Bahá’í Assembly. Sohrab refused to allow the New York Spiritual Assembly, to have oversight of the affairs of the New History Society. The Assembly saw the organization as a threat to the unity of the Bahá’í Faith. [BBRSM124]
Shoghi Effendi wrote to the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of the United States and Canada to make a definitive statement regarding that organization and the Cause.
|BWC; New York; United States
||New History Society; Ahmad Sohrab; Covenant-breaker; Z****
||The National Spiritual Assembly published a statement in the Bahá'í News entitled The Case of Ahmad Sohrab and the New History Society. Summarized, the article stated that the “New History Society was begun in New York early in 1929 by Sohrab and "one of its avowed purposes being to spread the Bahá'í teachings. Neither the local nor the National Assembly was consulted in the matter, and the meetings and activities of the New History Society have been maintained apart from the principles of consultation which today, under the Will and Testament of 'Abdu’l-Bahá, form the basis of Bahá'í unity and the protection of the Cause."
"Both the local and National Assembly on several occasions attempted, through oral and written communications, to bring about full and frank consultation with the leaders of the New History Society, but without success.
"Under these conditions it becomes the obvious responsibility of the National Spiritual Assembly to inform the friends that activities conducted by Ahmad Sohrab through the New History Society are to be considered as entirely independent of the Cause, as outside the jurisdiction of the local and National Assembly, and hence in no wise entitled to the cooperation of Bahá'ís."
This statement also quoted from a letter written on behalf of the Guardian by his Secretary to the National Spiritual Assembly on May 30, 1930: "To accept the Cause without the administration is like accepting the teachings without acknowledging the divine station of Bahá’u’lláh. To be a Bahá'í is to accept the Cause in its entirety...." "The administration is the social order of Bahá'u'lláh. Without it all the principles of the Cause will remain abortive. To take exception to this, therefore, is to take exception to the fabric that Bahá'u'lláh has prescribed, it is to disobey His law." [Ahmad Sohrab and the New History Society]
|New York; United States
||Covenant-breakers; Ahmad Sohrab; New History Society
||The National Assembly published a detailed supplementary statement in the Bahá’í News, quoting passages from the Aqdas, from the Master's Will and Testament, and from the Guardian's letters published in Bahá’í Administration followed by a reprint of the exchange of correspondence and cables with Mrs. Chanler, and with the Guardian, including the Guardian's cable to New York believers: "True unity can only be preserved by maintenance paramount position National Spiritual Assembly," and his cable approving the statement published in August, 1930, Bahá'í News. Further, in a letter from Haifa to the Yonkers Assembly, “The Guardian pointed out the difference between the freedom defined by Bahá'u'lláh ("To have liberty is to observe My commandments") and that advocated by Sohrab ("The other kind of freedom which is in defiance of law He (Bahá'u'lláh) considers to be animal, and far from being of any good to man"). [Ahmad Sohrab and the New History Society]
||New York; United States
||Covenant-breakers; Ahmad Sohrab; New History Society
||Some members of the National Spiritual Assembly filed suit against Sohrab to try to stop him from using the name Bahá'í. He had opened a Bahá'í bookshop in New York in 1939. This suit was filed in the Supreme Court of New York County. The judge granted a motion to dismiss, stating that "the plaintiffs have no right to a monopoly of the name of a religion. The defendants, who purport to be members of the same religion, have an equal right to use the name of the religion..." The judge mentioned that the complaint could be further amended and the NSA appealed but the Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the lower court.
The National Spiritual Assembly of the United States and Canada distributed a mimeographed statement concerning the New History Society entitled The Basis of the Bahá’í Community, which explained the purpose and outcome of the lawsuit entered against the founders of the New History Society to prevent their misuse of the name "Bahá’í” on which the National Spiritual Assembly had obtained a trademark patent.
[The Basis of the Bahá'í Community: A Statement Concerning the New History Society]
- Also see United States National Spiritual Assembly vs. Mirza Ahmad Sohrab.
- During the second World War the New History Society put forth an alleged passage from 'Abdu'1-Bahá which would justify citizens in refusing to obey their governments when drafted into the military forces. The National Spiritual Assembly was obliged to explain the true Bahá'í position to the federal authorities as set forth by the Guardian.
||Covenant-breakers; New History Society; Ahmad Sohrab; The Basis of the Baha'i Community; Z****
|1952 1 Jun
||In a letter written on behalf of the Guardian by the Assistant Secretary, the National Spiritual Assembly was informed that Ahmad Sohrab had cabled the Israeli Minister of Religion to influence the court case brought by the Covenant-breakers, against the Guardian, and which resulted in complete vindication of the Guardian's control of the Bahá'í Shrines and properties. Sohrab's cable identified the Caravan with the Covenant-breakers and stated that the organization was not under the authority of Shoghi Effendi. In a letter dated May 25, 1941, the Guardian wrote through his Secretary that Sohrab "is no doubt the most subtle, resourceful and indefatigable enemy the Faith has had in America."
||Covenant-breakers; New History Society; Ahmad Sohrab
|1958 20 Apr
||Mírzá Ahmad (Esphahani) Sohrab, the Covenant-breaker who rebelled against Shoghi Effendi, died. [MC90]
For the story of his defection from the Faith see CB343–7.
He was buried in the Saint Paul Episcopal Church Cemetery, Glen Cove, Nassau County, New York.iiiii
||Glen Cove; Nassau County; New York; United States
||Ahmad Sohrab; Covenant-breakers; New History Society
from the main catalogue
See all tags, sorted numerically or alphabetically.
- Ahmad Sohrab and the New History Society, by Paul E. Haney and Horace Holley (1958). Overview of the defection of Ahmad Sohrab and the formation of the "New History Society" and the "Caravan of East and West." [about]
- Bahá'í Cause, The, by Mirza Ahmad Sohrab, in Living Schools of Religion, ed. Vergilius Ferm (1956). Brief overview of the Baha'i Faith, with passing references to Sohrab's "New History Society." [about]
- Basis of the Bahá'í Community, The: A Statement Concerning the New History Society, by National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of the United States (1941). A statement on Ahmad Sohrab's activities and its trademark infringement case. [about]
- United States National Spiritual Assembly vs. Mirza Ahmad Sohrab (1941). In 1941 the National Spiritual Assembly unsuccessfully sued Covenant Breaker Mirza Ahmad Sohrab for his use of the word "Baha'i." This is the court's conclusions. [about]