Baha’Is Persecuted in Iran
The Jewish website Forward has a highly interesting article up about Baha’is in Iran. Baha’is are members of the Baha’i religion; an offshoot of Islam. They believe that Buddha was a prophet, Moses (and the other old testament prophets) as well, same goes for Jesus and, of course, Mohammed. As a friend told me recently, the Baha’i relationship with Islam is similar to that of Christianity with Judaism; first there was Judaism, then Christianity developed as a separate – but connected – religion.
Baha’is believe that God is love, and they preach peace and harmony between people. The Baha’i faith opposes all racism, discrimination based on race, religion or gender. Baha’is encourage one another to do valuable work for the community and to worship God in daily life (by doing good, by being the best they can be in every aspect in life, etc.).
They believe in all the prophets but add that ‘the latest of these Messengers is Bahá’u’lláh, who brings new spiritual and social teachings for our modern age. He taught that there is only one God, that all of the world’s religions are from God, and that now is the time for humanity to recognize its oneness and unite.’
In short; they’re a part of the Monotheistic faiths. They are not a threat to anyone.
Sadly, however, the Iranian regime disagrees. For decades Baha’is have been persecuted in Iran. During the last couple of years and especially months the situation has become even worse; the Iranian government is doing its best to wipe out Iran’s Baha’i population. There’s a real ethnic cleansing going on in Iran, yet no one is talking about it.
Baha’is are taken from their homes, and locked up in prison where they are tortured. Many are sentenced to years in prison. Three of them are Haleh Rouhi, Sasan Taqva and Raha Sabet who were taken into custody by the Iranian government in November 2007. They are serving a four-year sentence on charges connected entirely with their belief and practice in the Baha’i Faith.’
This is not the first time that the Ayatollahs have started to persecute Baha’is on a massive scale. They’ve done the same many times in the past. Those times the damage was limited, somewhat, because of international pressure. At this moment, however, there’s little to no international pressure on Iran to stop persecuting peaceloving individuals, whose only ‘crime’ is that they believe that God sent another messenger after Mohammed.
The situation has become so horrible for Baha’is in Iran that they can’t even have their children be educated. Starting in 1979, the Iranian government made it illegal for Baha’i children to attend colleges and universities. Nowadays they are officially allowed to attend a university, but shortly after their education starts the government finds a (fake) excuse to ban them anyway. As a result underground universities have been established so that intelligent Baha’is can study on a university level. But the Iranian government has forbidden Baha’i professors to teach; this means that they can only educate students secretly.
Baha’i cemeteries have been destroyed. Baha’is have been locked up in jail. They have been beaten. Their homes have been destroyed by the government. Sometimes, Iranian officials enter a Baha’i home and they just throw everything around, and conduct a ’search.’ For what? Not clear; mostly Baha’i literature. Above all else, though, the intention is to scare the Baha’is so much that they will abandon their faith.
As the article at Forward points out, we often talk about the faith of Jews in Iran, and about what might happen to them… but we never talk about the real ethnic cleansing already taking place. Time to change that.
What many do not realize is the connection between the specific persecution of the Bahai and traditional islamic theology.
Islamic tolerance, though touted as exceptional by many, is really a very limited, conditional state.
When Mohammad overran the Arabian peninsula – which, at that point was truly pluralistic – he made the following offer: the populations that came under islamic law could either convert to islam, or, if the community were "people of the book"(i.e. either jews or christians), they could accept dhimmitude.Dhimmitude is a kind of second class citizenship in which the community agrees to be subservient to islamic authority, gives up proselytizing or "too open"practice," often loses the right to repair old holy places or build new ones, etc. The terms were often severe, as the purpose of dhimmitude is to strangle and eventually extinguish the subject peoples, eventually subsuming all within the umma. If the muslims were satisfied with the dhimmi’s performance and attitude, their lives and property were safe. If the muslims were not satisfied, the persons and property of the subject peoples were not safe, and in fact, became "lawful" to the muslims. That is, the persons and property of the offending dhimmi could be molested by a muslim without punishment. All in all, a very conditional, tolerance, placing the dhimmmis in a very insecure state. Barring conversion or dhimmitude (only for people of the book), the muslims could and were obliged to make war upon all unislamic peoples, with death and enslavement for the "kuffar" if they lost. This is the "house of war" – basically, the portion of the planet that, though still alive and breathing ‘Allah’s’ air, has not converted, or accepted dhimmitude and payment of jizyah.
Well, the theofascist iranian regime, has (probably correctly) determined that the Bahai do not qualify for the conditional tolerance of dhimmitude, because they aren’t "people of the book" (or one of the other religions that have been given de facto dhimmi status over the centuries, like hindu’s or sometimes, Zoroastrians). Thus, the persons and property of the Bahai are not proptected by the islamic government, and they may be molested without any repercussions under islamic law. . . .
Sorry for being long winded, it’s just that there is a specific reason why the Bahai are being targeted. It’s rooted very specifically in Islamic law, and it’s hardly ever mentioned or explained in articles about the Bahai.
Thank you for informing the world about the conditions of the members of the Baha’i faith. However on your article above, there is a correction to be made. You have stated that: The Baha’i faith "is an offshoot of Islam…” This statement is incorrect. The Bahá’í Faith is the youngest of the world’s independent religions, and not an “offshoot of Islam.” The mere fact that it has appeared after Islam, does not automatically make it an “offshoot” of Islam, as Christianity is not an offshoot of Judaism.
We really appreciate a correction, and please feel free to learn more about the Bahá’í Faith at: http://www.bahai.org.
Sincerely,
Sean P.
Omar,
Unfortunately, the teachings of Muhammad have been misinterpreted way too often. While what you say may be true in many respects, the Qur’an also teaches "there should be no compulsion in religion," and that people should speak to each other in a kindly and peaceful way without violence. The fact that people ignore these ideas shows that just like most religions, they are subject to the whims of the people in interpretation, as witness hundreds or even thousands of sects all the major faiths have been divided into. The Qur’an warns Muslims not to do what the Jews did, which was to assert that God’s hands were tied up, thus giving them a rationale to reject Muhammad. He said God’s hands are outstretched, meaning God can do whatever He wills, including send another Messenger to guide the people. And by the way, Jews aren’t the only ones who think their Messenger is the last and final one in spite of prophecies in all of them that promise more. The Qur’an, for example, promises more Messengers in at least two specific places, but most people conveniently ignore these passages and believe human interpretations that God will never send another Messenger, that "seal of the prophets" means final or last instead of approved or verified. The fact that almost all the early believers in the Baha’i teachings were Muslims shows that it is possible to reject these manmade ideas and understand the Qur’an in a more rational way. After all, how rational is it to think that God has stopped doing what He has always done, which was to send Messengers? Does He no longer care about humanity? Is Islam so terrific that mankind doesn’t need anything else? Which sect of Islam is the perfect one? Who is the Khalifa of Islam that could make such a determination? I am hoping that with so much publicity about the negative side of Islam, more people will look into the truth about it and realize that it is a "middle" religion, as the Qur’an says, not the final message from God, a view Baha’is see as actually blasphemous. We don’t even see our own teachings as the final message from God. He always has and always will send mankind more guidance through Messengers. Just looking at the world, I’d say we need it.
Warmly, Wendy
Here’s another good aticle about the situation with the Bahai in Iran from the Weekly Standard:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/284idyfu.asp
Thank you for highlighting this very real genocide. To learn more about the history and extent of the persecution of the Baha’is, and especially of the latest news out of Iran (including such things as arson and attempted live-burning of human beings by fanatics in Iran – orchestrated, funded, incited, but perhaps not always officially and publicly performed by the government of Iran), please go to the Iran Update page at the Baha’i World News Service homepage at http://www.bwns.org . Thank you.
Continuing the discussion started by Omar (post#1) – certainly his explanation of the rationale behind the Iranian Regime’s treatment of the Baha’is is correct. Regarding Arabia…
The meaning of the word "pluralistic" can be somewhat ambiguous. It would be an over-simplification to refer to pre-Islamic Arabia as "pluralistic" if by that word we describe peoples of diverse religious/ethnic backgrounds living in a condition of tranquility and security. Pre-Islamic Arabia was the opposite of tranquil and secure. It was a highly oppressive environment in which no one had personal security -least of all the weak, such as the women and children. Lawless, savage, and oppressive individuals insisted on the right to do exactly as they pleased in "Arabia Felix" and the powerful Roman and Persian Governments at the borders of Arabia had tried but eventually abandoned attempts to subject the region to the rule of Law. Furthermore, an environment in which preaching against idol-worship could endanger one’s life cannot be described as having had freedom of religion by any standards. Those people needed the security that only a government -not an "islamic government" in the sense the term is used today- but simply a powerful, duly-established government such as those existing in the various cities and nations around the world today. Pre-Islamic Arabia had no such government. It is reasonable to expect that a true Prophet of God appearing in such a dire, desperate atmosphere of oppression would do something about it to protect the weak from the oppressor. Establishment of such a government in a reasonable period of time in such an extremely hostile environment was no easy task.
There was a conflicting need to, on the one hand, guarantee individual freedom of conscience and on the other hand rigidly suppress all opposition to establishment of an environment of peace and domestic tranquility – through government. After enduring many years of suffering, this was effected by Muhammad and His followers -who became known as "Moslems"- in a very brief time by taking up arms against the forces of civil unrest while at the same time guaranteeing the security of those who did not wish to be "Moslems" but refrained from all alliance with the forces of unrest.
Yes, it’s true that religious leaders today attempt to trace their doctrines on "dhimmi’s", "unbelievers", "jihad" and "Holy War" against the "infidels" to Muhammad’s actions or to the Qur’an but there are some relevant facts to bear in mind:
1. One must bear in mind the possibility that perhaps some of these doctrines are actually corruptions introduced after the departure of Muhammad from this world; corruptions that He would deplore.
2. If we regard Jews as the "dhimmi’s" of the Christian West then we must admit that they did not fare as well overall, historically, as the Christians and Jews living in Moslem Countries such as the Ottoman Empire during the same time period. They were subjected to centuries of brutal persecution in the Christian West culminating in the Holocaust.
If we regard Jews as the "dhimmi’s" of the Christian West then we must admit that they did not fare as well overall, historically, as the Christians and Jews living in Moslem Countries such as the Ottoman Empire during the same time period. They were subjected to centuries of brutal persecution in the Christian West culminating in the Holocaust.
That’s right. Tens of thousands of Jews, expelled from Spain, Portugal, Provence or Italy, found refuge in the Ottoman Empire.
Joseph Nasi (1504-1579), former jewish banker of Antwerp, he settled in the Ottoman Empire to freely practise Judaism. Nasi was made duke of Naxos, and, in pratice, minister of Foreign Affairs of the Ottoman Empire, several seculars before Benjamin Disraeli or Léon Blum.
Until 100,000 others Jews found refuge in Turkish Republic between 1933 and 1944:
http://www.turkishweekly.net/articles.php?id=237
http://hnn.us/articles/29114.html
Wendy:
"No compulsion in religion" has been abrogatated by later verses, such as the sword verse, and simply does not comport with the events described in the early histories (events that Mohammad himself, or his early companions, instigated).
As for the condition of the jews under islam, the institution of dhimmitude did provide protection that sometimes exceeded that found in European countries. In fact, there is an extant jewish community in Iran right now that directly benefits from the protections of dhimmitude. My post actually explains very clearly why, while the jewish community in Iran is permitted to live in relative, though very conditional, peace, the Bahai (like many other allegedly "pagan" people under the islamic yoke) are not.
Still, the case for islamic tolerance for judaism has in many cases been vastly exaggerated at the expense of the truth. The current orgy of antisemitisim gripping much of the islamic middle east did not did not spring from a void. In fact, it finds very fertile support in islam’s primary texts.
Here’s a short video by Andrew Bostom making the link:
http://www.veoh.com/videos/v14224898BGcc9GaQ
Also, an essay abstract of his recent book: "The Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism." (It’s also at least worth noting that during the eleventh century, widely touted as the peak of Arab-Jewish tolerance in Spain, 4,000 Jews were killed in Muslim riots in Grenada and hundreds more were slaughtered in Cordoba).
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/020709.php
"No compulsion in religion" has been abrogatated by later verses, such as the sword verse, and simply does not comport with the events described in the early histories (events that Mohammad himself, or his early companions, instigated).
Yes, but the Bible is not really better than the Koran for the religious tolerance.
The best religion is to have no religion.
We can make sense of events in Muhammad’s lifetime if we accept the postulate that no one was to be allowed to create civil unrest on the grounds of his private beliefs, whether he was Christian, Jewish or any other category. Treason, an act which challenges the very foundations of public order, was punished severely without regard to religious affiliation.
The compulsion enforced by Governments in the maintainence of order is not necessarily incompatible with freedom of conscience – so many other governments today have little problem maintaining this balance. If the authorities in Iran see the private beliefs of the Baha’is as such a threat and they appeal to the words and deeds of Muhammad in support of their policies, can we not challenge the rationale of these and other leaders who have interpreted the message of Muhammad in a most peculiar way?
Regarding the "sword verse", if we examine the early history of Islam carefully it becomes clear that serious problems arose after the passing of Muhammad over the interpretation of one word: "unbelievers" (or "infidels"). In the lifetime of Muhammad, this word was used in almost all references to the forces opposing law and order; the forces fighting tooth and nail for maintenance of the existing barbaric order in Arabia. But after the passing of Muhammad there was chaos and confusion as to who this word should be applied to. For example, some persons decided that they no longer wanted to be Moslems and the leaders of the time decided -in the absence of Muhammad- to treat these persons as "unbelievers" and put them to death …for changing their religion ! Those leaders attributed this interpretation to Muhammad but Muhammad had already died at the time they made this decision.
"Omar",
Many Muslim theologians reject the very concept of abrogation, and the sword verse (ayat-ul-saif) in fact does not teach intolerance, but fixes limitations for defensive wars.
Of course it is easy to take parts of the Quran out of context and quote extremist teachings in order to bash Islam, but that way, you only create even more hatred.
Your approach is pretty much the contrary of pragmatism and it also is completely unscientific. For example, the terms "house of war" and "house of Islam" only appear with medieval jurists and are not founded in what Muslims believe to be revealed by God.
As for the Bahais, they like to portrait themselves as tolerant, but they endorse death penalty and mutilation of thiefs, practise internal censorship, oppose homosexuality, exclude women from leadership structures… about all the typical criticisms against Islam apply to them, excluding terrorism.
A.A.B.:
Would that the commands of the Quran had been relegated to the dust bin of the middle ages. However, as demonstrated by the situation with the Bahai, those islamic commands are alive and well, and ruining lives across the face of the planet.
Also, there was nothing defensive about the wars waged by Mohammad and his companions. This essay provides a good, short account of the truth:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-self-defense.htm
_______________
"For example, the terms "house of war" and "house of Islam" only appear with medieval jurists and are not founded in what Muslims believe to be revealed by God."
_______________
"Not revealed by God" are the words muslims use to try to distance themselves from the less savory aspects of their religion. It simply means that the concept does not appear in the Quran, but somewhere in the hadith. In the same vein, it would be also be true to say that islamic laws which prescribe stoning for adultery and the death penalty for apostates are not "revealed by God." But such statements obfuscate the fact that the hadith which contain these laws are considered absolutely authoratative and reliable, that every mainstream school of islamic thought accepts these laws as islamic gold, and people are right now suffering because of them in a number of islamic states (and also utside the bounds of islamic states). However, rather than acknowledge this, you prefer to confuse the issue with your weasel words (and, of course, blame the messenger).
_________________
"As for the Bahais, they like to portrait themselves as tolerant, but they endorse death penalty and mutilation of thiefs, practise internal censorship, oppose homosexuality, exclude women from leadership structures… about all the typical criticisms against Islam apply to them, excluding terrorism."
Do they execute homosexuals?
Do they execute blaspehmers and apostates?
Do they threaten and assault their critics?
Do they endorse wife beating, such that spousal abuse is not considered a criminal act in their communities?
Do they patrol the cities with morality police, subjecting women to criminal prosecution for "hijab infractions?" . . . .
Thought not.