از حق بهايی بودن تا بهايی صاحب حق بودن


فقر فرهنگی نقد در اپوزیسیون
زندان و زنان خبیث
دلیل آفتاب
آیا امیدی به "اصلاح" اصلاح طلبان هست؟
چشم انداز مذاکرات ایران و امریکا (بخش دوم)


تیم آکروجت تاج طلایی نیروی هوایی شاهنشاهی ایران
وقایع تاریخی‌ ایران ۱۹۵۰- ۱۹۷۹
بـیـاد داریوش و پروانه فروهر
Shah & Farah Visit Washington DC National Gallery (1960)
Hasan-ali Mansour Funeral


Niyaz
Naima Jazz Band
Pyruz
Belle
Zohreh Jooya

دفاع از حضور بهائيان در قلمرو عمومی ، پيامد منطقی فتوای آيت الله منتظری است

by Akbar Ganji
11-Jun-2008

فتوای اخير آيت الله منتظری در باره حقوق شهروندی بهائيان، در فضای ذهنی فقهای شيعی، يک گام به پيش محسوب می شود. ايشان می فرمايند: "فرقۀ بهائيت چون دارای کتاب آسمانی همچون يهود،مسيحيان و زرتشتيان نيستند در قانون اساسی جزو اقليتهای مذهبی شمرده نشده اند، ولی از آن جهت که اهل اين کشور هستند حق آب و گل دارند، و از حقوق شهروندی برخوردار می باشند، همچنين بايد از رافت اسلامی که مورد تاکيد قرآن و اولياء دين است بهره مند باشند".

اين فتوا يک بار ديگر فرصت لازم برای نقد نگرش و رفتار ايرانيان، مراجع تقليد ، فقها، روحانيون، روشنفکران دينی و دولت جمهوری اسلامی با بهائيان را به آزاديخواهان و حق مداران می دهد. همين فتوا، به خودی خود، از مظالم تأسف باری حکايت می کند(محروميت از تحصيل، محروميت از مشاغل دولتی،محروميت از برگزاری مراسم دينی، حبس و زندان، فشار جهت توبه، قتل. دو نمونه زير قابل توجه است. يک- جمال زاده در کتاب سر و ته يک کرباس می گويد در ايام کودکی وقتی در بازار اصفهان رد می شديم يک دفعه می ديديم که فرياد می زنند : بابی- بابی . بعد يک ظرف نفت بر سر طرف می ريختند و او را آتش می زدند. دو- سر خانم سالخورده ای که خواهر يکی از روشنفکران بنام کشور است را در ابتدای انقلاب به بهانه ی بهايی بودن از بدنش جدا کردند) .

اگر نگاه نادرست و غير عقلانی ، و رفتار غير اخلاقی و غير انسانی وجود نداشت، نه صدور چنين فتوايی ضرورت می يافت، نه صدور اين فتوا از سوی اعلم و افقه فقهای شيعه، شجاعانه تلقی می شد. شجاعانه بودن فتوای آيت الله منتظری به چشم کسی می آيد که از فضای فکری مراجع تقليد شيعيان مطلع باشد. مراجع تقليد، بهائيت را فرقه ضاله ای که بايد نابود شود، معرفی می کنند. به عنوان نمونه، آقای خمينی در يکی از موارد، در باره آنها می نويسد: "يک گرفتاری بسيار بزرگی که خطر عظيم بنيان‌کن در پيش دارد، العياذ بالله تعالی، قضيه نفوذ فرقه ضاله بهائيت است که در غالب تشکيلات، علی المحکی و المعروف، نفوذ دارند و روز به روز دامنه‌دارتر می‌شود و من نمی‌دانم عاقبت کار اينها به کجا ختم می‌شود و من احتمال می‌دهم آنها به همين زودی شروع به کار کند، به طور علن و با غفلت مسلمين ايجاد فتنه و خطر عظيم نمايند. پيام‌های شديدی اينجانب به اوليای امور در اين امر دادم و از طرف آنها انکار بليغ شده است، لکن اطمينان نمی‌شود پيدا کرد. حقير در فکر هستم که بلکه به طوری بتوانيم از توسعه نفوذ آنها بکاهيم"[۱].

فتوای آيت الله منتظری شجاعانه است، اگر به مکتوبات جريان روشنفکری دينی نگريسته شود. اگر برخوردهای سرکوبگرانه ی رژيم جمهوری اسلامی با بهائيان را بتوان ناديده گرفت، اگر نگاه حوزه های دينی شيعی به بهائيان را بتوان ناديده گرفت، سکوت معنادار بسياری از روشنفکران دينی نسبت به بهائيان را نمی توان ناديده گرفت. روشنفکران دينی در خصوص حقوق بشر بسيار سخن گفته و می گويند.ولی در خصوص يکی از مهمترين موارد نقض حقوق بشر در ايران سکوت اختيار کرده اند. اعتراض به ستم هايی که به بهائيان می شود و دفاع از حقوق اساسی آنها وظيفه ی روشنفکری دينی است[۲]. در حاشيه ی فتوای نماد مقاومت و مبارزه و پاکی، به عنوان يک مسلمان شيعه( شيعه ی غير غالی کثرت گرا)، چند نکته را بيان می دارم:

۱-فرقه ضاله بهائيت: انحصارگرا آئين خود را حقيقت مطلق، هدايت و سعادت می داند و ديگر آئين ها را باطل، گمراهی و شقاوت به شمار می آورد.انحصارگرايان معتقدند که رستگاری ، رهايی، کمال، يا هر چيز ديگر که هدف نهايی دين تلقی می شود، منحصراً در دين آنها وجود دارد و تنها از طريق دين آنها به دست می آيد. چون انحصارگرايان تمام اديان چنين رويکردی دارند، وقتی همه ی انحصارگرايان در نظر گرفته شوند، تمام اديان باطل و گمراهی و شقاوت محسوب خواهند شد. از موضع انحصارگرايی، بهائيت همانقدر "فرقه ی ضاله" است، که ديگر اديان. يعنی وقتی انحصارگرايان بهائيت را فرقه ی ضاله معرفی می کنند، بهائيان انحصارگرا هم متهم کنندگان را فرقه ی ضاله به شمار می آورند. اين حکم در خصوص مسيحيان، يهوديان و مسلمانها(شيعه و سنی) هم صادق است. هر مسلمانی وقتی می خواهد بهائيان را متهم به ضلالت کند، بهتر است پيش از آن اين کلام کير گگور را با صدای بلند به اطلاع همگان برساند:

"من مسيحی[در اينجا ديندار] نيستم، و بدبختانه می توانم آشکار کنم که ديگران هم مسيحی[ديندار] نيستند- در واقع آشکار کنم که حتی از من هم کمتر مسيحی[ديندار] هستند. علتش اين است که آنها خيال می کنند مسيحی[ديندار] هستند، يا به دروغ می گويند مسيحی[ديندار] هستند... من خودم را مسيحی[ديندار] نمی خوانم(تا آرمان مسيحی بودن[ديندار بودن] را لکه دار نکنم)، اما می توانم آشکار کنم که ديگران اصلاً مسيحی[ديندار] نيستند"[۳]. البته متواضعانه و عقلانی تر از سخن کير گگور اين است که هر کس خود را بی دين تر از ديگران و هدايت نايافته تر از ديگران بخواند تا فضای صلح، گفت و گو و آموختن از يکديگر باز شود. بهايی همانقدر انسان است، که مسلمان. اثبات عقلی باورهای دينی يهوديان، مسيحيان، مسلمانها، بهائيان و ... اگر محال نباشد، بسيار دشوار است. از اين جهت، تفاوت چندانی بين اديان و مذاهب مختلف وجود ندارد. ضمن آنکه بی دليلی، فرد ، گروه يا آئينی را مستحق اهانت و سرکوب نمی کند. چه چيز جز خود خواهی اجازه می دهد که خود و همکيشان خود را هدايت يافته و بهشتی و ديگری را گمراه و جهنمی بخوانيم؟ چگونه و با چه روشی می توان اثبات کرد که ما برحقيم(تمام باورهای ما حقيقت مسلم است) و ديگری، مثلاً بهائيان، باطل است(يعنی باورهايشان کذب محض است)؟

ذکر يک نکته بسيار مهم است. نوشتار حاضر از دو زاويه ی خاص(به شرح زير) به مسأله ی بهائيت نمی نگرد، بلکه از يک منظر ويژه وارد اين مسأله شده است:

۱-۱- ما وارد نزاع های تاريخی در خصوص پيدايش اديان و مذاهب و فرق مختلف و نقش قدرت های سياسی در توليد و تثبيت آنها نمی شويم.برای اينکه: الف- همه ی اديان و مذاهب و فرق چنين اتهام هايی به يکديگر وارد می آورند ، ب- يک آئين پرستش و نظام باور را نمی توان به توطئه ی گروهی توطئه گر فروکاست. مگر سنی های سلفی شيعه را ساخته ی يهوديان- عبدالله ابن سبأ- نمی دانند؟ و مگر علامه عسگری در دوجلد کتاب به اين شبهه پاسخ نگفته است؟ مگر روزنامه القبس کويت بتازه گی اعلام نکرده است که: ۷۰درصد شيعيان ايرانی نمی توانند قرآن را خوب بخوانند، ۹۰ درصد ايرانيان هم معانی قرآن را نمی فهمند؟[۴]. شيعه ای که از طرف اکثريت مسلمين با اتهام دست ساخته ی يهودی بودن و قرآن ناشناسی روبروست، بهائيت را دست ساخته ی استعمار و صهيونيسم معرفی می کند. آقای خامنه ای اخيراً در يک سخنرانی در اشاره به بهائيت می گويد:"سازمان هايی که اسمش دين است، باطنش سازمان سياسی است"[۵]. بهائيان، برعکس مسلمين که دين خود را سياسی ترين دين معرفی می کنند(ديانت ما عين سياست ماست)، دين خود را غير سياسی معرفی می کنند. اگر سياسی بودن يک آئين عيب آن آئين باشد، مسلمانها نبايد اسلام را دين سياسی بنامند. ولی روشن است که منظور آقای خامنه ای از سياسی بودن باطن بهائيت، اين است که بهائيت چيزی جز برساخته ای استعماری- صهيونيستی نمی باشد.

۲-۱- ما وارد اين بحث کلامی هم نمی شويم که چه کسی(دينی) بر حق و چه کسی(دينی) ناحق است؟ يهوديان دين خود را برحق و بقيه ی اديان را باطل تلقی می کنند. اين حکم درباره ی مسيحيان و مسلمانها و ... هم صادق است.تاکنون هيچ دين و آئينی نتوانسته است حقانيت خويش و بطلان بقيه را با برهان اثبات نمايد. در پايان کار حق و ناحق روشن خواهد شد. فقط انسان انحصار گراست که دين خود را برحق و دين ديگران را ناحق به شمار می آورد. اما انسان کثرت گرا،با فهم اين واقعيت که بحث های کلامی برای غلبه ی يک دين بر اديان ديگر به نتيجه نرسيده و پيروان اديان مختلف هر چه دليل و استدلال داشته اند عليه يکديگر بکار برده اند و نتيجه ای حاصل نگرديده(تکافوی ادله)، برای هر دينی حظی از حقيقت قائل است و تمام اديان و مذاهب و فرق را راههای متفاوت به سوی خدا و سعادت به شمار می آورد. از منظر کثرت گرايی دينی، مدعيات اديان، توصيف کما بيش دقيق يک حقيقت واحدند.
هيچيکدام از مراجع تقليد و فقهای ما پلوراليست نبوده اند و نيستند. برخی از آنان حداکثر تا شمول گرايی جلو آمده و شمول گرايی شان فقط شامل يهوديت و مسيحيت می شود[۶]. اما حتی فقهای شمول گرا هم برای بهائيت هيچ حظی از حقيقت و سعادت و هدايت قائل نيستند. از نظر آنان ، بهائيت کذب محض است و اصلاً دين به شمار نمی رود.

به عنوان نمونه، آيت الله منتظری يهوديان و مسيحيان را کافر ذمی و بهائيان را کافر معاهد به شمار می آورند. می فرمايند:"اين فرقه جزو کفار محسوب می شوند اما کافر حربی نيستند و کافر ذمی هم نيستند چون کتاب آسمانی شان نه تورات است، نه انجيل است و نه زبور. اما (بهائيان) کافر معاهد يا مستأمنند، به اين معنی که در امان و عهد حاکميت اسلامی اند و مادامی که فعاليتی عليه حاکميت اسلامی انجام ندهند از حقوق شهروندی برخوردارند چون به هر حال حق آب و گل دارند، ماليات می پردازند و غيره".

فتوای آقای خمينی را پيش از اين از نظر گذرانديم. فتوای آيت الله بروجردی درباره بهائيان به قرار زير است: "لازم است مسلمين با اين فرقه معاشرت، مخالطه و معامله را ترک کنند، فقط از مسلمين تقاضا دارم آرامش و حفظ انتظام را از دست ندهند". فتوای آيت الله گلپايگانی به قرار ذيل است: "مخالطه با اين طايفه ضالّه مضلّه حرام است".

همانگونه که مشاهده شد، مسلمانهای انحصارگرا، بهائيت را آئينی ناحق بشمار می آورند، همانطور که بهائيان اسلام را شريعت منسوخ و ناحق به شمار می آورند. اگر مباحث پايان ناپذير و توافق ناکردنی کلامی – فلسفی ناديده گرفته شود ، تنها چيزی که باقی خواهد ماند، تفاوت چند ميليونی تعداد پيروان تشيع و بهائيت است. گمان نمی کنم شيعيان اقليت و اکثريت بودن را مبنای حق و باطل بودن به شمار آورند. برای اينکه شيعيان در مقابل اکثريت سنيان ، اقليتی بيش نيستند. مسلمين هم در مقابل مسيحيان اقليت محسوب می شوند. بدينترتيب، انحصار گرايان هم اگر خواهان زندگی صلح آميز باشند ،چاره ای جز پذيرش "حق ناحق بودن" ندارند. به تعبير ديگر، می توان خود را حق و ديگری را باطل به شمار آورد و در عين حال برای زندگی صلح آميز، ديگری باطل(ناحق) را تحمل کرد.

۳-۱- مسأله ی ما دفاع از حقوق همه ی آدميان به عنوان انسان است.به فرض آنکه اثبات شود آئينی ناحق است، از موضع حقوق بشر، "ناحق بودن" خود يک حق است. حتی اگر اثبات شود آئينی ناحق است، فعال حقوق بشر، از حق نا حق بودن هم دفاع خواهد کرد. بدين ترتيب، ما بدون آنکه خود را درگير مباحث تاريخی- کلامی کنيم، از حقوق پيروان تمام اديان،و بهائيان، دفاع می کنيم. داوری در خصوص صدق و کذب باورهای بهائيان کار فيلسوفان و متکلمان است، داوری در خصوص تاريخچه ی تکوين بهائيت کار مورخان است، اما دفاع از حقوق شهروندی بهائيان، وظيفه ی همه ی آدميان است.

۲- اهانت و سطح تحمل: مسلمانها امروزه به حق از هجوم تبليغاتی رسانه های غربی و اهانت های آنها عليه بنيانگذاران آئين خود شکوه می کنند.در اين فضای ناپذيرفتنی گفته می شود: اسلام دين خشونت، ترور و جنگ است. اسلام ضد دموکراسی ، حقوق بشر ، آزادی و زنان است. اسلام با "نظام اجتماعی مدرن" و "انديشه ی تجدد" مخالف است، مسلمانها دشمن علم و فرهنگ و تمدن اند، حجاب يعنی تحجر و بربريت، مرد های مسلمان دارای چند همسرند و غيره.به تعبير ديگر، دين اسلام به تروريسم و جنگ و خشونت فروکاسته می شود. مسلمانها به اين نوع سخنان واکنش نشان داده و عليه کشور هايی که رسانه هايشان کاريکاتور عليه رهبران دينی شان منتشر می کنند، تظاهرات برپا می کنند و پرچم اين کشور ها را به آتش می کشند. در عين حال در رفتار و گفتار مسلمين پارادوکسی وجود دارد که از سوی خودشان به طور کلی ناديده گرفته می شود.مسلمانها، متون مقدس يهوديان و مسيحيان را تحريف شده معرفی می کنند.اديان شرقی را به طور کلی دين به شمار نمی آورند. شيعيان نکاتی عليه سنی ها می گويند که قطعاً چيزی جز اهانت نيست. سنی ها هم همين عمل را تکرار می کنند. بهائيان هميشه به شدت سرکوب شده اند. اما نگاه و گفتاری بدتر از سرکوب هم وجود دارد. گفته می شود که "بهائيت، فرقه ضاله ی دست پرورده ی صهيونيسم است". چگونه است که کوچکترين انتقاد به مسلمانها و افکارشان اهانت تلقی می شود، ولی بزرگترين اهانت ها به بهائيان بلا اشکال و برحق جلوه داده می شود؟ اهانت، اهانت است. نبايد اينگونه فکر کرد که "ديگران" مجاز نيستند به "ما" اهانت کنند، ولی "ما" مجاز و محق به اهانت به "ديگران" هستيم.روحانيون و رسانه های عمومی ايران دائماً عليه بهائيان سخن می گويند، آيا آنها اجازه می دهند که همان سخنان را بهائيان درباره ی مسلمانها بگويند؟[۷] اگر يک بهايی يکی از سخنانی را که شيعيان درباره باورهای آنها در رسانه ها مطرح می کنند، در رسانه ای مطرح کند، حکمش مرگ خواهد بود.

۳- تقدم حق جان بر حقوق شهروندی : درست است که شهروند با حقوق سياسی- اجتماعی اش شناخته می شود، اما شهروند صاحب حق ، محصول يک ساختار اجتماعی خاص و يک فضای ذهنی خاص است. ساختاری که تفکيک حوزه خصوصی از حوزه عمومی در آن نهادينه شده ، پيش شرط اجتماعی ظهور شهروند است. جامعه ای که دولت اش در قلمرو خصوصی مردم دخالت نمی کند و بسياری از امور، از جمله دينداری و بی دينی ،و تغيير دين، خارج از قلمرو سياست گذاری و تصمصم گيری و تصرف دولت است، صاحب شهروند می شود. ابتدا بايد پذيرفته شود که يک فرد حق دارد ديندار يا بی دين باشد، حق دارد دين خود را تغيير دهد و دين ديگری برگزيند و برای استفاده از اين حق به عنوان مرتد توسط دولت مجازات نخواهد شد. اين امر خارج از قلمرو اختيارات دولت است و اين حق بر حقوق سياسی تقدم دارد. پيروان ديگر اديان، و هم دينان سابق فرد هم حق ندارند به دليل "انتخاب" جديد، وی را تکفير يا ترور کنند. حق امنيت جانی بر حقوق سياسی و اجتماعی تقدم دارد. ناحق هم حق حيات دارد. بهايی ابتدا بايد مجاز باشد بهايی باشد، تا سپس امکان استفاده از حقوق شهروندی را داشته باشد.

۴-حضور در قلمرو عمومی: حق "حضور در قلمرو عمومی" ، پيامد منطقی حق حيات و حقوق شهروندی است.اگر بهائيان از حقوق شهروندی برخوردارند، بايد بتوانند همچون ديگر شهروندان در عرصه عمومی، آزادانه، نظرات و باورهای خود را طرح(تبليغ) و در گفت و گوی انتقادی با ديگران شرکت نمايند.

در يک نظام دموکراتيک(مردم سالار) سه امر را بايد از يکديگر تفکيک کرد :

الف- جدايی نهاد دين از نهاد دولت(سکولاريزاسيون) ، يکی از پيش شرط های نظام دموکراتيک است.

ب- دين (و دينداران) حق دارد در قلمرو عمومی حضور داشته باشد. حذف دين از عرصه عمومی ، نه ممکن است، نه مطلوب، نه پيش شرط دموکراسی .

ج- بی طرفی دولت نسبت به تمام اديان، يکی از لوازم سکولاريزاسيون و دولت دموکراتيک است. بنابر اين، يک آئين (اسلام)،نمی تواند به کمک دولت، تمام قلمرو عمومی را در اختيار بگيرد و حضور در اين ساحت را برای ديگر آئين ها ناممکن سازد.

دفاع از حضور بهائيان در قلمرو عمومی ، پيامد منطقی فتوای آيت الله منتظری است. برای اينکه آزادی عقيده و آزادی بيان از جمله حقوق شهروندی اند. نمی توان به کسی گفت تو از حقوق شهروندی برخورداری ، اما مجاز به بيان باورهای دينی ات در قلمرو عمومی نمی باشی. حق اول، حق دوم را پديد می آورد.مسلمين نبايد از تبليغ ديگر اديان در جوامع اسلامی هراس داشته باشند. آمريکا دينی ترين جامعه ی مغرب زمين است. پيروان هر دينی در اين کشور می توانند (مجازند) دين خود را تبليغ کنند. اين امر مسآله و مشکلی برای مسيحيان پديد نياورده است. اگر مسلمين، در اينجا شيعيان، به دين خود باور دارند، نبايد از تبليغ يهوديت و مسيحيت و بهائيت بهراسند. اگر شيعيان به تحدی قرآن باور دارند و آن را جدی تلقی می کنند، بايد همه را دعوت به محاجه ی با قرآن کنند ، نه اينکه کوچکترين انتقاد و پرسش را به نام اهانت به مقدسات، سب النبی و ارتداد سرکوب کنند.

۵-نتيجه: شهروند صاحب حق، زندگی خود را آنگونه که خود تشخيص می دهد، سامان می بخشد. باورهايی را که خود درست می داند، انتخاب می کند. ديگران(دولت، دين، ايدئولوژی) موظفند انتخاب او را محترم به شمارند. باورهای آدميان تا زمان کانت نقش بسيار مهمی در شخصيت او داشتند. پرسش اصلی فلسفه اين بود: آدميان به چه باور دارند و آيا آنچه بدان باور دارند حقيقت دارد و صادق است يا کاذب ؟ کيرگگور اين فرايند را تغيير داد و گفت : تاکيد بر اينکه آدميان چه باوری دارند نادرست است. برای اينکه اولاً با برهان يقينی نمی توان درست و نادرست بودن باورها را اثبات کرد،ثانياً باور منتهی به چگونه زيستن نمی شود. انتخاب گری آدميان مهمترين خصوصيت آنهاست. آدمی با انتخاب آزاد تبديل به آدمی می شود. دين سپهر غير عقلانی پارادوکسيکال است، ولی آدمی آن را انتخاب می کند. "ايمان همين پارادوکس است". به گمان او ،در مسيحيت و ديگر اديان، هيچ چيز عقلانی وجود ندارد. آدمی آزاد است تا از ميان نظام های ارزشی مختلف و متعارض دست به انتخاب بزند. آدمی مسئول انتخاب های خويش است و "من" او در فرايند انتخاب شکل می گيرد و برساخته می شود. در اين تغيير پارادايم، "انتخاب" جای "باور" را گرفت و ديگر نمی شد آدمی به خاطر باورهای نادرست و کاذبش قربانی کرد. شهروند انسانی است که با انتخاب هايش خود را خلق و می شناساند.

شهروند محصول فرايندی است که همه چيزش در حال مدنی شدن است: جامعه ی توده وار تک ساحتی(امت، قبيله و...)با برخی تحولات،مدنی می شود(جامعه ی مدنی)، اعتراض و شورش های مردمی به "نافرمانی مدنی" بدل خواهد شد، قهرمان پرستی جای خود را به "شجاعت مدنی" می سپارد، اخلاق قبيله ای خودی و غير خودی ساز به فضائل مدنی تبديل خواهد شد. تحولاتی از اين دست،دين را به قرار سابق باقی نمی گذارد. دين، مدنی می شود(دين مدنی) تا شهروند چشم عنايتی به آن داشته باشد. پذيرش حقوق شهروندی بهائيان، حکايت گر دينی است که در حال مدنی شدن است[۸].

اين نوشتار کوتاه با يک پرسش از حضرت آيت الله منتظری به اتمام می رسد. وقتی حضرت آيت الله از حقوق شهروندی بهائيان سخن می گويند، چه تصوری از "حقوق" و "شهروندی" در ذهن دارند؟ آيا شهروندان را می توان به کافر(کافر حربی، کافر ذمی، کافر معاهد و...) و مومن تقسيم کرد؟ يا ورود به دوران شهروندی، وداع با مفاهيم فقهی در تقسيم بندی اعضای جامعه ی مدنی است؟ آيا می توان باورهای شهروندان را به "ضاله" و غير ضاله تقسيم کرد؟ يا بايد به باورهای شهروندان، وسبک های متنوع و متفاوت زندگی آنها، احترام گذارد؟ پاسخ آيت الله منتظری به اين گونه پرسش ها، راهگشای زندگی صلح آميز خواهد بود.

اکبر گنجی
منبع:راديو زمانه : ۱۸ و۱۹ خرداد ۱۳۸۷
//radiozamaneh.org

پاورقی ها:

۱- منبع : //tabnak.ir/pages/?cid=694).
۲- در سال ۲۰۰۶ يکی از روشنفکران سرشناس در يکی از سخنرانی های من حضور داشت. دوستی با تأکيد بر بهايی بودن فرد ياد شده، اعتراض شديد خود و برخی ديگر از دوستان را به من اعلام کرد. به او گفتم هيچ کس شرکت کنندگان در پای سخنرانی های عمومی را انتخاب نمی کند. اين توضيح او را قانع نساخت. اضافه کردم که فرد مورد نظر شما بهايی نيست، بلکه دين ستيز است و با همه ی اديان سر ستيز دارد. برداشت من اين بود که پس از اين توضيح مسأله ی آن دوست حل شد. يعنی خداناباوران از بهائيان قابل تحمل ترند.
يک استاد ايرانی در يکی از دانشگاههای بنام آمريکا اشتغال دارد. محافل سياسی و اقتصادی ايران با اين استاد روابط گرمی دارند. بسياری ترديد ندارند که او بهايی است، اما آنها که با وی در ارتباط اند، می گويند وی بی دين است. بدين ترتيب مسأله حل می شود. ارتباط با بی دين موجه و ارتباط با بهايی ناموجه است.
اگر به نشريات و سايت هايی که متعلق به جريان روشنفکری دينی است نگريسته شود، در آنها مقالات افرادی که در گذشته چريک فدايی خلق(اقليت و اکثريت)، توده ای و... بوده اند و اينک هم خداناباورند، منتشر می شود،با چپ های خدا ناباور مصاحبه می شود، ولی هيچگاه يک مقاله از يک بهايی در اين نشريات و سايت ها ديده نمی شود. روشنفکری دينی که اين گام مثبت را برداشته است، اگر واقعاً به پلوراليسم اعتقاد دارد، بايد بهائيان را هم شامل اين نوع رواداری کند.
۳- سوزان لی اندرسون، فلسفه کيرگگور، ترجمه خشايار ديهيمی، طرح نو، ص۳۸.
۴- //fardanews.com/fa/pages/?cid=53057
۵- ۱۴/۲/۱۳۸۷ شيراز.
آقای خمينی به طور مکرر بهائيان را اسرائيلی خوانده است. می گويد:"اگر دولت ايران رابطه خود را با کشور اسرائيل قطع کند ؛ آن وقت روحانيت ايران يکصدا برتحريکات کشور ها .... عليه حکومت شيعه ايران قيام خواهند نمود...کسانی که به نام تجدد ؛ روحانيت را ضعيف ميکنند توسعه فساد را دامن می زنند. ما با " اسرائيل " و " بهائی ها " نظر مخالف داريم و تا روزی که مسئولين امر ؛ دست از حمايت اين دو طبقه برندارند؛ ما به مخالفت با آنها ادامه می دهيم"( صحيفه نور ج۱-ص۷۷). "وای براين مملکت ؛ وای براين هئيت حاکمه ! وای براين دنيا ! وای بر ما! وای براين علمای ساکت ! وای براين نجف ساکت ! اين قم ساکت است. اين تهران ساکت است . اين مشهد ساکت ! اين سکوت مرگبار اسباب اين می شود که زير چکمه های اسرائيل ؛ به دست همين بهائی هاا ؛ اين مملکت ما ؛ اين نواميس ما ؛ پايمال شود ...... اگر همه علمای اسلام يک مطلبی را بگويند ؛ حالا که خطربر اسلام وارد شده و آن خطر يهود است و حزب يهود-که همين حزب بهائيت است – اين خطر که حالا نزديک شده ؛ اگر آقايان ؛ علمای اعلام ؛ خطبا ؛ طلاب ؛ همه با هم همصدا بگويند که آقا ما نمی خواهيم که يهود بر مقدرات مملکت ما حکومت کند"( صحيفه نور- ج۱-ص ۲۱۳ و ۲۱۶). "دين شما مردم مسلمان در معرض مخاطره و هجوم قرار گرفته است.دولت شما می خواهد به دست بهايی ها و اسرائيليها شما را از بين ببرد. بدانيد که دولت شما به دو هزار بهايی هر يک پانصد دلار کرايه داده که به لندن بروند، جمع شوند و عليه قرآن و پيغمبر شما تصميم بگيرند"( صحيفه نور، ج ۱ ، ص ۲۷۷).
۶- انحصارگرايی (exclusivism)، شمول گرايی ( inclusivism) و کثرت گرايی (pluralism) سه رويکرد مختلف نسبت به تنوع اديان اند که نجات بخشی و حقيقت مندی اديان مختلف را تبيين می کنند.
۷- اخيراً يک "توده ای اسبق"،که پس از "تواب" گرديدن به "همکار وزارت اطلاعات" تبديل گرديد، پس از يک دهه وارد پرونده ی قتل های زنجيره ای شد تا دامن "مقام معظم رهبری" را از اين پرونده پاک کند و نشان دهد که "رهبر فرزانه انقلاب" هيچ نقشی در قتل های زنجيره ای نداشته است و آنان که برای افشای نقش رهبر در اين پرونده زندانی و ترور شدند، عده ای "ژورناليست" بيش نبوده اند و "تواب اطلاعاتی"، که بدنبال دفاع از رهبر و پاک کردن اذهان از نقش وی در پروژه ی قتل عام درمانی است، محقق و پژوهشگری بی طرف است.
تواب اطلاعاتی می نويسد:"من بنيانگذار نامدارترين و مؤثرترين مؤسسه پژوهشی وزارت اطلاعات، مؤسسه مطالعات و پژوهش‌های سياسی، بودم و بيش از يک دهه گرداننده آن. اندکی بعد، با دستور مقام معظم رهبری بازسازی مرکز اسناد آشفته بنياد مستضعفان و جانبازان را نيز به دست گرفتم".
امروز همگان مطلع اند که وزارت اطلاعات رژيم جمهوری اسلامی طی پروژه قتل عام درمانی ده ها تن از روشنفکران و مخالفان سياسی را به قتل رساندند. نيروهای فرنگی کار وزارت اطلاعات،ا شاپور بختيار را به فجيع ترين نحو ممکن به قتل رساندند،و ماجرای ميکونوس را آفريدند. ولی تواب اطلاعاتی، مسوليت قتل بختيار و ميکونوس را به گردن سرويس اطلاعاتی اسرائيل می اندازد. چرا؟ دليل نمی خواهد، رهبر معظم انقلاب فرمان داده است که اين چنين وانمود کنيد. بدينترتيب نه تنها وزارت اطلاعات بی گناه جلوه داده می شود، بلکه نقش مستقيم رهبر معظم انقلاب در ترورها هم انکار خواهد شد. اين تاريخ نويسی پژوهشگرانه نيست، اين جعل تاريخ مطابق ميل سلطان خودکامه است. می نويسد:" من در همان زمان که شاپور بختيار به قتل رسيد قتل او را، بر اساس تحليل، به سرويس اطلاعاتی اسرائيل منتسب کردم؛ در زمان حادثه ميکونوس نيز چنين تحليلی عرضه کردم، و در حوادث مشابه. شادم که امروزه می‌دانم در مسئله قتل شاپور بختيار موضع رهبری انقلاب نيز چنين بوده است".
آدمی آزاد است راه و زندگی خود را انتخاب کند، حتی اگر انتخاب او خدمت به خودکامگان باشد. اما تحريف واقعيات و اهانت به ديگرامن به نام پژوهش تاريخی، چيز ديگری است . تواب اطلاعاتی، در نزاع با همکار سابق اش، بجای آنکه بگويد روح الله حسينيان،قاضی وزرات اطلاعات، سرکوبگر،و دارای ارتباط وثيق با آمران و عاملان قتل های زنجيره ای است ، به مسئولين جمهوری اسلامی هشدار می دهد که به احتمال زياد پدر يا پدر بزرگ روح الله حسينيان بهايی بوده اند. يعنی قتل و جنايت و سرکوب مجاز است، ولی اگر پدر يا پدر بزرگ فرد بهايی باشد، جرم و جنايت است. بهايی بودن از کشتن دگرانديشان مهم تر است. روح الله حسينيان اگر خودش هم بهايی بود هيچ اشکالی نداشت، بر ای اينکه تازه دين او، دين انتخابی می شد. دين همه ما، از جمله فقها و روحانيت، دين والدين است. فقها مسلمانند، چون والدين شان مسلمان بوده است. اگر والدينشان مسيحی بود، آنها هم مسيحی بودند و با همين مشی فعلی از مسيحيت دفاع می کردند و حکم تکفير مسلمين را صادر می کردند.. کدام فقيه تمام اديان را مطالعه کرده پس از آن مسلمانی را انتخاب کرده است؟ هر کس به دين والدين خويش است. فقهای ما از ديگر اديان(کلام و عرفان وفلسفه و ...) شناخت و اطلاع چندانی ندارند. دين حق و مطلق حقيقت نزد آنان حاضر است، ديگر چه نيازی به مطالعه ی ديگر اديان وجود دارد؟ باز هم تأکيد می کنم، مشکل روح الله حسينيان بهايی زاده بودن وی نيست، مشکل و مسأله ی ما اين است که او با يک باند اطلاعاتی – امنيتی جنايتکار (محسنی اژه ای، مصطفی پورمحمدی، رازينی، مصباح يزدی، سعيد امامی و...) چند دهه است که دگرانديشان را سرکوب و ترور می کنند. تواب اطلاعاتی می نويسد که بنيانگذار موثرترين موسسه تحقيقاتی وزارت اطلاعات بوده است. اما توضيح نمی دهد که تاثير پژوهشکده ی وزارت اطلاعات در سرکوب مخالفان رژيم چه بوده است؟
رسم توابين اين است که از حرب اللهی های سابق هم حزب الهی تر شده، به جان اين و آن می افتند که چه کسی مسلمان و چه کسی نامسلمان است؟ به اين موارد توجه کنيد و ببينيد بيماری "بهايی زدگی" چه می کند: الف-خاندان روح الله حسينيان بهايی بوده اند.ب- احمد زيد آبادی در روستايی به دنيا آمده که سکنه قابل توجه بهايی داشته است.اين نوع نقد بهترين نقدی است که بر انديشه های يک تن می توان وارد آورد. يعنی همين که محل تولد و زندگی يک روشنفکر را برملا کنيد و نشان دهيد که چه کسانی در آن منطقه زندگی می کرده اند، تکليف انديشه های آن روشنفکر روشن خواهد شد. آيا اگر کسی در محله ای به دنيا آمده باشد که برخی از ساکنين آن محله فاحشه باشند، انديشه های او از جنس فحشأ خواهد بود؟ ج- هيچ کس در دشمنی آقای خامنه ای با آيت الله منتظری ترديد ندارد. تواب اطلاعاتی، برای خدمت به سلطان، سعی می کند آيت الله منتظری را فردی ساده لوح و بازيچه ی دست اطرافيان معرفی کند. می نويسد ، فتوای آيت الله منتظری در خصوص حقوق شهروندی بهائيان را اطرافيانشان به ايشان القأ کرده اند و اين امر اثبات می کند که ايشان "ساده" اند. روحانيت امروز اگر فخری داشته باشد، آن فخر و نگين کسی جز آيت الله منتظری نيست. اين روحانيت، اگر نابودگر و برباد دهی داشته باشد، آنهم کسی جز آقای خامنه ای نيست که تواب اطلاعاتی در خدمت اوست.
تواب اطلاعاتی از آقای خامنه ای به عنوان "رهبر انقلاب" ياد می کند. يک پژوهشگر تاريخ اگر نمی خواهد در نقش خادم سلطان ظاهر شود، بايد به اين پرسش پاسخ دهد که مگر يک انقلاب چند رهبر دارد يا می تواند داشته باشد؟ آيا چون استالين بعد از مرگ لنين زمامداری اتحاد جماهير سوسياليستی شوروی سابق را بر عهده گرفت، کسی او را "رهبر انقلاب اکتبر" می نامد؟ به همين ترتيب، آيا چون آقای خامنه ای بعد از وفات آقای خمينی زمامداری جمهوری اسلامی را بر عهده گرفت ، يک پژوهشگر تاريخ حق دارد او را "رهبر انقلاب" بنامد؟ رهبر انقلاب ۵۷ آقای خمينی بود. اگر در ميان روحانيون بدنبال کسانی باشيم که در دوران انقلاب نقش موثری ايفا کرده اند، بدون ترديد نام آقای خامنه ای جز ده نفر اول نخواهد بود. خدمت به سلطان خودکامه و تخريب مخالفان او ، بخشی از فرايند خودی سازی يک تواب است.
۸- تمام فتاوی آيت الله صانعی در چند سال اخير، از منظر نوشتار حاضر، محصول فرايند مدنی سازی دين است. عمده ی مقاومت ها در برابر نوانديشی های آيت الله صانعی از سوی کسانی صورت می گيرد که هنوز از جامعه ی گله وار مبتنی بر رابطه ی گوسفند و شبان بيرون نيامده اند.
آيت الله صانعی با اقتفای به فقهای پيشين که اجرای حدود در عصر غيبت را حرام می دانستند، در اجرای حدود توسط جمهوری اسلامی خدشه ی جدی وارد می کند.اين مشی را با مشی سيد محمد خاتمی می توان مقايسه کرد. او وقتی در دانشگاه هاروارد با اين پرسش روبرو می شود که چرا جمهوری اسلامی از مجازات سنگسار که يکی از مصاديق بارز خشونت است استفاده می کند؟ پاسخ می دهد: خشونت به اعمال غير قانونی اطلاق می شود، چيزی که قانونی است خشونت محسوب نمی شود.سنگسار در ايران امری قانونی است، پس خشونت نيست.
به اين ترتيب از نظر خاتمی تعزير متهمان به حکم قاضی برای اعتراف گيری شکنجه محسوب نمی شود، برای اينکه قوانين جمهوری اسلامی ايران قضات مجاز می دارد تا از تعزير استفاده کنند. بنابر اين هيچيک از متهمان سياسی دهه ی شصت در زندانها شکنجه نشده اند. همه ی آنها با حکم قضات برای اعتراف تعزير شده اند.
ارسال مطلب به بالاترین | نسخه قابل چاپ | بازگشت به بالاي صفحه
در همين زمينه:

14 فروردین » مال کافر هست بر مومن حلال؟! نگاهی به مقاله "روشنفکری ِ فقيهانه"، نوشته اکبر گنجی، احمد افرادی، اخبار روز
23 اسفند » روشنفکری فقيهانه، اکبر گنجی
20 اسفند » صدای سلطان و صدای آزادی، گامی به سوی تحريم انتخابات، اکبر گنجی
16 اسفند » به کام سلطان، به زيان دموکراسی، مشارکت در فريضه جهاد دشمن کوب سلطان، اکبر گنجی
3 اسفند » معيارهای دوگانه رژيم خودکامه ايران، اکبر گنجی، نيوزويک بين المللی
دنبالک:

فهرست زير سايت هايي هستند که به 'از حق بهايی بودن تا بهايی صاحب حق بودن، نکاتی پيرامون فتوای اخير آيت الله منتظری، اکبر گنجی، راديو زمانه' لينک داده اند.
:: صفحه اول
:: بی بی سی فارسی
:: سياست
:: جامعه
:: فرهنگ و هنر
:: ديدنيها
:: پيام آشنا
:: تکنولوژی
:: ورزش
:: اقتصاد
:: جهان
:: مجموعه مطالب
» گويا
» درباره ما

Comment	Author
Coincidence?	Demo
it would have been disrespectful if . . .	Saman Ahmadi
Thanks Alborz. I appreciate	SaidAmin
حیرت از این سَگدانی	Demo
Thank you Said	alborz

Comment

Author

Coincidence?

Demo

it would have been disrespectful if . . .

Saman Ahmadi

Thanks Alborz. I appreciate

Person	About	Day
نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز		Dec 04
Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day	Lawyer says death sentence suspended	Dec 03
Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day	Iterview with mother	Dec 02
احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱		Dec 02
Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day	46 days on hunger strike	Dec 01
Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti	In Barcelona	Nov 30
گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی		Nov 30
Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day	Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years	Nov 30
محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین		Nov 29
Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day	Kurdish Activist on Death Row	Nov 28

Person

About

Day

نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز

Dec 04

Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day

Lawyer says death sentence suspended

Dec 03

Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day

Iterview with mother

Dec 02

احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱

Dec 02

Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day

46 days on hunger strike

Dec 01

Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti

In Barcelona

Nov 30

گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی

Nov 30

Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day

Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years

Nov 30

محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین

Nov 29

Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day

Kurdish Activist on Death Row

Nov 28

I agree ABCDEFG

by Mehran-001 (not verified) on Thu Jun 19, 2008 11:17 PM PDT

There is definitely something wrong and that could well be the religion. I think people in Iran should work on their priorities.

Mehran...

by Anonymous abcdefg (not verified) on Thu Jun 19, 2008 08:09 PM PDT

That is what religion turns one into: a dysfunctional mind. Religion tells you that someone else has already decided for you and you should accept that without question.

Recently I saw someone stressing the hejab, regurgitating what President Doctor Bani sadr said that female hair propagates some sort of ray that makes males excited... and that is not fair to men and therefore females should hide their hair. But the same person did not complain about the numerous executions of youth because it was in the name of religion and who can question the order of god.

At the core of religion is a blind obedience for mullas to rule. As god asked prophet abraham to sacrifice his son and he did so -- total unquestionable obedience! Well, but a free-thinking person would have said to god: "I do not murder anyone, even for you; if you want murder, you need to do it yourself." But then the establishment of mullas, rabbis, and pastors would be shattered.

Iranians are hypocrits

by Mehran-001 (not verified) on Thu Jun 19, 2008 05:52 PM PDT

I really don't mean to offend anyone and this is just an observation. A girl in Sanadaj University is sexually harassed and rightfully other students came to her help and the whole hell broke loose and pictures are everywhere.

Seven Bahahi's get arrested and some of them killed and a number of other political prisoners are put in a hole and what do we do? Nada, Zilch.

I don't get it. Obviously there are enough brave Iranians out there to help a helpless girl but no one is there for the minorities and political prisoners. What is missing here?

Re: Bahai

by Jafar (not verified) on Wed Jun 18, 2008 11:13 AM PDT

I have many good friends who are Baha’i and I like them very much. One thing we need to notice that the IRI is looking for attention and publicity. If we talk about the issue publicly they folks make the life more miserable for the Baha’is. We need to use a quiet diplomacy to resolve the issue.

Guess what if during the hostage crisis the Government of Iran did not have two-three hours day prime time it wouldn't lasted that long. If Ahmadinejad’s comments on Israel didn't get publicity so much he wouldn't repeat it Iran.

The bankrupt government wants attention and we are giving it to them.

We need to stop it.

Jafar

EDS - Thank...

by alborz on Mon Jun 16, 2008 05:24 PM PDT

...you also. While we can agree that we need to be civil towards each other, why this civility is so hard to achieve in this world has an underlying reason. That is what this dialogue with you has been all about, and particular in relation to the situation of the Baha'is. In fact this applies to every cause that we as humans stand for and at times die for. This is why the issue of racism is not addressed with civility. It is better than nothing but hardly enough.

Alborz

Concluding my discussion

by EDS on Mon Jun 16, 2008 04:11 PM PDT

albourz I appreciate your exchanges with me following Ganji's article.

I like to conclude my discussion this way:

I
think I now have a better understanding of your position. You just want to let
the Baha'is know that they should not feel alone as they are amongst other
poorly treated members of the society. By doing this you may want to make
them feel better. Your intentions may be good, but please accept this for
what it is worth, it is not working. Mr. Ganji's attempt also failed miserably.
Since you are not part of an oppressed group, then it may make sense to
reconsider your approach in being supportive, if that is your intent.

No,
unfortunately you are just as far in understanding my position as the
beginning. This is because rather than
carefully read what is written you make wild guesses to somehow mold it to your
existing perspective and preferring outcomes.

For
example,

It
seems that you are more intent in pointing out that the persecution of the
Baha'is is no different than other attrocities that stem from a threat to the
IRI.

No. Each is similar or different based on the
details of its case. And all are bad. The greater the unjust harm inflicted the
worst it is.

Your
stance in this regard, now leads me to think that perhaps you would perfer to
view the world from the perspective of the oppressor rather than the
oppressed.

No. I prefer to look the world from the
perspective of the truth. Just because a
group is oppressed, their untruths do not become true, be it to sympathize. Similarly just because a group are the
majority, even 99.99% majority, their opinion is not the truth nor is it right
for them to prosecute the minority based on their differing beliefs.

Which
brings me back to my intention on posting on this article to begin with, and
what is consistent in all my posts here:

My
intention was to point out what I believe is the right solution to end
persecution of and even discrimination against Baha’is and all other similar cases.
That Mr. Ganji’s proposed solution will
not work as is a wrong on top of a wrong. The solution is not to push for a false notion
that opposing ideas are equally right, as Ganji argues and others have
here. It is instead to remind and stand
up for what is right. And that is that
what is just and right is that you should not mistreat others, be unjust
towards them, withhold care and love from them, or disassociate with them based
on the fact that they do not profess the same ideology or faith as your self,
even if you find their ideology to be false.
Rather what matters is actions. Actions
such as prosecution of a person or a group simply because of their differing
ideology must be condemned and stood up to, yet they each can hold whatever
belief they like, feel strongly about it and promote it.

EDS - being more precise ...

by alborz on Mon Jun 16, 2008 03:06 PM PDT

...is good as long as we don't loose the intent or the big picture.

Other reasons include history and Baha’i communities relations with Israel, and some others. Please do not misunderstand the latter. I am not saying Baha’i faith is an Israeli conspiracy and such, but for political reasons, the Islamic Republic is paranoid of Israel as is Israel of any of its neighbors. I

It seems that you are more intent in pointing out that the persecution of the Baha'is is no different than other attrocities that stem from a threat to the IRI. Your stance in this regard, now leads me to think that perhaps you would perfer to view the world from the perspective of the oppressor rather than the oppressed. In the case of the Baha'is, you seem very intent in clarifying the position of the oppressor. In this case you convey "an equal opportunity oppressor" sense about the IRI. I would like to know how you would go after the release of a loved one from Evin. Would you argue his/her case or would you attempt to call into question the entire system? Would you argue his/her case or would you call into question the judge's qualification? It is just way too easy to intellectualize and rationalize on the computer.

Inaccurate response.

I don't think so ! This is what you wrote earlier.

To be fair he has used the term "exclusionary Bahais" meaning not all Bahais and he did not even say that they do this but they may do this from an exclusionary point of view.

So I have responded by saying that this is a fiction of his imagination and serves the purpose of advancing his theory. Baha'is by definition cannot be exclusionary, because they believe in the divine nature of all past religions. "Exclusionary" and "Inclusionary" cannot coexist. Anyone that is "exclusionary" in their view cannot be referred to as a Baha'i. Just as no one can be called a Moslem if they don't believe that Jesus and Moses were Prophets of God. This is so fundamental that if we don't get past this, we will be going in circles. This what happened when Mr. Ganji uses the wrong framework for his thesis.

As I had indicated in a different post, all you have to consider is the case of Hashem Aghajari. He was not just Muslim but Shia Muslim. He was a supporter of the Islamic Republic. He was an Iran-Iraq veteran. He was even injured in that war. He was condemned to
death and later after immense pressure his sentence was reduced to imprisonment. Why? Was it because of some political matter? No, it was a religious prosecution. He had mildly, mildly challenged the Islamic Republic’s version of Islam. His was a famous well publicized case so many know about it. There are numerous other cases that are not well known.

I cannot accept you conclusion. This was a politically motivated persecution, because IRI is a large laboratory for experimenting with the implementation of Islamic governance and jurisprudence. The persecution of the Bahai's predates this experiment and so please don't make such comparisons. The Baha'is were persecuted to varying degrees also during the previous regime. So your analogy is nothing but rationalization that I am sure you would not engage in if you only looked at the big picture (past 160 years) and tried to validate your theories by first attempting to invalidate them.

Such prosecutions are not exclusive to the Baha’is. Neither is it limited to the issue of finality of prophet-hood (prophet=nabi.) Rather it is around anything that makes the religious establishment feel threatened in their dogmatic hold over the people.

No one has said that persecutions are limited to Baha'is. For Baha'is the basis is chosen depending on the specific circumstance. Sometimes alleged political affiliation is used, other times it is misrepresentation of tenents and principles and how it is considered a heresy. The nature of the persecutions are however specific as they are systematic and have longer term objective of annihilation. A response that is not at all justified either by fact or fiction .

I think I now have a better understanding of your position. You just want to let the Baha'is know that they should not feel alone as they are amongst other poorly treated members of the society. By doing this you may want to make them feel better. Your intentions may be good, but please accept this for what it is worth, it is not working. Mr. Ganji's attempt also failed miserably. Since you are not part of an oppressed group, then it may make sense to reconsider your approach in being supportive, if that is your intent. Otherwise the point you have so carefully been trying to make is of little value other than an exchange.

Bringing awareness and clarification to a sea of misinformation has purpose, and that is why I write here. What is your motivation?

More accurate and precise

by EDS on Mon Jun 16, 2008 11:56 AM PDT

albourz, more accuracy and precision in your posts will help exchanges.

Can you explain what other reason exists?

Other reasons include history and
Baha’i communities relations with Israel, and some others. Please do not misunderstand the latter. I am not saying Baha’i faith is an Israeli
conspiracy and such, but for political reasons, the Islamic Republic is
paranoid of Israel as is Israel of any
of its neighbors.

Because you said in your previous post that Mr. Ganji was referring to
"some Baha'is", while my point was that he needed to have stuck with
principles, had he known them.

Here you may have missed a key part ...I said "as interpreted by
the clergy" This distinguishes the adulterating influence of
the clergy with the divine nature of Islam. This makes your conclusion
moot. Please revisit, if you wish.

Yes I had noticed that. However, this is not what Seagull had said,
what the discussion has been about, what Tahirih later defended, and where you
came in. In fact you also indirectly
supported it; rather than correct Seagull you affirmed his stance by saying
that you too also believe in progressive revelation, meaning that such is
progressive revelation. I have remained
consistently precise, and in my previous post I was careful to attribute the
statement to Seagull and not to you.

While you don't offer any reason as to why you think it is false, you are entitled to your views without explanation.

I did in my previous posts several times.
So I refer you to them. If you
like to discuss further, you need to give a specific examples not generalities
to give meaning to “progressive revelation” as you understanding it.

This last paragraph was the aha paragraph. So let me address it
directly. Christ acknowledged Moses, and Muhammad acknowledged both Moses
and Christ. But the Jews refuted Christ and both Christians and Jews
refuted the claims of Muhammad. Do you see the pattern of the latter
acknowleding the former and the former refuting the latter? On this same
basis the Moslems refute Baha'u'llah. Jews crucified Jesus. Moslems
banishe Baha'u'llah. The key and perceived obstacle is that of the term
Khatamol Nabieen or Seal of the Prophets. Baha'is interpret this as the
end of the Prophetic (Prophet = Nabi) Cycle. They also believe that
Baha'u'llah inaugurated the Cycle of Fulfillment. The clergy consider
this a heresy and a threat. Who else other than Baha'is can pose such a
threat? Certainly the Christians and Jews are acknowledged in the Quran,
so despite their refutation of Muhammad they are protected. Imagine
that ! Both refute Muhammad and yet they are protected !! Baha'is
not only don't refute Muhammad and believe in Him as a divine Messenger, and
they get persecuted !!

So your comment that the response to a threat will be the same, where can
it come from?

EDS - I will use your

by alborz on Mon Jun 16, 2008 01:18 AM PDT

... approach to respond.

The difference is that more accurately, this is a chief reason but not the only reason.

In what way that is related to any of the discussions I have
had?

while Islam teaches mistreatment of those who are
not Muslim....That for example the faith that teaches mistreatment of followers and the one that does not are both divine. This is inconsistent with God of reality.

the idea of progressive revelation as false.

What Baha’i ideology states is only relevant as far as it relates to such Islamic ideology. Any other belief or faith that similarly challenge the Islamic ideology of the Islamic Republic is treated just as harshly or even more harshly depending on the threat they feel.

So your comment that the response to a threat will be the same, where can it come from? As for the Islamic republic, it is not alone in persecuting the Baha'is. The Egyptian Baha'is are in similar circumstances. So the idealogy that has roots in the interpretation of clerics is going to find a way to legitimately eliminate the Baha'is because it claims that another divine Messenger has come. Where the clergy are in the ruling institutions then they have more leverage in their objectives (eg. Iran). When they are not, less (eg. Egypt).

After all, the understanding of fair minded persons, like you, can only remove the misconceptions, even if there is a difference in opinion.

Remaining precise and to the point

by EDS on Sun Jun 15, 2008 07:42 PM PDT

I am sorry alborz, I am afraid you are talking past my posts
and also Ganji’s article. Maybe quoting
you helps:

albourz:
For this reason, all that I can tell you is that the
animating force behind the persecution of the Baha'is is rooted in Islamic
doctrine as interpreted by the clergy and how that serves as the guide to
Iran's laws and people's perceptions. I hope that there is no
disagreement here.

There isn’t. I had
pointed this out prior to your post so obviously I agree. The difference is that more accurately, this
is a chief reason but not the only reason.

albourz:
No such parallel exists in Baha'i doctrine. So even
if you would like to explain away Mr. Ganji's representation of Baha'is to have
been limited to "some Bahai's" then it is at best sloppy and
irrelevant to an article that is dealing with the condition of 300,000 Baha'is
in Iran.

Yes no such parallel exists in the Baha’i doctrine, I agree. Specifically the Baha’i doctrine does not
teach mistreatment of those who do not hold the Baha’i faith. But that is irrelevant to any of my posts. What you, Seagull, and Tahirih had tried to
argue is that no such doctrine exists in the Baha’i faith because we consider
all other religions including Islam as divine and Seagull and Tahirih
(indirectly) had argued that, while Islam teaches mistreatment of those who are
not Muslim. I did not object to the
first sentence. What I objected to is
the notion that Islam is divine yet it teaches mistreatment of non-Muslims. This is essentially committing the same mistake
as Ganji does in his article where I had pointed out that the basis for Ganji’s
analysis is incorrect. And that is the
notion that opposing relevant views are equally right. That for example the faith that teaches
mistreatment of followers and the one that does not are both divine. This
is inconsistent with God of reality.

No, I did not explain away Ganji’s article, instead I very
accurately reported what he said rather than incorrectly attribute to him what
he had not said.

The government of Iran based on its Islamic laws
continues it persecution against the Baha'is because of the Baha'i doctrine,
not because one or two Baha'is said this or believe that.

For this reason alone, I invite you to investigate the
Baha'i principles independently.

I suppose in this way.
You wish to have a way to invite my investigation of the Baha’i faith. Thank you.
I have and I yet will. And as you
can see I find one of the tenets of Baha’i faith, the idea of progressive
revelation as false. This does not mean
that I think Baha’is should be mistreated or that I dislike Baha’is and such.

Certainly learning about the Baha'is and their doctrine
through Mr. Ganji, or anyone else will leave you only with impressions that is
not conducive to an informed analysis which this has been all about.

I certainly have not relied on Ganji’s article for learning
about the Baha’i faith. I in fact
objected to Ganji’s article on the same basis that I object to the tenet of
Baha’i faith, progressive relevation.

We are not talking about the righs of Moslem, Jews, or
Christians here. We are talking about the rights of Baha'is. Do you not think
it is important to know why it is that they are deprived of their rights?

I think it is important, but I think you do not think it is
important and are instead more interested in the Baha’i faith itself. The reason is within Islamic ideology among
the rulers and much of the Iranian population. What Baha’i ideology states is only relevant
as far as it relates to such Islamic ideology. Any other belief or faith that similarly
challenge the Islamic ideology of the Islamic Republic is treated just as
harshly or even more harshly depending on the threat they feel.

But seriously did you do ALL THAT for ME

by Bidaram (not verified) on Sun Jun 15, 2008 03:59 PM PDT

Indeed! Consider it a minor balancing payback for all the offense that others have sent your way. I dislike injustice if I can help it. Sorry I did not translate the whole thing but it is just too long, and you get the drift.

Welcome!

Yes Bidaram DID provide a translation Anon, he certainly did...

by Rosie T. on Sun Jun 15, 2008 01:39 PM PDT

I am simply overwhelmed, Bidaram...I feel....like I belong here...I feel...loved, secure, provided for, things my father never gave me. :o) But seriously did you do ALL THAT for ME or for your COUNTRY or for the BAHAI or for GANJI or because you're practicing to become a professional translator? I simply CANNOT believe it. I'm speechless. (Well, not REEEEALLY, but you get my drift...)

Thanks so much!

Rosie

EDS...if only we could...

by alborz on Sun Jun 15, 2008 01:28 PM PDT

...speak and not keep writing past each we would have found ourselves in complete agreement. The exchanges here are of less importance to me as your understanding of the fundamental principles of the Baha'i Faith. This is the source and that which, if Mr. Ganjy had bothered to familiarize himself with without bias he would not have engaged in this mental gymnastics. I consider it just that, because a person that put his life on the line for the cause of freedom, today has the freedom to investigate and even quote from the Baha'i Writings and yet, according to you, uses "some Baha'is may..." as a basis for rationalizing his theories. What a shame !

For this reason, all that I can tell you is that the animating force behind the persecution of the Baha'is is rooted in Islamic doctrine as interpreted by the clergy and how that serves as the guide to Iran's laws and people's perceptions. I hope that there is no disagreement here.

No such parallel exists in Baha'i doctrine. So even if you would like to explain away Mr. Ganji's representation of Baha'is to have been limited to "some Bahai's" then it is at best sloppy and irrelevant to an article that is dealing with the condition of 300,000 Baha'is in Iran. The government of Iran based on its Islamic laws continues it persecution against the Baha'is because of the Baha'i doctrine, not because one or two Baha'is said this or believe that. An entire community's will and survival is rooted in its fundamental beliefs and yet Mr. Ganji misses the opportunity to address those fudamental beliefs which is nothing like that which is represented in his article. What a shame again!

For this reason alone, I invite you to investigate the Baha'i principles independently. Certainly learning about the Baha'is and their doctrine through Mr. Ganji, or anyone else will leave you only with impressions that is not conducive to an informed analysis which this has been all about. We are not talking about the righs of Moslem, Jews, or Christians here. We are talking about the rights of Baha'is. Do you not think it is important to know why it is that they are deprived of their rights?

There are many sources on the net, but I suggest the following as a starting point.

//www.bahaullah.com/

I again appreciate your follow up but I think we have reached the limits of this medium, as I feel I have failed to get points across as clearly as I should have to address the remaining misconceptions initiated on several fronts.

The invitation to talk remains.

Marco, Bidaram translated for Rosie T

by Anonymous1 (not verified) on Sun Jun 15, 2008 12:11 PM PDT

Translation to English

by Marco Oliveira (not verified) on Sun Jun 15, 2008 11:09 AM PDT

Will anyone provide a translation of this article to English?... Please!

In a nutshell

by EDS on Sun Jun 15, 2008 10:39 AM PDT

Tahirih, I am glad that we agree on somethings and it is all right
that we may disagree on others.

alborz, thank you for the explanation.

This is a subtle point and and I hope I can explain it clearly. However, every party, 1) Ganji, 2) you and
other Bahais here, 3) some Muslims and others here, and 4) I have consistently
argued the same throughout our posts and Ganji in his article. Understanding the relation of this is what
explains the exchanges.

1) The basis of Ganji's article is that we should not say that the view we
hold is more right than others. That this is what exclusionary Islam does
and why Bahais have been treated unjustly.
The solution is to stop doing this.
This is the article in a nutshell. (Der you go Rosie :)

1-2) To make this point he claimed that exclusionary Bahais hold the view
that Islam is fergheye zaalle just as exclusionary Islam holds that Bahai
faith is fergheye zaalle. To be fair he
has used the term "exclusionary Bahais" meaning not all Bahais and he
did not even say that they do this but they may do this from an exclusionary
point of view.

2) This is what you objected to. You
tried to explain that Bahais do not hold this view as they believe in divinity
of all religions including Islam. (you
had another objection, however, even that is rooted in this point) Other Bahai’s agreed in their subsequent
posts.

3) Some objected to your point and a discussion ensued. Other Bahais also continued to argue your
point while others tried to show that in fact, despite claims, Bahais do hold
the view one way or another that the Bahai faith is right to the exclusion of
others.

4) In my initial post to Ganji, in my subsequent exchanges with Seagull and
Tahirih, and in my last post to you I have argued that the premise for 1) Ganji’s
article as well as the premise for your arguments, 2) is false.

I believe it is false that one should try to believe that the opposing relevant
views of others are just as right as his.
No one can or does this. He can
only pretend to do so and it is grounds for hypocrisy. This is not the solution to such
discriminations as that against the Bahais under the IR; it will quickly fall
apart because it is false as it has even in the exchanges here. Instead, if one finds an opposing relevant
view to be more right then he should drop his own and adopt this. Two opposing relevant views are not equally
right. One is more right than the other. Not only this is inherent in human view of
the world in fact it is the basis of belief in One god. That there is truth, one order to the universe
not two or three: chaos. In case of
Bahai faith, there may be a different wording but in the end Bahais do believe
that their faith is right for our times and Islam may have been divine but it
is outdated for our times. Additionally, I have argued that it is false
to argue that God would have decreed for humans to give almost no rights to
those who do not follow his religion at the hands of its followers in the past,
1000 or 200 years ago but to change this now in his new religion, the Bahai
faith. Such a god is not compatible with
reality.

To repeat my previous post the solution is to promote what is right and just. And that is that you should not mistreat
others, be unjust towards them, withhold care and love from them, or
disassociate with them based on the fact that they do not profess the same
ideology or faith as your self, even if you find their ideology to be false. Neither should you mistreat others, be unjust
towards them, withhold care and love from them, or disassociate with those who
do not share the same "name," color, or tribe as your own self.
Rather what matters are actions. And
absolutely there are cases where one should stand up to and be harsh towards certain people
because of their unjust behavior towards you even if this is what their faith decrees for them.

Now you have Rosie T....

by alborz on Sat Jun 14, 2008 11:27 PM PDT

...thanks to Bidaram. You can now see how excited we get by glacial movements on this topic. The comments should now make more sense.

Ofcourse Mr. Ganji uses several points (see Misconceptions ...) to explain the impact and significance of the fatwa. If these were correctly expressed, the explanation would not make sense and would have had to have been something entirely different.

:o)

by Bidaram (not verified) on Sat Jun 14, 2008 10:01 PM PDT

Paragraph 5: 1- The misguided bahai sect: Religious monopolists consider their religion the absolute truth, guidance, and prosperous; and consider other religions void, misguided, and oppressive. Monopolists believe that prosperity, freedom, spiritual evolution, and anything else that is the aim of religion, is monopolized by their religion and can only be achieved by following their religion. Monopolists of every religion have the same attitude. If all these religious monopolists considered collectively as a whole, the only conclusion is that all religions are void, misguided, and oppressive. From the point of view of religious monopolist, the misguided bahai sect is as misguided as any other religion. When religious monopolists consider bahais as misguided, the bahai monopolists would also consider the accusers as misguided. This is true of moslims (sunni and shia) as well as Christians and jews. Before a muslim calls bahais misguided, (s)he'd better remember the following:

"Alone, a stranger and afraid, lost in a world I never made."

by Bidaram (not verified) on Sat Jun 14, 2008 09:42 PM PDT

Paragraph 4: Ayatollah montazeri's fatwa is brave. If you look at religious open-mindedness. If you can ignore the confrontations of the islamic republic with the bahais. If you ignore the attitude of religious seminaries towards bahais. However, the silence of religious intellectuals cannot be ignored. Religious intellectuals have said a lot on human rights issues, but have chosen meaningful silence in dealing with one of the most important human rights' violations in iran. Objecting to the oppression of bahais and defending their fundamental rights is the obligation of any religious intellectual. In view of this fatwa, as a shia moslim, I'd like to bring up several issues:

I feel rejected. Scorned.

by Bidaram (not verified) on Sat Jun 14, 2008 09:31 PM PDT

Paragraph 3: Had there been no inhumane behaviour, incorrect and illogical attitude [towards bahais], there would have been no need for such a fatwa, and neither he would have been considered so brave. His brevity is evident in the eyes of those who are familiar with attitudes of shia religious leaders. Religious leaders consider bahais as misguided that should be obliterated [didn't we hear that before from you know who?]. For example, mr. khomeini talks about them in an occasion: "a very dangerous trouble is the increasing presence and influence of bahais in all organizations and organs and I do not know where this ends. they will soon make plans to bring us dangers. I have given serious warnings to the government leaders, but they have denied the danger, but I cannot trust them. I am thinking how I can diminish bahais' influence" [ayatollah's farsi & arabic mix is worse than my translation of his non-sense].

5 lines, 5 lines would've been enough.

by Bidaram (not verified) on Sat Jun 14, 2008 09:07 PM PDT

Quick and dirty partial translation:

Paragraph 1: Recent fatwa from ayatollah montazeri is a step forward. He says: "Bahai's, unlike Muslims, Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians, lack any revealed text and therefore are not considered religious minority in IRI constitution. But as citizens of this country have rights of any other citizen, and should also enjoy the islamic kindness stressed by the holy book and the prophet."

Paragraph 2: This fatwa once again gives the opportunity to criticize the attitude and behaviour of iranians, religious leaders, intellectuals, and IRI government towards bahai's by the open and fair minded people. This fatwa speaks of immense injustice (in education, government employment, religious duties, imprisonment, forced conversion, and murder; as is apparent in the following two incidents: (1) Jamal Zadeh in his text "without beginning and end" says that when he was a child, he was passing thru bazaar; suddenly heard the scream of "bahai, babi" followed by pouring kerosene on someone's head and set him on fire. (2) An old woman's throat who was the sister of some famous intellectual was cut right after the revolution for being bahai).

[I had not heard the first story ever, but I trust that Jamal Zadeh would not lie].

Nobody ever gave me the short summary I asked for...

by Rosie T. on Sat Jun 14, 2008 08:11 PM PDT

I feel rejected. Scorned. "Alone, a stranger and afraid, lost in a world I never made."

What I was thinking EDS...

by alborz on Sat Jun 14, 2008 02:05 AM PDT

...was that your original exchange with Seagull and Tahirih related to comments regarding the relevancy of the teachings of Islam in this day and age. While I too believe in the concept of progressive revelation, I think that the way in which it was conveyed led to an exchange that diverged from the essence of the original article which was to create awareness and understanding.

The exchange that took place masked the enlightened position that you hold in response to an oppression that a community to which both Seagull and Tahirih belong. My exchange with Ali1234, I thought would be relevant, because, this could have led to a similar series of misunderstandings stemming from positions of having to defend a position which in fact was not relevant nor conducive to mutual appreciation and respect. I and Ali1234 did not allow that to happen because the essence of true discourse is to remain respectful and objective. I need to express myself in such a way that not only does not evoke a negative response from you, but that the lines of communication remain open. My exchange with Ali1234 referred to the specific situation of the Baha'is and Iran's not so secret POGROM against them, and how understanding this, goes a long way in not only understanding the Baha'i principles, NOT just through the Baha'is on this site, but also through independent investigation.

For example it is not uncommon for the persecution of the Baha'is to be likened to the suffering of other groups in Iran. This stems from a lack of appreciation for the nature of these of persecutions and why Baha'is believe it is not only different but systematic and purposeful. The ultimate goal is annihilation. This is not an exaggeration, if you understood the underlying basis.

My first entry on this article (Misperceptions Propagated...)pointed out that Mr. Ganji has several false facts in his article that if corrected will change the nature of his rationale as it relates to the Baha'is, since his article is after all about the rights of Baha'is. You have made reference to his article and therefore I ask that you examine it again in light of these misrepresentations.

Speaking out for Baha'is and their rights in Iran requires an understanding of their beliefs and principles so that their persecution is placed in an accurate context. Once this is done then the approach for its defense will change and will at least not have erroneous representations that do nothing but to cause further harm on an already violated community.

Again, your views are yours and should be respected. They are by me. All that I can do is point out why I have a different perspective without the least trace of pride, prejudice or righteousness.

Eds I agree with you 110%

by Tahirih on Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:37 PM PDT

I read the bold part of your last comment , and agree with it 110%. The only part that I beg to differ is the part about harsh reaction to people that have been cruel towards a person. We can react ,but not harshly to cause loss of life.

otherwise for the rest of your bold ed comment , I am with you.

have a good and peacefull night,

Tahirih

and I appreciate

by EDS on Fri Jun 13, 2008 08:31 PM PDT

your kind words. I did look through your exchanges with albourz and
could not spot the relevance to my previous exchanges or what it may be that
you like to share with me. If you could direct me to what you like to
point out to me with regard to my exchanges with Tahrih or Seagull or my
original post in this thread that would be great.

Otherwise, I have no disillusions about the absolutely horrific treatment
Bahais have received under the Islamic Republic. While, all Iranians who
do not conform to the IR ideology have suffered, especially religious
minorities, few groups have been treated as badly as the Bahais. I have
witnessed this first hand. Therefore, the resentment Bahais feel is quite
understandable.

Further, such discrimination is not limited to the regime itself. Many
Iranian Muslims have been complicit. And since you are wondering out loud
as to why I think this is, I think it has multitude of reasons, including
Bahai's also bearing some responsibility, but one chief reason is the particular
Islamic ideology that is prevalent. And that ideology is to mistreat
those who do not confess the same ideology as your self, be unjust
towards them or at best disassociate with them. Such ideology is not just
prevalent among Muslims it is prevalent among Jews for example or Chirsitans
for example, and also among non-religious groups such as say the French or the
Germans. It is just that it so to various degrees. It is better for
some than others and changes over time, sometimes for the better and sometimes
for the worst.

Further, in some cases, as the case of Islam in Iran as exemplified by the
various ruling of the "Ayatollahs" or the Jews for example it is
institutionalized in the ideology itself and if people do not do such it is in
defying their institutionalized ideology.
This does not mean that such ideologies are cast in stone. They do change over time and they are not
monolithic.

The solution is not to push for a false notion that opposing ideas are
equally right, as Ganji initially argues and others have here. It is
instead to say and remind on what is right.

And that is that what is just and right is that you should not mistreat
others, be unjust towards them, withhold care and love from them, or
disassociate with them based on the fact that they do not profess the same
ideology or faith as your self, even if you find their ideology to be false. Neither should you mistreat others, be unjust
towards them, withhold care and love from them, or disassociate with those who
do not share the same "name," color, or tribe as your own self.
Rather what matters are actions. And
absolutely there are cases where one should be harsh towards certain people
because of their unjust behavior towards you.

what Mohammad PUB said!

by Seagull (not verified) on Fri Jun 13, 2008 08:24 PM PDT

EDS,
Although as Alborz pointed out this is irrelevent to the issue of self determination and right of worship, nevertheless I say a few words and hope to clarify any misgivings.

claim of absolute;

What I try to stress in my previous post is in Quarn.
Although early moslems did not make this distinction and went into many ruinous wars.

Mohammad PUB made the same claims about his religion and book yet he also said the following. Is it contradiction? I dont think so, it needs deeper understanding and better appreciation!

Verily, those who believe and those who are Jews, and the Sabaeans, and the Christians, whosoever believes in God and the last day, and does what is right, there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.

(The Qur'an (E.H. Palmer tr), Sura 5 - The Table)

Therefore has God rewarded them, for what they said, with gardens beneath which rivers flow, to dwell therein for aye; that is the reward of those who do good; but those who disbelieve and say our signs are lies, they are the fellows of hell.

EDS - I appreciate...

by alborz on Fri Jun 13, 2008 05:42 PM PDT

...your logic and rationale. I have read your comments carefully. Rather than repeating myself here, perhaps you can read my exchange with Ali1234 as you may find it relevant.

Your last comment in making a distinction between Baha'is in general, Baha'i principles, and those that have exchanged views with you, is a profound indication of an englightened individual.

Where we each are in the evolution referenced in this exchange is as important as what the world of humanity has evidenced in its progress. All analogies, including the one on seasons, can run their course and can be disputed in an argument. But, if we remain focused on the reality of the circumstances that each of us face, then we will find that it is of little relevance to those that are now imprisoned for their faith, those that are denied education for their faith, those that are denied burial of their loved one for their faith, those that are denied pensions and jobs for their faith, those that have their property confiscated for their faith, and those that have ultimately been dinied life for their faith.

Please step back and ask yourself why and what is at the root of it. No one else, can answer this question for you and hope to convince you of anything. Whatever the answer may be, you need to be at peace with it. No doubt, you would extend a hand of friendship to a Baha'i, if you met one and may feel compelled to express your stance as being against all that has and continues to transpire. Your understanding is all that is asked for, no more, no less.

Again, if you have a chance please read the other comments between Ali1234 and I.

Ali1234 - We can agree ...

by alborz on Fri Jun 13, 2008 05:23 PM PDT

...to disagree and yet remain respectful of each other's fundamental rights. Having read your comments carefully I respect you as a fair minded individual that would not allow a difference in opinion to oppress the rights of others when in a position to do so. Please read this part again, "when in a position to do so".

In this context I appeal to your judgement and I ask you to consider the difference that exists when one group is dominant towards another in a society. For example the language used and the perspective of a white person on race as a challenge in this society will be quite different from that of a black person. The black person's perspective comes from experiencing the ravages of racism. The white person, not having experienced racism, will need to first develop an appreciation of this experience even though it is hard, before engaging in such a discourse.

Iranian Baha'is speaking about issues of persecution in their homeland are compelled to remove a mountain of misconceptions and in this process they are vigilant in addressing a machinary that propagates fiction and lies that evolves to suit the purposes of its arch enemies. So when you step forward, please keep in mind, the imbalance that exists and so a fair minded person like you are in a position to appreciate that for Baha'is it is a matter of "life and death" and for you an intellectual exercise. If Iran was filled with people like you, no religious minority in Iran, including Baha'is, would have to fear their very existance and survival.

Despite these circumstances, Baha'is remain committed to their absolute principle of consorting with all people without regard for their religious or other affiliations. Even if they have absolute principles, none of them result in adverse events or encroach on the rights of others. So being absolutist in this manner should not be a cause for alarm or concern.

Thanks for engaging in a thoughtful exchange.

Bad advice Tahirih

by EDS on Fri Jun 13, 2008 04:36 PM PDT

Your advice to me is:

EDS,بگو از بهائی بدم میاد و خودت را راحت کن"

That is a bad advice. If it is truthful then it is not such a good idea to urge people to dislike an entire group of people whom you are not a spokesman or woman for. If it is sarcastic, and it certainly appears that way, then it is even worse, because you are judging that I must dislike Bahais because I disagree with your point of view. Of course since I know the truth of my own heart that would be laughable.

Instead, I will not agree with what I know to be untruthful to appease others. In this case, what you and Seagull have expressed, is false. Yes, correct you did not in your version directly blame Islam for Muslims using name calling against others, but Seagull did, and you defended his explanation and falsely claimed that my post is irrelevant to his. Here is Seagull said,

In Islam non-moslems are not only Kafar
but they have very little rights! We agree that Islam is a religion of
God,..."

The further explanation you gave is also false. Evidence does not support such a notion. You say or support that it was the winter of God's instructions to humans and this is why it was God's holy instruction to humans 200 years ago that those that do not follow His instructions should have very little rights at the hands of its followers and the followers should call them names to denegrade. How unjust of this god for those who were born in the winter of god's instructions to humans!

If 200 years ago was the winter, is 1000 years ago the spring? Ok, why would these be just and holy from God 1000 years ago?

I will not agree with what I know to be false even to appease others. I will call it out, and I will share what I believe to be the truth, truthfully. Now of course after this, I do not insist that you agree. No problem.

Spring Rain

by scb (not verified) on Fri Jun 13, 2008 02:46 PM PDT

These comments in the main are like spring rain on the heart's-garden . . .

That so many influential Iranians have made statements about Baha'is gives me so much heart. Even if the understanding is not perfect, even if there still remains some trepidation.

It seems that Iranians who have lived so close to us for so long finally will understand who we are, what we really stand for.

Baha'u'llah was a grand Iranian, standing uncompromisingly for justice, truth and humanity.

"Let nothing grieve thee, O Land of Ta, [Tihran] for God hath chosen thee to be the source of the joy of all mankind."

-Baha'u'llah

Regarding those who have doubts about the location of the Bahai World Centre in Israel . . .

Baha'is would have made any place where Baha'u'llah was laid to rest a Holy Place. This is what He inspires in us. Baha'u'llah was exiled by the Ottomans originally to Istanbul, then to Edirne, then to Akka because persons within the then Persian Consulates in Baghdad and Istanbul agitated against Him, demanding from Ottoman courts ever harsher treatment.

He was sent a prisoner to a stinking Ottoman penal colony where it was anticipated He and His Family would die. He was confined in a cell for two years and did not see the out of doors for nine. One of his sons died there. Even when He was released from the cell itself, He remained in exile and endured house arrest until He died.

BAHAIS

به زبان فارسی

PICTORY

LATEST MUSIC

RSS

SEARCH