Talk:Persecution of Bahá'ís

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Egypt Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Archives Archive 1

For this page everything needs sources and remember that information found only on websites or blogs explicitly do not meet wikipedia policies & guidelines for reliable sources. The links to personal websites are not an acceptable sources — to wit: "Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources". Reliable Source: Personal websites as secondary sources -- Jeff3000 14:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Egyptian hearings 2 Letter Aug 16, 2006 3 rework? 4 (removing Israel, there is no persecution)

[edit] Egyptian hearings

There have been many developments in the situation in Eqypt - here's some info I have gleaned. Perhaps it could be the basis of an extension...

There had been a scheduled hearing in Sept for the Supreme Court but it was postponed for a report reviewing the facts of the case to be made for consideration. The Court is scheduled to reconvene on the matter Nov 20th.

That report was released in 12 October.

It was entirely against the Bahá'ís as far as I can find...

A blog has covered the topic in depth.Baha'i Faith in Egypt but here's a summary:

it concluded that since the Baha'i Faith is not recognized in Egypt as a "divine religion," therefore its followers in that land have no rights whatsoever and that they simply do not exist! Consequently, they concluded that Egypt's Constitutional guarantees of freedom of belief and religion do not apply to the Baha'is. That Egypt is not bound to its commitment as a cosignatory to the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and that the Baha'is, in Egypt, should not be under its protection--since, as far as they are concerned, Egypt should have no obligations towards them! That the Baha'i are apostates (whether or not they descended from an Islamic background). That they are a threat to the "general [public] order" of the State, and that all their marriages are null and void.... That "methods must be defined that would insure that Baha'is are identified, confronted and singled out so that they could be watched carefully, isolated and monitored in order to protect the rest of the population as well as Islam from their danger, influence and their teachings." The report also calls for the original plaintiffs (the Baha'i family that won the case) to be charged for all court costs!

- note the language reminiscent of the Iranian secret plan to track Bahá'ís (but also understand that Egypt is a Sunni-Moslem country while Iran is a Shi'a-Moslem one and they have little tolerance even for eachother.)

Oct 19th President Mubarak made a speech about religious diverisity on the anniversary of the first night of the Revelation of God to Muhammad mentioned here with an open-ended call for core values of Islam for tolerance but did not mention any specifics:"Isn't it the time for a new religious discourse, that teaches people the correct things in their religion ... and promotes the values of tolerance against those of extremism and radicalism?"

Since then leading religious figures have continued to speak out against and for the Bahá'ís. Here's a report of an interview with a tolerant Muslim but also mentioning his extremist older brother.--Smkolins 18:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Egypt’s Supreme Administrative Court ruled in favour of the Ministry of Interior’s appeal, and to reverse the lower court’s ruling of 4 April 2006 that favored the Baha'is right to being identified as such for the purpose of official documents. It also ordered the Bahá’í couple who had initiated the original lawsuit against the Ministry of Interior in order to add their daughters to their passports--to pay all court costs.[1][2] The blog occasionally referenced here, while itself not a directly acceptible source, is itself mostly collections of newspaper articles or reflects entries on several other websites. Obviously for official reference those sources should be preferred. As I am not a reader of arabic perhaps someone who is can go to the original sources and get official translations (or perhaps automatic ones) and use those as entries here in wikipedia--Smkolins 13:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added the new info based on some press releases from third-party sources. -- Jeff3000 16:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Letter Aug 16, 2006

There's a new letter. Dated August 16th, another secret letter was sent and leaked by November. It's far more detailed about what the Iranian government is to do with the "the perverse sect of Bahaism" - a copy of the translated cover letter can be read here.

This letter and it's survey asks provincial deputies of the Department of Politics and Security in Offices of the Governors’ General to order “relevant offices to cautiously and sensitively monitor and supervise” all Baha'i social activities about the circumstances and activities of local Baha'is, including their “financial status,” “social interactions,” and “association with foreign assemblies,” and asks for information on the ‘socio-political activities’ of Baha'is – even though it is well known to authorities that Baha'is are entirely non-political in their activities in every country, inasmuch as the Baha'i sacred writings stress the importance of non-involvement in partisan politics, as well as non-violence. The news is covered by the Baha'i UN representatives to the UN (who are one of many NGOs represented there.)--Smkolins 11:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

We should add a couple sentences to the section on "Monitoring of Activities." -- Jeff3000 16:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rework?

While Iran certain has some of the major documentation of persecution of Baha'is, perhaps that could be made into a different article and general themes and brief reviews kept here - kind of like what happened with Egypt and the Egyptian identification card controversy. But some review of online references finds info from several other countries that could be small sections of their own.--Smkolins 18:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's some links - The Baha'i Faith 1957-1988: A Survey of Contemporary Developments by Peter Smith and Moojan Momen mentions several specifics for various countries. Wellspring of Guidance Messages of the Universal House of Justice 1963-68 by Universal House of Justice mentions Indonesia, Dialogcentret - The Baha'i Faith from the June 1985 issue of Arabia but it's easy to go beyond for other sources.... Indonesia - International Religious Freedom Report 2005 Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, Indonesia: Non-Muslims must study Koran to marry doesn't mention Baha'is, who wouldn't probably mind studying the scripture, but seems a universal issue, Morocco has some notes too Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination : Morocco from 04/03/94 (Concluding Observations/Comments)--Smkolins 18:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think breakouts with not be much use because the vast vast majority of persecution is/was in Iran, and thus breaking out such an article will make this one a stub. Until there is other large persecution (I hope not) in other countries, I think this article should be the place for it to be documented. I'm currently working on expanding some of the documented persecution during the Pahlavi regime. -- Jeff3000 18:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps its not right to break out the Iran section, but I think we can document more than just Egypt - here's a decade of issues AZERBAIJAN: Why are religious communities in Nakhichevan "crushed"? By Felix Corley, Forum 18 News Service, published 10 December 2004, and LAOS: The Disturbing Prospect for Religious Freedom By Magda Hornemann, Forum 18 News Service, published 15 June 2004, and TURKMENISTAN: Orthodox to be main victims of clampdown? By Igor Rotar, Forum 18 News Service, published 17 March 2003 and ROMANIA: Concerns about draft religion law By Felix Corley, Forum 18 News Service, published 6 October 2005 and more to come I'm sure. --Smkolins 19:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

And that law passed in Romania ROMANIA: Controversial Law promulgated; legal challenges planned By Felix Corley, Forum 18 News Service, published 3 January 2007--Smkolins 19:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (removing Israel, there is no persecution)

I think adding Israel, which I added already stating it was not persecution, gives a chance to speak of the restrictions the Baha'is do live under in Israel and in counterpoint to the expectations some might have - and that this is the right place to talk about it. Israel is a unique circumstance for Baha'is and I think it adds to the content of the page which generally outlines strict circumstances Baha'is live under and Israel does provide strict circumstances. One angle on this I have no documentation for, for why Baha'is live this was is the "someone not free, I'm not free" which is a principle of the faith - but in any case the situation Baha'is choose to live under predates Israel which is hinted at in the article, and referenced in the article's footnote/ref. If more reference could be found it could be expanded into the entry itself and would demonstrate an aspect of Baha'i approaches to religion that in part will call for silence and service in circumstances where even the least word invites argument and contention. I'd welcome comments from other contributors as to whether there should be something like what I added.--Smkolins 20:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It has no place in this article. There is no source that states that Baha'is are persecuted in Israel, and thus putting that in this article is original research. The way the Baha'is live in Israel is a bilateral agreement between the Baha'i World Centre and the government of the region, which in the past was not Israel, and thus is by under no definition persecution. Secondly, this page is not supposed to be an apologetic, but document Baha'i persecution. -- Jeff3000 21:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You haven't spoken to any of my comments except to agree with some details. I already said it was not persecution nor did I suggest it and bringing up OR is just not under discussion - and the content of the whole article dwells on restrictions too. Certainly the majority content is and should be about persecution but as I said, it provides a place to mention issues in counterpoint to how Baha'is have to live in other places. But one small paragraph amidst several screen lengths if hardly a major imposition. It is not apologetic - it isn't written in defense of anything. It's written to highlight some special circumstances that either could be viewed as persecution but is not, or where one might suppose there is special favor but there isn't. Again I'd like to hear other's opinions.--Smkolins 21:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Point 1) This article is on persecution not how Baha'is live in other place - no place in this article.
• Point 2) Your counterpoint is an apologetic because it is used to highlight that the Iranian authorities claims are wrong. There are much better ways to do this (i.e. references that state this) and thus the paragraph is not the way to go about this and has no place in this article.
• Point 3) The way Baha'is live in Israel has not been viewed as persecution by anyone, and thus would be original research and has no place in any article. -- Jeff3000 21:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Jeff3000 that this isn't an appropriate place for this topic. As these restrictions are self-imposed and date to `Abdul-Baha, I don't see how this fits into this article. These practices are certainly wise so as to not bait any of the local religious groups. (Consider the effect that Evangelical Christians have on the Israelis.) Yes, Baha'is can't win for losing in some quarters of the Muslim world, that doesn't mean they shouldn't try. MARussellPESE 14:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I still feel I'm not really being understood but perhaps it is also that I don't understand. Peace.--Smkolins 16:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)