History Lesson: Dr. Mossadegh on the Rights of Bahais vs. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi on the Rights of Bahais


Masoud Kazemzadeh
by Masoud Kazemzadeh

As Prime Minister, Dr. Mossadegh treated the Bahai citizens of Iran just like other citizens of Iran. This is one of the reasons Hojatolislam Falsafi and Ayatollah Behbahani strongly opposed Dr. Mossadegh and supported Mohammad Reza Shah (and the 1953 coup). Falsafi broke with the Shah and sided with Khomeini in 1963 due to the land reforms and female enfranchisement and replacing oath to Qoran with oath to a holy book. Hojatolislam Falsafi was a strong ally of the Shah and strong enemy of Dr. Mossadegh in the 1950s.


Mossadegh and Bahais:

pp. 7-8


n 1951 Falsafi approached Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh on behalf of Ayatollah Borujerdi inorder to discuss the Bahá’ís and their activities, but was rebuffed by Mossadegh who rejected the idea that the Bahá’ís were any different than Muslim Iranians.41

41 Id. at 138-139, and 200 (complaining that Mossadegh “didn’t see Bahá’ís as a threat and generally considered them part of the nation of Iran, [entitled to] the same rights as the Muslims.”)


Mohammad Reza Shah and the Bahais



Beginning of 1955 Opposition to Baha’is

It was stated earlier that after the 28 Mordad coup d'état [4], the mullas insisted on their significant share in the revolt, and this was only possible by suppression of the Tudeh Party and Baha’is. The furtive and renowned preacher, Hujjatu’l-Islam Muhammad-Taqi Falsafi, has stated in his memoirs that his sermons against the Baha’is took place with the prior consent of Ayatollah Borujerdi and Muhammad-Reza Shah. In an interview on 19 Urdibehesht 1334 [10 May 1955] with a reporter of “Itehad-e Melli” Journal, Falsafi described his meeting with Ayatollah Borujerdi in these words:

Before the blessed month of Ramadan, I went to Qum where I met Ayatollah Borujirdi and found him deeply distressed. He stated, “Now that the situation of the Oil industry has been resolved and the Tudeh Party has been neutralized, we must make plans for Baha’is and arise to this challenge.”

In Khaterat va Mubarezat [Memories and Struggles], Muhammad-Taqi Falsafi writes:

Ayatollah Borujerdi sent a message for me to convey the issue [of Baha’is] to the governmental authorities. … Eventually, after Ramadan 1332 [May 1953], he sent a letter for me to meet with the Shah and to express the Ayatollah’s disapproval and displeasure over the situation of [the relative freedom of] Baha’is. … Before Ramadan of 1333 [May 1954], I asked Ayatollah Borujerdi, ‘Are you supportive of the idea that I discuss the situation of Baha’is during my radio sermons which are broadcast live from Masjed Shah?’ He thought for a moment and then responded, ‘If you were to say so, it would be good. For now, the authorities are heedless (of suppression and annihilation of Baha’is). At least that would suppress them [Baha’is] in the field of public opinion.’

He added further, ‘It is necessary to mention this beforehand to the Shah so that he would not have an excuse later to intercede, ruin everything and terminate the radio broadcasts. If the latter were to happen, that would be most unfortunate for the Muslims and would embolden the Baha’is.’

I called the Shah’s office and requested an appointment. When I met the Shah, I stated, ‘Ayatollah Borujerdi has consented that the issue of Baha’is, which is a cause of worry for the Muslims, be dealt with and discussed in my radio sermons during the month of Ramadan. Would your majesty consent as well?’

Falsafi relates that the Shah remained silent for a moment and then stated, “Go and preach accordingly.” [5] From 1327 [1948], each Ramadan, Falsafi used to deliver sermons against the Tudeh Party. Elimination and annihilation of the Babis and Baha’is was the cherished desire of the mullas and their partners in the government. During those days, it was widely said that strikes against Baha’is and destruction of their administrative and religious centers was one of the government’s objectives. However, this had to wait until Ramadan 1334 [May 1955].

1955 Baha’i Persecution

In accordance with Ayatollah Borujirdi’s wishes, immediately after the 28 Mordad [coup], the attack on Baha’is started with Falsafi’s sermons delivered in Ramadan 1334 [1955]. He commenced a brutal attack on Baha’is and the government confiscated Baha’i properties in every city. In Tehran, in front of the cameras of both foreign and domestic reporters, General [Nader] Batmanghelich, the chief of staff of the Iranian army, along with [General] Taymour Bakhtiar, the military commander of Tehran, took pickaxes and demolished the dome of the Baha’i Center. For many years, that building was impounded by the military and used for its own command center. General Muhammad Ayarmalu, the deputy-chief of the most powerful branch of government, namely, the Department for Security and Information [SAVAK], writes the following in his memoirs:

One morning, General Batmanghelich, the chief of staff of the army, along with General Taymour Bakhtiar, the military commander, ascended the dome of the Baha’i Center [in Tehran] and with pickaxes started to demolish the dome of the building.

The next morning, the military attaché of the United States came to my office and with an infuriated voice stated, “What was this act that the chief of staff committed? Why would the chief of military pick up an ax, and before everyone’s eyes, demolish a building? Furthermore, he targeted a building that is greatly respected and cherished by many of your citizens! My country is assisting Iran to repair the ruins, and now you turn a beautiful building into a ruin?!”


more from Masoud Kazemzadeh

Dear Anvar, you are not intruding. I'm learning as we speak

by oktaby on

Warning: Lets agree to disagree but this is gonna be long

I do not see anything you said as unreasonable or loud from your perspective which is Bahaii not Irani centric, despite some derogatory references. I came out strongly against this and was extremely clear about the logic. I did not devalue research or historical learning. Indeed my main point of contention was 'time & place'. In other words "har sokhan jayee o har nokte maghami darad". I find this article counter productive to Bahaii cause among other things. If one is being shot or maimed by an aggressor, the first task at hand is not to analyze whether a different attacker may be kinder and gentler, or the guy that beat you up last week was worse than the one who just punched you once the week before. Everything is relative. My 'chime in' request was in the context that despite all the historical, religious and cultural issues, Shah's period was the most peaceful and 'reasonable' for Bahaii's during its relatively short history (and within Iran not other connections such as Lebanon).

Now let me address other points you made:

-'We are all hyphenated'. Despite your belief in that and various ways that can be interpreted, it is a self serving statement and counter to unity principle: I and most Irani I know from all over Iran are not hyphenated. Even if they may have been treated that way at some point and by some government. Iran is one of the few countries in that part of the world that is not an artificial creation. It has always been Iran even if with changing borderlines. I do not introduce myself as my ancestry’s composition that come from 3 different parts of Iran and 2 different religions. I obviously hold very different views than you or author of this article but I am Iranian and have no hyphenation.

-'Youth in Iran need to become familiar with atrocities': Youth in Iran have been growing up with atrocities, mental and physical violence and lack of civil liberties. As we speak they are rebelling and watching their brothers and sisters and friends get beaten, imprisoned, tortured, raped and killed. They are defending universal Civil Liberties not Bahaii, or Azari, or Baluchi, even your focus seem to be only Bahaiis and somehow Iran's salvation is tied to Bahaii salvation? The youth in Iran really need no more lessons. Once they get passed the current murderous enemy, there will be plenty of time to educate Iran's entire population, first with the beauties of what Iranian culture and history has to offer, and second with atrocities and historical injustices and believe me Bahaii's will have to wait in line for that one as we have not had shortage of atrocities, injustice and bastardization of history.

-The 1955 and other events against Bahaii's is not in dispute nor are other negative events against them The picture has a Shepeshoo molla present and it tells the story. Shah's pandering to Shiite clerics was damaging to Iran and Shah himself even if Bahaiis took a hard hit because of special hatred Mollah's had.

-Exposing Molla's crimes against Bahaii's is fine but if Bahaii somehow expect to be treated as a unique class or case, then their loyalty and motives can readily be questioned specially when Bahaii centric view of the world is what is being expressed here in the form Dabashi's statement. I acknowledged the meaning and spirit of that statement and responded to it, so it is not necessary to keep raising that flag. However, I again respectfully disagree as that falls within the synopsis of this paragraph.

-'Blogs like this help Iranians to (re)examine their character and integrity'- Iranians have been and continue to do plenty of soul searching and that was only intensified with the IRR rise to power. I find this statement also Bahaii centric because Iranians certainly need to do that and have been doing so but apparently it is legitimate when Bahaii's are addressed first? And since you invoke  "Character & Integrity" of Iranians do you acknowledge that lack of presence of Bahaii's on any front to fight for Iranian people, while expanding their global footprint, puts their 'Integrity and Character' to question? Certainly, the Bahaii religion has a Global and universal perspective, but it seems it may not have any room for loyalty to Iran while it expects it !?

-'Bahaii religion is excluded from IRR constitution'- Thank you for drawing the conclusion that I did in my initial comment on this thread. While the enemy within is raping and plundering all (including Bahaiis) talking about differences of Shah and Mossadegh serves the objectives of my opening paragraph. It is an exercise in futility and counter-productive and also pushes the existing wedge between Shahi and Mossadeghi when we need all the unity we can get. That last sentence is clearly the objective and MO of this blog's author either intentionally or out of ignorance.


I could readily raise many questions based on the responses I have read here and I'm certain for those who intend to do safsate and maghlateh there is plenty of opportunities on both sides. However, my presumption is that perhaps we are not considering time and place and the greater good for all IRANIANS when speaking so strongly and emotionally as Bahaii's and there is little room for Iran except in the Bahaii context. That was the context of my original comment.


Chiming in…

by Anvar on

Dear *oktaby* - I’m intruding because you wrote: “I hope Bahaii readers chime in loud and clear because the divisive garbage of this blog servers no useful purpose or any historic lesson to be learned other than…”  

Per your request and hoping to be clear but not loud:

One man’s trash is another man’s treasure.  I thing others have already responded to your characterization of this blog as “garbage” so I’ll just state that I disagree with that characterization.  In my opinion, this blog is certainly of some historical values.  As you know, the majority of Iranians are young.  I think it is good for everyone to become familiar with atrocities that have been committed in their homeland.

The following is a picture of Falsafi and a government officer supervising the destruction of the Baha’i National Center in 1955 in Tehran:

I wonder how many Iranians have seen that picture or understand it in full context.

How is writing about the events of that era “divisive?”  Falsafi (and others like him) have not succeeded in dividing the Baha’is from Muslims - this blog will not divide them either.  And the Muslims, who are not already hostile towards Baha’is, will not be affected by this blog either.  Perhaps, you were referring to divisions between the followers of the Shah and Dr. Mossadegh.  If so, I seriously doubt that the main contention between these two groups is how good or bad each side treated the Baha’is!

Blogs like this help Iranians to (re)examine their character and integrity.  Many Iranians, either actively or passively, have contributed to the shameful and unpleasant predicaments in Iran.  We cannot fix the problems if we do not acknowledge them.  

Anyone who is remotely familiar with authentic Baha’i teachings knows that the unity of mankind is paramount for us.  Baha’is advocate unity, freedom, and justice for all humanity.  That includes all genders and ethnic or religious minorities.  I understand your position about “Hyphenated Iranians” but I respectfully disagree with your conclusions and (presumably) proposed solution.  In my opinion, the problem is not with the hyphenation per se.  All of us are somehow hyphenated.  The problem is that some hyphenated groups give themselves the license to maltreat other hyphenated groups.  

Hyphenation is not indicative of superiority or inferiority.  It is merely an additional bit of information that helps to describe the individuals further.  The challenge is for all of us to get along with each other harmoniously and unite in spite of our differences.  The beautiful flowers in a garden are also hyphenated (gol-e-zard, gol-e-shorkh, etc).  I see the same beauty in hyphenated Iranians (Iranian-Tork, Iranian-Lor, Iranian-Muslim, Iranian-Baha’i, etc.) as I see in a flower garden.

*Masoud Kazemzadeh* - Thank you for your research and the information you shared with everyone.   

Lastly, a generic comment on professor Dabashi’s recent statement: “When Baha’is are free, then all Iranians will be.

This statement is not to be misconstrued (purposely, or not) as meaning that the freedom of Baha’is is more important than the freedom of countless other oppressed Iranians.  This somewhat prophetic (predictive) statement asserts that when even the Baha’is are at last freed then all, including other oppressed groups, will have also been freed.  Keep in mind that the Baha’is are officially excluded from the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran.



Oktaby & Neda ye Iran e Azad

by Nur-i-Azal on

Oktaby: I believe the not so veiled insults by rustgoo were specifically directed at me. And, yes, I believe based on the specific content of the insults made that this person is in fact a Baha'i.

Neda ye Iran e Azad: Your point is well taken, and this world is indeed led and administered by complete lunatics, and not just amongst religious people. But there is a subtle point here which as an atheist you can maybe appreciate: the point is that a certain so-called religious organization with a lot of money at its disposal in the West hides itself behind claims of persecution and being a minority, and with it then proceeds to completely marginalize in its discourses the rights (nay, the very existence) of other minorities in an equal situation to themselves. This so-called religious organization then goes on to totally monopolize all discourse and discussion of minority rights besides its own (wheeling out various personas to do their advertising bidding in various fora, some of whom are obviously being courted or paid for their services) to the point that an impression is then deliberately created (i.e. a manufactured consent) that no other significant minorities exists in Iran (or are persecuted) besides themselves. Then, to add insult to injury, you have various individuals unequivocally making pronouncements staking the entire freedom of the Iranian polity and nation upon their own perceived sectarian liberation. I don't know about you, but where I come from this is a form of meglomania as well as a dangerous form of sectarian religious exclusivism and triumphalism not unlike that of the mullahs we all wish to see gone forever!

In the political theory espoused by the American founding fathers, liberty and freedom means that all are granted their rights and personal liberties irrespective of their personal religious convictions or minority status, and that neither the state nor any other organ of the public domain should prefer one set of beliefs and those representing it over another. When you have a certain group upraising their own claim to freedom above everybody elses, then that is in fact a not so subtle negation of the very freedom and liberty they are claiming to espouse because they are deliberately making themselves a special party to such freedom. In other words, they are positing an Orwellian proposition (but obviously projected into the future) that "all are free, but some are freer than others." As an academic and political scientist I am absolutely baffled that Mr Kazemzadeh cannot see through this sort of thing.


Dear Faryam, Rohani was a side reference not my main point

by oktaby on

Irani serve Iran and hyphenated Irani tend to compromise Iran or make faustian bargains. My general point was clear so I won't repeat it.

I respectfully disagree with Dabashi's quote as well. While I understand the intent and agree with the spirit, it is a Bahaii centric  and biased view of the world. Not that I'm optimistic it will happen, but Iran will be free and free spirited when it becomes the Iran of Persian and Shanameh decent. Because that Iran is an open minded culture and enlightened society that embraces diversity and celebrates variety.


rustgoo, as for you: If you have something to say about the subject then say it. No need to start a verbal pissing contest because I won't engage. My comments were to the author in an open forum and assume he and others are capable of responding in the context. Faryam engaged and we are having a healthy exchange.

I also called the content garbage and explained why I think so specially how wrong the timing is. The research is rather one sided as well but I did not get into that. However, in a few sentences, you have nothing of substance to say about the subject or research,  generalize by calling me and others (& Co) names, reference split readers of this site and their loyalties to discredit and drive a wedge, call those views separate from reality which must be certified by you, then proceed with statement about my computer usage, and to top it off you invoke clenched fists, and making real difference as being possible only a certain way, and tell me to shut up which is presumably what you are trying to stop.

And you are a friend of the author? truth? democracy? research? cordial discussions and exchanges? Bahaii's? Iran? or what?


Neda ye Iran e Azad

We live in absurd world

by Neda ye Iran e Azad on

Aren't all of these religions and minorities talking about the same God? So much war and discrimination just because the way one calls his God is different from the other. Good that at least they left us atheists alone! But I think the point of this note was emphasizing on Nationalistic beliefs of Mohammad Mosaddegh which is why we consider him as founder of our democratic movements. A liberal society means no group can use their power in the government to suppress the other groups. Differences and arguments will always exist but we are hoping for a country in which every group with every belief has its own voice and can practice its own religion or tradition. 

سبز سبز تا بهار



by Nur-i-Azal on

Clenched fists with mullahs don't work, as we are all realizing. But kalashnikovs, M16s and grenades directed at the mullahs' henchmen on the streets of Tehran will work far more effectively than any clenched, empty fist ever will. That is the cruel fact of the matter which no one wishes to broach or talk about here. In other words, it isn't clenched fists but jeegar/liver (i.e. armed violent struggle) which will ultimately dislodge the Islamic Military Dictatorship permanently at this point. So hand me a gun or an arsenal, brother/sister, and I will gladly go on to the streets of Tehran against this regime.

That said, the fact that you Baha'is have absolutely no sense of solidarity or even an attempt to extend a polite gesture of ta'rof towards the rest of the minority population of Iran, and that you keep wanting to relate the minority problem in Iran exclusively to yourselves and your (imagined) predicament, pretending that no one but yourselves deserves the appelation, speaks volumes about your real longterm intentions and the kind of mentality driving such intent. 

Once again, there are Sufis, Isma'ili Shi'a, Ahl-i-Haqq/Yarsan, Armenian and Assyrian Christians, Jews and Bayanis in Iran as well. They deserve as much recognition, respect and rights as you and everybody else. 

The observation regarding hyphenated Iranians by oktaby is spot-on BTW!


Farrokhru Parsa

by Nur-i-Azal on

Was not a Baha'i! In fact she was a Bayani, i.e. an Azali Babi, just like Prime Minister Mohammad-Ali Forrughi and the architect of the modern education system of Iran, Yahya Dawlatabadi, together with his sisters Sadiqa and Fakhr-i-Taj Dawlatabadi. Allameh Mohammad Qazvini and Ali-Akbar Dehkhoda were also Bayanis.


When Iranians are free of theocrats of all shapes and sizes, then Iran will truly be free!


Dear Faryam, do you think that this article

by Zal on

serves the interests of Bahaii's?


Don quixote, oktaby & Co.

by rustgoo on

A thorough reseach in historical events can't be put on hold just because you are running a battle game in cyberspace.

As a matter of fact, this site is already devided along certain loyalties; which by no means reflect an identical social divide in real world.

You are spending too much time in front of your computer. If you can walk and raise your clenched fist, then streets of Tehran await you. Go there and make a real difference. Otherwise just shut your mouth and let others speak too. Don't call people garbage anymore.


What about other minorities?

by Nur-i-Azal on

Don't they count in the larger Iranian scheme of things? Is is only the case that if Baha'is are granted rights in Iran everything else will be honkey dory, with other minorities obliged to sit and twiddle their thumbs? 

Why do Baha'is here together with their  assorted supporters talk and act about the rest of the Iranian minority community as if they were, as the saying goes, dasteh-kharr in relation to them!? There are Sufis, Isma'ili Shi'ites, Ahl-i-Haqq/Yarsan, Sunnis, Zoroastrians, Armenian and Assyrian Christians, Jews and Bayanis in Iran as well. They deserve the same recognition, rights and respect as the one the Baha'is are demanding of Iranians and future Iranian regimes.


Faryar, your observation is very true

by Babak_SD on

I also agree that Iran as a nation and Iranians as citizens of that nation will only be free when Iranian Baha'i's are allowed to practice their faith freely in the land they were born in.



Dear Oktaby;"When Baha’is are free, then all Iranians will be"

by faryarm on

The Bahais under the Pahlavis were not even mentioned by name or havind as any kind of Citizen's rights. The Shia establishment made sure of that.

The majority of Bahais could not even have a government job, because Hoveyda had passed a law that only the recognized "religions" before Islam; Zoroastrian, Jewish, Christian and Moslem could only apply. 

Mr Rohani was not recognized as a Bahai, nor did he declare himself to be, as Bahais are required to do...nor was he in any way a participant or contributor in the community.

The IRI and anti Bahai elements have tried to implicate some who didnt even have Bahai affiliations, like the late Farrokh Roo Parsa. 

Please see //iranian.com/main/2008/sacrificing-innoc...



Cries against injustice has for so long falln of deaf years;

Fortunately, so much of what Bahais have been trying to reveal in their defense about decades of lies and fabrication by the clerics and their schemes is now the subject of daily news from Iran.

as Professor Dabashi wrote recently:

When Baha’is are free, then all Iranians will be 







'by no means to the extent that one can call "free" '

by oktaby on

That statement applies to any Iranian. Which of us had the 'freedom' you are referring to? Could an Irani of any background talk against Shah openly? or start his own political party? Or for that matter ignore certain social constraints?

Lets be reasonable with constraints of time and place.

I was referring to Rohani of Agriculture ministry and several other high level people not Hoveyda. If they were not Bahaii's then I stand corrected and it does not change anything I said about the status of bahaii's in Iran even if they did not rise as high as they could have. I won't comment on 'good standing' that seems to indicate some striation among Bahaii's. To the extent there was a problem with bahaii's it had to do with islam, rather than with Iran.

I have my views on Milani but regardless, Iran has always been served by all Irani and betrayed by those considering themselves some sort of hyphenated Irani.



There were several Bahaii Ministers?????

by faryarm on

"There were several Bahaii Ministers, high level government officials, and other luminaries at time of Shah.."

 Dear Oktaby

No Observant Bahai of good standing did or could have held a cabinet or ministerial post.This has been discussed before at length, and the names that are often mentioned are either not Bahais at all; llke Hoveyda.

It is certainly true however , that the Pahlavi perod was a period of relative freedom for Bahais, where entrepreneurs such as The Arjomands and Sabet prospered due to their contributions in manufacturing and business initiative  but by no means to the extent  one can call "free".

I would recommend Abbass Milanis research and book which highlights the contributions of  eminient Iranians.



by Nur-i-Azal on

The Iranian people deserve a government much much better than what exists in Iran today.

Indeed, amen. But they especially deserve to be free from any other forces that might potentially become in the future like the government of Iran today as well. And BTW minorities in Iran also include various Sufis, Isma'ili Shi'ites, Ahl-i-Haqq/Yarsan, Sunnis, Zoroastrians, Armenian and Assyrian Christians, Jews and Bayanis. It is pity that only Baha'is get to hold official minority status amongst North American and Western European lobbyists, and get offered free advocacy by individuals claiming to represent what it left of the National Front, whereas these other significant minority groups do not. But I guess official minority status amongst North American circles is also about who can afford to buy such status for themselves, since in American circles everything seems to come with a price-tag attached and who can afford to pay it.


Why this divisive nonsense and for what purpose?

by oktaby on

The IRR is killing Bahai's. One of my dearest friends that happens to be Bahaii lost his dad to the murderers IRR and I never heard him or family utter anything close to the garbage spewed here. Bahaii did fine under the shah and will have done fine under Mossadegh, had that come to pass long term. Shah or Mossadegh would not have posed any issues for Bahaii's. We know as a matter of historical fact that at time of Shah it was certainly a non-issue in all practical terms. There were several Bahaii Ministers, high level government officials, and other luminaries at time of Shah. And outside of certain groups' dislike of Bahaii's, driven by their islamic mumbo jumbo, there were no significant social issues. I hope Bahaii readers chime in loud and clear because the divisive garbage of this blog servers no useful purpose or any historic lesson to be learned other than dislay of your hate of Shah or love of Mossadegh displayed in form of hate of anything Shah.

As a fan of Mossadegh, I think you bring (as does the Jabheye Melli post Mossadegh) shame to Iran, Mossadegh's honorable memory, and Shah all in one place.

And your timing stinks as the enemy within is the IRR not the former regime that has been gone for 30 plus years.


ebi amirhosseini

Masoud jaan

by ebi amirhosseini on

Keep up the good work , just once in a while ,sari bezan,so we know you're ok.

Ebi aka Haaji

Masoud Kazemzadeh


by Masoud Kazemzadeh on

Dear hamfekr,

Thank you. I am very proud of Dr. Mossadegh for his politics: Treating a religious minority as equal citizens in 1951-1953. That was about 58 or so years ago!!!! It is amazing that Mossadegh-JM were soooooooo much more advanced, more democratic, and more liberal than the current reactionary fundamentalist regime in 2009.

The Iranian people deserve a government much much better than what exists in Iran today.





Thanks; Masoud Kazemzadeh

by hamfekr on

Dr. mosadeq without a doubt had more secular/national substance than the Shah.

From 1953 onward Shah felt indebted to religious establishment; he did, however, try to break up with the mullahs from mid 1960's.

It's ironic that he, himself, couldn't catch up with the speedy divorce.

Masoud Kazemzadeh

Ebi jaan; dorood va sepaas gozaram

by Masoud Kazemzadeh on

Ebi jaan besiyar aziz,

I have been extremely busy in the past several months. But I do read iranian.com every single day. Thank YOU sooooooooo very much for your post on the Forouhars. I wanted to post and thank you in your thread, but unfortunately, I got several emergencies.

Ba sepaas-e faravan,


P.S. I will be busy for another 2 months, but after that, I hope I could contribute more. Fortunately, almost all the busy stuff are of good nature (except when I had to take my dad to doctors).


Yet Baha'is

by Nur-i-Azal on

Such as Habib Sabet where fully in bed with the Shah exactly at the same period. At the time Hojjat'ul-Moron Falsafi was on his ridiculous national blood-lust and harangue campaign, i.e. the Shah's payback to the mullahs for supporting him against Mossadeq, Mr Sabet was actively lobbying for the Pepsi Cola franchise and the Radio/Television franchise that the Shah was soon thereafter to grant him. Also Dr Karim Ayadi was still technically connected to the royal court at this time.

It is true that Mossadeq applied an even hand to all national minorities, Baha'i and non-Baha'i alike. That is because he was a secular nationalist and practiced the separation of church and state as his government's national policy. But the facts are not exactly flattering towards the Baha'is and their leadership after August 1953 who were actively and gratuitously courting the Pahlavi monarch for their own interests: interests which were not exactly in the best interests of the mass disenfranchised polity of the time.

BTW, Mr Kazemzadeh, as a historian of modern Iranian politics, who in your view made the greater significant contribution to Iran: Yahya Dawlatabadi or Habib Sabet?

And what is with the back to back Baha'i posts on Iranian.Com?


ebi amirhosseini

Masoud jaan

by ebi amirhosseini on

Long time no see!!

Ebi aka Haaji