Did the Shah's Savak offer covert aid to the Shia Cleric establishment against the Iranian Bahai Community?

Did the Shah's Savak offer covert aid to  the Shia Cleric establishment against the Iranian Bahai Community?
by faryarm

Did the Shah's Savak offer covert aid to  the Shia Cleric establishment against the Iranian Bahai Community?

Exposure of Documentary evidence since the Islamic revolution of 1979 spports this.

see video: 

also see more indepth documnetary evidence in below:



more from faryarm


by Truthseeker9 on




by Truthseeker9 on




by Truthseeker9 on

Bahais do not have a problem anywhere else in the world with what you have accused. They live peacefully and are accepted, not subjected to what you call "deserved abuse". With the accusations and unbelievably intolerant rant you have made you again demonstrate poor attitude of Iranians and why they are not a civilised s the rest of the world. 


Just bringing past up!

by darius on

This is not the way go forward, forget past,what can we do to  solve the problem.Shah is dead, Savak is gone  but Jebhe Meli, Nehzate azadi, Mojahedin, Fadaeian , IRI have proven that are menace to Iranian and have no plan , no guts and no vision. They cannot change , bunch of Mordeh parast and out of touch with reality. Even if IRI disappear tomorrow they will be the same nagging, confronting khale zanakes.( I am thankful for the quality of life I got during Shah and there is nothing shameful about it).

What he is bringing up is irrelevant .Bahais denied themelves to be  part of politics, seeking democracy and freedom is a human  desire but  you need to participate and be active. If you deny yourself and admit to stay silent to attend your religion duty, then complaining and victimising yourself is not helpful.

This is a clear statement of their faith, it means  you do not care what a government does to other citizens as long as they are aware you are  not against them. How can you seek justice when you prefer to stay silent and witness abuse to others?

I think ,it is disgusting and cowardice to keep blaming others for your failure while you have denied yourself the right to exist in the name of  peace and harmony. Well  if that is what you wish to do for the happiness of Baha, then you have subjected yourself to abuse. 





Yes, it did, before and after Bakhtiar

by Mammad on

Whitewashing Shah's crimes will not go anywhere. Unless we learn from the past, which includes the CIA coup, the Shah's dictatorship and the VF regime of the past 33 years, we will not go anywhere.


SAVAK helped Hojjatiyeh becauase it was fiercely anti-communism, knowing full well that it was also anti-Bahai. This is so well-known and so well-documented that it should not even be questioned.

Saying that SAVAK did not do it after Teymour Bakhtiar is absurd. Who took over after Pakravan? People like Nasiri, one of the worst generals of the Shah during whose directorship tens of political prisoners died under torture.

I also take issue with VPK regarding Bakhtiar and the Shah. First of all, the Shah did not simply remove him. He also ordered one of the first acts of state-sponsored terrorism by sending a hit squad to Baghdad, under the guise of highjacking an Iran Air aircraft, to assassinate him. Secondly, regardless of Bakhtiar's guilt or innocence, he could have been put on trial - in an impartial court, not in the military courts of the Shah that persecuted the political prisoners of that era because the civilian courts were so decent that refused to do it - and demonstrate to the nation whether Bakhtiar was criminal or not. If we condone such acts by the Shah, but then attack the VF regime for the same thing, we expose our utter double standards and show that we really do not believe in respect for human rights, but only wish to use it to hit our opposition.

But, I am happy that this blog was posted, because some people have been trying to rewrite the history. 




by Truthseeker9 on

You have demonstrated that Monarchists do not feel comfortable with being questioned. If you are saying you are keeping to the subject of the blog (this letter)  , then why make accusations against Bahais which are unrelated to the blog (#4 and #5)?  Monarch is not above criticism, as are Bahais not above criticism. "Blame"? So noone is allowed to post a blog and question, especially a Bahai? 

With regards to #4 perhaps Faryar can answer it because I do not know if that is true. I dont know if you meant to, but what you said reflects an attitude, that Bahais as Iranians were an "inconvenience" to the Shah's popularity. It is Shah's responsibility to treat all citizens the same and look after their rights, irrespective of popularity for himself!

There are plenty of people on IC and outside who bring to attention #5 at least and Bahais deal with it. 


I am talking about this particular Letter..

by darius on

I am talking about this letter only .

1.The letter says, Anjoman Zede Bahaii, it means Savak and authiortiy already knows that anjoman is anti Bahaii movement.

2.There is no evidence  that Savak Is supporting the anjoman , it is simply relaying an inofrmation to a higher officer and  doing his job's procedure..

3. This lettter is presented as a document to show the Shah and Savak's support of Anjoman,wrong this letter doesn't say that.

4. I know faryam and our Bahaii friends may get upset with  what I am going to say, Bahaiis also did lots of thing that helped Shah to be  hated even more and become famous for nesting and supporting  Bahaiis.

5.Bahaiis like all other  religions have there own fractions and division that one doesn't want to give other right to be recognised.

There are majority Bahaiis that do not recognised their own division  and keep it either denying their right of recognition or  keep it a secret.

I sometimes get this impression that Bahiis forget they are human like us.Theymake mistakes and are subject to bad judgment.

Isn't to late to blame the Shah and Savak? 




VPK jaan

by Truthseeker9 on

I totally agree.   :)

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Dear Truthseeker9

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


I see where you are coming from. Shah was a dictator and made many mistakes. It is just that in retrospect his reign was nowhere as bad as IRI. I am not gonna whitewash his actions.

In fact if he had allowed a civil society IRI would not be here now. Yes this blog is NOT a "cheap shot". All in it is true and as the ruler he was responsible for it. However my only proposal is that if you want change: make it for the better not worse.


Thanks for the blog

by Truthseeker9 on

You will always get Monarchists calling any examination into the past as "cheap shot" or "digging up". How dare anything even question what Monarchs do and why we NEED them. Whilst they dig up and post anything with the word "King" in order to brainwash the audience. Interesting blog.

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Teymour Bakhtiyar

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


was a GIANT ***hole and Shah did fine removing him. Too bad the damage was already done by the time he was removed. 


Teymour Bakhtiar's was personally removed by Shah

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

Shah noticed that Teymour was doing things in shahs name that were against the law, despotic and against shahs wishes.

So During Teymours time you may be right, he was not a reflection of the shah at all.   Teymours acts were far from a reflection of shah's orders which is why he was fired and put under house arrest.  Cheap shots against Pahlavi's are a reflection of the people that do them, not the pahlavi's. Just saw one posted on this blog today... 



Darius Kadivar

Yes during Teymour Bakhtiar's tenure not after under Pakravan

by Darius Kadivar on

Yes the Baha'is were intimidated during a short period after the events of 1953 that toppled Mossadegh because they were seen by Kashani and other clerics as sidekicks of British intelligence and MI 6 operatives. 

Some temples were destroyed by SAVAK and I have seen photos of Teymour Bakhtiar looking on as one officer breaks down the wall of one of these Bah'ai shrines. If you look through the internet you should be able to find a reference to this.

Whether the Shah endorsed these acts of intimidation or not is not sure. I think politically speaking he did see the advantage so as to calm the clerics and radical elements in the largely traditional and religious population which Iran was prior to the White Revolution.

Divide and Rule is the basic rule in Politics. It may not always be morally commendable but that is how it works.

But I do not believe that the Shah himself had any particular animosity against the Baha'is or any other religious minority given that all religious minorities were protected by the Crown and the Shah saw it as a duty to emulate Cyrus the Great's Policy of religious tolerance and even had many Baha'is in key positions of government and diplomatic circles.

So in my opinion to use this so called document or what appears as an "authentic" and "irrefutable' one as "proof" of Pahlavi prejudice against the Baha'is is merely another attempt to character Assassinate the Shah and his regime. It is not only a biased way of putting "facts" in historical perspective but also a cheap shot.


It is unfortunate that the Baha'is have been subject to social and religious prejudice throughout Iran's history but that is probably due to the fact that it is considered a "sect" within the Shi'a or muslim community. Given the power of religion in society and in the Middle East in particular and not just Iran I very much doubt any government could ignore the political role of religion in society.

One may argue that Shia faith is a "sect" in comparison to the Sunni faith too. Hence what you see in Bahrain where the Sunni Minority is crushing down on the Shia population despite the fact that they constitute a majority.

No one claims that is fair but that is how things are.

Hence why religion has to be put out of politics. That is easier said than done when society itself is deeply religious or at least traditional.

Such recurrent attacks on the Pahlavis by digging any slightest evidence as to their shortcomings is truly becoming ridiculous and an insult to the intelligence of anyone who lived in Iran during those years.

This tendency of constantly presenting ourselves as "victims" and not taking responsibility for our own society's shortcomings and blaming it on the "authorities" and "leaders" all in the name of the poor "masses" is something I don't buy anymore.

You cannot judge a system like the Shah's regime by using the comparison to the most perfect democratic regime as a focal point of reference.

That is simply not fair. You need to compare it with what is comparable and that is other regimes in the region including to this day.

The Turks who have a so called secular democracy today are killing off the kurds because of their separatist and should I say violent behavior. That may deemed cruel or one may claim the kurds are scapegoats merely because they are demanding their basic rights but then one can also argue that their behavior threatens the unity of the country.

If Turkey was a member of the European community today or if the entire region was democratic and frontiers secure like in the European community today where everyone is free to move around then I suppose Turkey could not have done what it has done quite recently and in joint operations with Iran's government.

But given the dynamics in the region, Turkey's leaders cannot do otherwise or if they do then they face their own public opinion and however cynical any government which wishes to stay in power needs to satisfy it's own constituency. That's how politics work. That reflects more the reality of the society than the leadership itself.

Unlike the Kurds the Bahai'is have been a fairly peaceful population but they are also outcasts because they represent a religious minority and rightly or wrongly deemed a sect in the eyes of the Shia majority.

One can argue that a State Religion like Shiism, Sunnism or Catholicism is also a sect but one which has succeeded.

We often joke about this in France by saying that: "Le Pape est le chef d'un sect qui a réussi" aka " The Pope is the head of a Sect which had succeeded"

There is a truth about that.

The Baha'is are victims of a religious prejudice which is condemnable but it is due to the religious nature of the society in which we live in and the importance role religion has alas always played in the political arena.

But that is not enough to boil down the Shah's regime to sporadic actions which took place during his rule because it does not reflect the reality of the regime on the long run.

The years during which such Baha'i intimidations took place during the Shah's rule correspond to the early years of the SAVAK under Teymour Bakhtiar ( who was later eliminated by the Shah in Iraq). A Power hungry general who wanted to replace the Shah and was seen by Kennedy at a time as someone who could advantageously replace the Shah. When Pakravan took over the nature of the SAVAK became far more professional and accountable even in regard to Human rights. But then the activities of the Islamic radicals and terrorist activities of Marxist Islamists, Fedayeens and MKO put a fellow like Nassiri in charge. That's when the SAVAK to some degree became far more repressive in certain circles. But regardless of all that the SAVAK's policy under the Shah was far less brutal than what followed.


Shahrnush Parsipur: "I was Never Physically Tortured by the SAVAK" 


The Shah's regime had no intention to change an individual for his religious beliefs or even political beliefs as in the case of Totalitarian states. It merely tried to discourage political activism deemed subversive. As a citizen If you happened to behave otherwise then it was at your own risks but at least you knew why.

That is not at all the case under the IRI ... The IRI WANTS TO CHANGE the INDIVIDUAL and HIS MIND to fit the IDEOLOGY of the the Regime!


And Not just for Baha'is:

DISCRIMINATION: Vendetta Against Anglican Bishop in Iran (1980) 


Now if you want to ask me if I think Baha'is in a post IRI democratic Iran should have the same rights as any other IRanian citizen ? My answer is an Absolute YES.

But they should also be entitled to the same Responsibilities.

But even in a democratic society there are some religious groups which tend to behave like demagogue sects too. Just look at the Scientologists who have found in Tom Cruise and some Hollywood celebrities as their official ambassadors.

Well Scientologists are not tolerated in a country like France's Republic. One can argue then that the French republic's secular nature in intolerant. I don't think so.

As such the Scientologists are no more victims than Baha'is under the Shah. I would even argue that the Shah's regime was far more tolerant on such issues cause the regime had far more important priorities than to convert people to State religion.

I know this given that some of my best childhood friends were and still are Bahai'is and have very fond memories of their life in Iran during the Shah.

Also there are many Bahai's who are simply not religious but like some Jews quite Secular and do not like to be assimilated to a given religion merely because they were born into one.

To want to confuse a person's religious belonging and confuse it with Racial prejudice is also a perverted way of "victimizing" a community.

Sorry but if Baha'is are a victim of anything it's of Religion and the sectarian outlook ALL religions impose on society as a whole within the social environment in which they are evolving particularly if the State is also run on religious terms as is the case of the IRI but not particularly of a given system of government and definitively not of the Shah's regime.

My humble Opinion,






Dear Faryam

by darius on

Read the letter carefully, the letter is from a  source or a snitch that was paid by Savak to gather information from the activities of the 

Anjoman.What is  the title of th ereport? It say Anjpoman Zede Bahaii(doe snot say Anjoman Mahdyeh).

Shanbah: is th source or snitch, he says , after one year , he was able to  gain the trust of the anjoman and  to be accepted into their meetings.

Then you have the rahbar  amaliat or Yek shanbeh: He truthfully without adding any comments adds that he continues to watch the group activities.( he does not take any side).The whole letter is based on a snitch ( manbae Khabari) and has nothing to do with Shah and Savak.All the  report is  snitch  opinion not of Savak.

Which part of letter support the Anjoman or has the signature of the Shah.This is simply a field report.It shows neither Shah nor Savak support for anjoman Mahdeyeh.

My comment is no tin support of Anjoman and that abusing Bahai's are accepted practice .



Amir Sahameddin Ghiassi

With the hope that humanity win.

by Amir Sahameddin Ghiassi on

In the hope that one day , people live in Love and unity. Now we are the victims of different religions, nationalities and races. Hate is destroying the humanity.


Please Examine The Facts and Evidence

by faryarm on

Let us not choose to hide our heads under the sand and ignore history.

Please Examine The Facts and Evidence.

Sadly, the truth sometimes hurts. 

Thank you 




آیا انجمن حجتیه با ساواک در ارتباط بود؟ + اسناد

انجمن تاجایی در جلب نظر رژیم پیش می رود که با تکیه بر ساواک و اخذ مجوز از آن به انجام رسالت خود ادامه می دهد. مهندس طیب در این باره می گوید: «در گذشته انجمن موضع مشخص و قاطعی نداشته است برای مثال می توان از اجازه ای که از ساواک برای تشکیل جلسات خود می گرفته نام برد». ساواک نظر مساعد خود را در بخشنامه ای که اداره کل سوم به ساواک تهران و

بولتن نيوز: نام كامل انجمن حجتيه كه به انجمن ضدبهائيت نيز مشهور بوده، «انجمن خيريه حجتيه مهدويه» است. اين انجمن مقارن با كودتاي آمريكايي 28 مرداد 1332 تأسيس شد. مؤسس اين گروه آقاي شيخ محمود ذاكرزادة تولايي است كه به نام شيخ محمود حلبي شناخته شده بود. وي تا پيش از كودتا هر روز برنامه هاي سخنراني در راديو مشهد داشت.

در خصوص علت و هدف تشكيل انجمن نظرات مختلفي وجود دارد اما گذشته از علت شكل گيري انجمن حجتيه آنچه كه با قاطعيت ميتوان گفت اين است كه انجمن برخلاف حركت اسلام سياسي و انقلابي حركت كرده و با جدايي دين از سياست نيروي خود را مصروف عوامل فرعي كرده، از مبارزه با اصل و ريشه فساد غافل ماند و به همين جهت مورد استقبال دربار قرار گرفت.

شیخ محمود حلبي به تشكيلات خود رسميت داد و نهايتاً در سال 1336 آن را به نام انجمن حجتيه مهدويه به ثبت رساند. اين انجمن داراي يك هيأت مديره بود كه فعاليتهاي انجمن زيرنظر اين هيأت مديره انجام مي گرفت. شيخ محمودحلبي رياست هيأت مديره را بر عهده داشت و اعضاي اين هيأت مديره عبارت بودند از: حاج سيد رضا رسول، سيد حسن سجادی، محمد حسين غلام حسين، حاج محمد تقي تاجر.

اساسنامه انجمن داراي يك فصل، دو ماده، هشت بند و دو تبصره بود؛ تبصره يك عبارت است از اين كه، هدف انجمن تا ظهور قائم موعود غيرقابل تغيير است. در تبصره دو آمده است: «انجمن به هيچ وجه در امور سياسي مداخله نخواهد داشت و نيز مسئوليت هرنوع دخالتي را در زمينه سياسي كه از طرف افراد منتسب به انجمن صورت گيرد بر عهده نخواهد داشت.»

انجمن حجتيه به زودي موفق شد در اكثر شهرهاي ايران گروههايي را سازمان بدهد و از تهران فعاليت آنها را هدايت كند. از آنجا كه هر نوع فعاليت سياسي از طرف اعضاي انجمن ممنوع بود عملاً حمايت دستگاه امنيتي دوره حكومت محمد رضا شاه را به خود جلب كرده بودند. آقا علي اكبر پرورش از فعالان اوليه و سابق انجمن حجتيه مي گويد: «از برادران و خواهران انجمن نوشته مي گرفتند كه در امور سياسي دخالت نكنند و انجمن شديداً از درگير شدن با مسائل سياسي اجتناب مي كرد.»

به دليل گرفتن تعهد كتبي مبني بر عدم مبارزه و عدم دخالت در امور سياسي از اعضا بود كه انجمن، نه تنها كوچكترين تهديدي از جانب رژيم منحوس پهلوي نشد بلكه بعضاً مورد حمايت آنان نيز قرار گرفت. از طرف ديگر چون متظاهر به مذهب و مطيع مرجعيت هم بود نزد روحانيان هم توانست مشروعيت لازم جهت حمايت را كسب كند.

دیدگاههای موجود در مورد روابط انجمن با ساواک

در مورد روابط انجمن حجتیه با رژیم پهلوی چند دیدگاه مطرح است:

یک دیدگاه این است که انجمن حجتیه هیچ ارتباطی با رژیم نداشته و اصلا مورد تایید رژیم نبوده است و اگر رژیم شاهنشاهی در برهه ای از زمان آنان را تایید کرده به جهت مصالح آن دوره اقدام به این کار نموده است.

دیدگاه دوم به ارتباط نزدیک و تنگاتنگ انجمن و ساواک تاکید داشته و آنان را نفوذی های ساواک در میان متدنیان تلقی می کند.

دیدگاه سوم حالتی بینابین دو دیگاه قبلی است و معتقد است انجمن به طور مطلق مورد تایید ساواک نبوده اما وجود این نوع انجمن ها در آن برهه نوعی کشاندن جوانان مذهبی طرفدار انقلاب و معارضان رژیم به جلسات بی خاصیت یا حداقل آرام و سخنرانی های بی خطر انجمن و سوق دادن روحیه مبارزه جویی جوانان متدین به سوی مبارزه با بهائیت و انصراف آنان از مخالفت صریح با رژیم است. لذا اگر مواردی انجمنی ها مورد تایید رژیم بودند از آنان استفاده ابزاری شده است و یا خود انجمنی ها توجهی به جایگاه خود در پیش ساواک نداشتند و نمی دانستند ساواک از آنان بهره برداری می کند. چون انجمن حجتیه با همه مدیران کشوری رژیم پهلوی ارتباط داشت آنها امکانات خوبی برای رفت و آمد به شهرستانها جهت تبلیغ داشتند بنابراین خیلی ها دوست داشتند که به آنها نزدیک شوند. چرا که یک طلبه جوان در آن زمان اصلا نمی توانست به مسئولان کشوری نزدیک شود و با آنها ارتباط برقرار کند.

اسناد و مدارک بدست آمده از ساواک ثابت می کند که انجمن حجتیه روابط نزدیکی با ساواک داشته است که در ذیل به آنها پرداخته خواهد شد.

انتخاب مسئولان انجمن با موافقت ساواک

برخی سندهای به دست آمده نشان می دهد که علاوه بر وابستگی انجمن حجتیه به رژیم، مسئولان و متصدیان انجمن نیز توسط ساواک انتخاب می شدند. به عنوان نمونه می توان ازتایید ساواک در انتخاب قربانعلی مقدم برای ریاست انجمن حجتیه بجنورد نام برد.


گزارش جلسات انجمن به ساواک

در گزارش ساواک خراسان راجع به سید حسین سجادی معروف به مهندس آمده است که نامبرده به تعهد خود در برابر ساواک پایبند بوده و اطلاعات لازم را درباره جریانهای درونی انجمن حجتیه به طور پیوسته در دسترس ساواک قرار می داده است . سرتیپ بهرامی رئیس ساواک خراسان در پاسخ ریاست سازمان اطلاعات و امنیت کشور با پشتیبانی اضمنی از نامبرده اطمینان می دهد که او در امور سیاسی به هیچ وجه دخالتی نمی نمایند و ساواک از تشکیل جلسات مرتب با اطلاع  است»

عدم موضع گیری سیاسی شیخ محمود حلبی و اعضای انجمن

 انجمن حجتیه تا واپسین روزهای سلطنت خاندان پهلوی به تلاش بی درنگ خود در راه پاسداری از تز استعماری جدایی دین از سیاست و مخالفت با خط و راه امام راحل و وفاداری به رژیم طاغوتی ادامه می داد و این حقیقت نکته دیگر در خور نگرش این است که یکی از سران فریب خورده انجمن حجتیه در دیدار با برخی از مقامات ساواک به خود می بالد که :«... با تمام قوا کوشش نموده که کوچکترین قائله سیاسی در جلسات انجمن حجتیه مطرح نشود و اجازه ورود یک نفر از روحانیون به جلسات و دخالت آنان را در این زمینه نداده است».

تأیید انجمن توسط شاه

در گزارش یکی از منابع ساواک آشکارا آمده است :«... این انجمن یک سازمان سیاسی نیست و دولت نیز آن را تایید نموده و شاهنشاه آریا مهر هم از تشکیل آن ابراز رضایت فرموده اند».

گرفتن اجازه نامه از ساواک

انجمن تاجایی در جلب نظر رژیم پیش می رود که با تکیه بر ساواک و اخذ مجوز از آن به انجام رسالت خود ادامه می دهد. مهندس طیب در این باره می گوید: «در گذشته انجمن موضع مشخص و قاطعی نداشته است برای مثال می توان از اجازه ای که از ساواک برای تشکیل جلسات خود می گرفته نام برد». ساواک نظر مساعد خود را  در بخشنامه ای که اداره کل سوم به ساواک تهران و کلیه شعب آن در سراسر استان ها صادر نموده نشان می دهد.

مراعات حال انجمنی ها توسط ساواک

از آنجا که انجمن از سوی رژیم مجوز گرفته بود دارای روابط حسنه ای با ساواک بود اگر افرادی که هضم در هاضمه فکری و سیاسی انجمن نشده بودند و زیر پوشش انجمن فعالیت می کردند به اتهام مخالفت با رژیم دستگیر می شدند که این مورد نادری بوده است و یا اگر اشتباهی رخ می داد و فردی از انجمن توسط ماموران ساواک بازداشت می شد و بعد انجمنی بودن آن محرز می گشت و اثبات می شد یک ساعت هم او را نگه نمی داشتند و بلافاصله رهایش می کردندبرای آگاهی از پایه اطمینان ساواک نسبت به کارگردانان انجمن حجتیه همین بس که یکی از سران انجمن یاد شده به نام سید حسین سجادی معروف به مهندس در روز 28/6/42 در پی سخنرانی در یک مراسم مذهبی ویژه بانوان در مشهد ، مورد بدگمانی واقع شده و دستگیر می گردد لیکن بی درنگ ساواک خراسان با فرستادن گزارش به لشکر 6 خراسان او را تبرئه می کند و خواستار آزادی بی قید و شرط او می شود.

برخورد ساواک بااعضای جدا شده از انجمن

آقای پرورش می گوید: «وقتی ساواک متوجه شده بود که من از انجمن کنار رفته ام همین نادری ملعون ما را خواست و خیلی فحاشی کرد و گفت چرا دیگر در انجمن نیستی؟»

شرکت علنی  سران ساواک در جلسات انجمن

در جلسات انجمن گاهی تیمسار بهرامی رئیس ساواک مشهد شرکت می کرد و برخی از جلسات آنها که در محافل اعیان و اشراف مشهد برگزار می شد با تشریفات فوق العاده ای همراه بود.

توجیه ادامه حیات رژیم پهلوی

در دیدگاه انجمن حجتیه رژیم فاسد پهلوی به عنوان خطر عمده ای برای اسلام مطرح نبود و وجود رژیم را کمکی به ظهور امام زمان (عج) تلقی می کردند.

لو دادن مبارزان با رژیم به ساواک

اعضای انجمن حجتیه عناصر مبارز با رژیم را به ساواک معرفی می کرد، زیرا شیوه مبارزاتی امام خمینی را انحرافی تلقی می کردند و خودشان را موظف به بستن این باب می دانستند.

عناصر انجمن در صدد پاسخگویی به اتهام روابطشان با ساواک اظهار داشته اند که این روابط جهت اطمینان دادن به ساواک و پیشبرد هدف انجمن یعنی مبارزه با بهاییت بوده است. ولی اسناد و مدارک به طور واضح مشخص می کند که این رابطه بالاتر از یک اجازه کتبی بوده است و اسنادی مبنی بر مخالفت علنی انجمن با ساواک در دست نمی باشد.




Answer No.

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

Many of Savaki's were Bahai's themselves, including the very head of the dept that would have been responsible for anything internal.  So this is just misinformation/propaganda as per usual , whats interesting is to find out who benefits from such misinformation.  Who benefits from divide and rule in this case?