In her new monograph, Diane Robinson-Dunn explains how she set out to explore the histories of three religious minorities in imperial Britain—Bahá'ís, Muslims, and Jews. Finding that the period around the First World War witnessed dramatic developments in relationships between these minorities and empire, Robinson-Dunn honed her focus to consider how mutual interaction, both in the metropole and at the periphery, was impacted by events around that disastrous conflagration. The outcome is an impressively detailed examination of how Bahá'ís, Muslims, and Jews negotiated shifting political and geographical boundaries to effectively contribute to prominent contemporary discourses. Though, Robinson-Dunn avers, these minorities made efforts to harmonize dominant discourses to their own goals for a better world and saw great potential in aligning themselves to longstanding British liberal traditions, they were not naïve regarding abuses perpetuated by the British in their colonies. Though reconciling themselves to the imperial context, Robinson-Dunn contends, Bahá'ís, Muslims, and Jews avoided being defined or contained within it. They were in a certain sense, she argues, neither of the “East” nor the “West,” but favored a global worldview, aspects of which could be reconciled with imperial culture.
Though the goals of Bahá'ís, Muslims (as represented by the Woking Muslim Mission), and Jews (in particular Zionist and anti-Zionist Jewish factions in Britain and Europe) did not correspond during this seminal period, there were interesting overlaps. Robinson-Dunn describes the efforts of Bahá'ís and Muslims to find common ground with the British imperial system as the “creation of ideologies of imperial intersection” (8). She finds this categorization less helpful with respect to Jewish connections to government, especially given the growing hostility between prominent British community representatives and a new Zionist ideology dedicated to the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. This more political and internally contested representation of religious faith did eventually synchronize with the objectives of His Majesty's government, particularly after 1917. But not before a fascinating discursive process reached a climax as British interests extended to include mandated Palestine.
Robinson-Dunn considers that the global nature of the British Empire provided a ready network to disseminate Bahá'í principles around the oneness of humanity and of religion during the years in question. As the First World War reached Palestine, ‘Abdu'l-Bahá (head of the Bahá'í Faith), was back at his home in Haifa having earlier travelled in Britain. In London, Robinson-Dunn recounts, influential friends advocated at the highest levels of government for his safety to be a priority for Allenby's advancing army, the departing Ottoman leader having threatened his life. Thereafter he became a trusted source of advice for the new governing authorities who frequently sought his counsel. Helpful here may have been a broader exploration of ‘Abdu'l-Bahá's long-standing status as a respected regional figure in the Ottoman, Turkish, and Arabic speaking context. This, along with a more extensive review of his reception in Britain, would have illuminated further the intricacies of his interaction with ruling authorities, both former and those newly arrived. Well-observed is the widespread esteem in which the religious leader was held, which allowed for the safe functioning and efflorescence of the world center of the Bahá'í Faith, effectively moving it from a precarious existence under Ottoman rule toward the establishment of a safe base and international recognition.
The commissioning of the mosque at Woking marked the establishment of the first formal Muslim mission in Britain, the first instance of Islamic reverse missionizing at the heart of empire. Though built in 1889, the Woking mosque opened for general worship in 1913 when its first Imam, Khwaja Kamal-ud-din, arrived in Britain from Lahore. Robinson-Dunn does not fully explain events leading to the opening of the mosque for public worship and the role played by London Muslim society figures in the foundation of the mission. She does explore the fascinating connection with the Begums of Bhopal and provides an excellent analysis of how the Khwaja brilliantly countered negative anti-Muslim propaganda in war-time Britain, foregrounding the role of Muslim soldiers fighting on the British side. Promoting an expression of Islam in line with the sensibilities of his audience in London allowed the Khwaja to grow the mission, even in the maelstrom of war. The Khwaja believed he could “propagate Islam in the whole world while sitting in London” (112). Eventually, he could justifiably claim to be the leader of all Muslims in Britain, including some notable converts from among the establishment. “We have planted,” he wrote “our banner in the fields of England” (111).
The main debates in Jewish circles during the years under review concerned emancipation—both for British Jews and throughout the empire—and the growing Zionist campaign to establish a homeland for Jews in Palestine. The Zionist agenda was not popular with leading Jews in Britain. They believed the empathetic relationship they had forged with the British authorities would serve as a model for the progress and advancement of Jews elsewhere. Here Robinson-Dunn ably unpacks the dynamic and complex discourse that in effect led to “the redefinition of Jewishness in the late nineteenth-century as not only a religion but a race and ethnicity as well” (150). Against this background figures such as Herzl and Weizmann introduced the idea of an alternative to the program for the emancipation of Jews—rather than mere recognition they could have their own homeland in Palestine. The Balfour Declaration (1917) was the occasion for the triumph of the Zionist argument, the moment when Zionist and British interests converged, even if many Jews in Britain remained indifferent to the idea of a Jewish state until the mid-twentieth century.
Examining these three systems together, Professor Robinson-Dunn concludes, allows for the development of unique insights into the workings of empire and how imperial interests intersected with the goals of minority faith communities between 1900 and 1920. She has produced an excellent account (in a very attractive production) which deserves every plaudit, while pointing to a promising area of focus for future studies in imperialism.
