Talk:Persecution of Bahá'ís/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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

Reverting

There is currently a revert war between myself and Dawud on this article. I am a Baha'i, and Dawud has major reservations against the Baha'i Faith. Thus third parties would be useful in helping out with this article. Jeff3000's edits have page have been fully sourced from third party documentation from the United Nations, the EU, and Amnesty International; no Baha'i sources have been used. Dawud's edits or the IP he uses from Taiwan (220.129.17.239) provides no sources for his edits.

The main points of contention are the following

  • Definition of Persecution: I use the same definition of membership that is included in other religious persecution pages such as Persecution of Christians, Historical persecution by Muslims, Persecution of Muslims, and Historical persecution by Christians which is "Persecution may refer to unwarranted arrest, imprisonment, beating, torture, or execution. It also may refer to the confiscation or destruction of property, or incitement to hate Christians." Dawud changes this to among other things refer to claims by former believer who state that their rights as members have been violated when they were excommunicated from the Baha'i Faith. While this is rightfully a criticism of the Baha'i Faith and is documented in Baha'i apologetics no human rights have been affected and furthermore these claims have no ground since membership in the the Baha'i Faith is purely voluntary.
  • Historical Context: Dawud has added a section that I feel has a POV and has no references or citations. He states things like:
"a series of religiously-motivated uprisings against the Persian government." Not true, the Persian goverment persecuted the Babis since the Faith of the Bab removed much of the power of the eccliastical order, and thus the Babis in general fought back in self-defence. Some sources state as much as 20 000 Babis were killed. There was an assissination attempt on the Shah of Iran near the end of these persecutions.
"Its Bahá'í successors tend to be blamed not only for these historical sins but also for their faith's relationship with Israel; its support for liberal, modernist values; its perceived clannishness within Iran; and its support for the Shah's government." These are all untrue. The Baha'i Faith has no special relationship with Israel other than the byproduct of it's World Centre being in Israel since it was founded in the Ottomon Empire which is current day Israel. Furthermore, if anything the Baha'i Faith has conservative moral values and are not liberal, and there is no evidence of Baha'is supporting the Shah's goverment. The Baha'is did have less persecution during the Shah's reign, but Baha'i belief is that you have to be obedient to the government of your country.
  • Claims versus Documented Persecution: I use the words "Documented Persecution" and Dawud uses "Claims". The sources I use, specifically from the United Nations comes from the Special Representatives that went to Iran and documented the persecutions. These include the Special Representative on Iran Professor Galindo Pohl, the Special Representative on Iran, Canadian Jurist and UBC Law Professor, Maurice Copithorne, and the Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance, Professor Abdu’l Fatah Amor
  • Response from the Iranian Government: Dawud adds the statement "[Khomeini's] statements should be viewed in view of Bahá'í support for the Shah's regime, relations with the State of Israel, and denial of Islam's claim that Muhammad is the final prophet." While true that Baha'is believe that Muhammad is not the final prophet, the other claims are unsubstantiated (see above).
  • Original Research: Dawud adds a section on what is a religion and states that the Baha'i Faith is not a religion. This has nothing to do with the documentation of persecution, as regardless of the religion, people's human rights have been violated. Secondly the Baha'i Faith is a recognized religion around the world, except in some Islamic countries, and has special representative status in the United Nations.
  • Claim to right to teach: Dawud adds the section "Bahá'ís claim the right to "teach the faith", which Iranian law does not recognize for any group without government backing. Is this "persecution"?" First of all Baha'is don't state that their lack of teaching ability is persecution, and I have not included it, and secondly he is inserting POV with the question.
  • Babi(Bayani)/Baha'i: Persection: This section is about both Baha'is and Babis persecuting eachother. I included it in the page, Dawud removes it even though he states it in the opening paragraph.
  • Explusions: Dawud adds a section which is, rightfully, a criticism of the Faith. The explusions have been discussed in the Baha'i Criticism page (Baha'i apologetics), and secondly while this is rightfully a criticism of the Baha'i Faith no human rights have been affected and furthermore these claims have no ground since membership in the the Baha'i Faith is purely voluntary.

Thanks -- Jeff3000 23:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jeff3000. Dawud has a style of edits that is being reverted on other religion pages like Christianity and Jesus. He has been getting his information and ideas from web blogs and other forums that can't be sourced here and seem inappropriate. Cuñado - Talk 03:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


My take : The section of early Babi/Bahai infighting has no bearings whatsoever on this arricle - these two sects/cults/religions/factions did not like each other and made each other's life miserable - so what? Persecution requires a state agent or at least someone big and powerful - here were essentially two fringe groups slugging it out and that is the end to it. And large parts of it are simply not verifiable anyway - everyone claimed the other was responsible for the murders etc. The section on Juan Cole etc is more intrigueing as it happened in a time when Bahai Faith was not a fringe group anymore but a reasonably sized religion and on a self-described way to world govenment - but even then there is little bearing of these events on an article essentially about the persecution of Bahais in Iran. FAIK there has not been anything amounting to persecution in any other country at any other time - if one disregards the Ottomans behaviour in the early history of the faith. My suggestion therefore is to a) rename and move the article to 'Persecution of Bahais in Iran' and b) remove the various now definitely irrelevant sections. Within the remaining text there is a lot more to say but later... If there is no objection I will do this move later todayRefdoc 08:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I have no objection to the move -- Jeff3000 14:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Also, can you please comment on the points of dispute that refer just to the Persecution in Iran. Thanks -- Jeff3000 14:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Not much to be said untill we hear User:Dawud's side of things.

Dawud responds

You're right--I have not had time to add sources etc. The reason is, not 24 hours after I create "Baha'i persecution"--which I meant to include both persecution of, and by, Baha'is (after the similar model on the Christianity page)--some Baha'i comes along and takes off everything that makes their religion look bad. This means (a) stuff challenging Baha'i claims of persecution, and (b) claims to the effect that the Baha'is persecute others. It is difficult to summon up the energy to go and add material that is only going to be deleted by the gang of Baha'i fanatics who haunt this site.

My main source for anti-Baha'i material is Frederick Glaysher's "Freedom of Conscience" website. Most of the articles on it are found in several other places, such as Juan Cole's online collection of sources. Unfortunately, some claims are limited to discussion groups for the very good reason that dissidents don't have the desire or the money to publish their claims in paperbound form as the Baha'is do. This is especially true of the Bayanis, who number only a few thousand anyway (and this does not even consider the language problem). If Wikipedia policy considers only the format, rather than quality, of a source, then this is a serious flaw in my opinion.

On the meaning of "religion" and "persecution: I don't claim to know the meaning of the word "religion"; I think it's vague. Elsewhere I got criticized for challenging Subud's claim NOT to be a religion (see Subud and religion)). Oh yeah, Baha'ism comes up in passing!) Anyway, it's a question that ought to be asked.

That is, what exactly ought to be protected by "freedom of religon"? Nobody blames the government for not allowing me to sacrifice virgins to volcanoes. Does "freedom of religion" mean that anybody should be able to go and start their own group? (Either their own version of an existing religion--a new mosque, say--or their own religion?) How far must the government go towards accommodating them? How far can the go towards discouraging them? In Iran "religion" is limited to the major historic faiths--is this fair?

I agree that the question must be asked of both Baha'is and their critics: If Baha'is (or Scientologists) are not allowed to conduct their own marriages, is this persecution? If Baha'is want to kick somebody out (i.e. strip them of a major feature of their identity, which may involve forbidding their Baha'i relatives from speaking to them) is this persecution? The answers to these are not a matter of wide agreement, and I think the issue needs to be discussed. Some of you I think are mad at me for phrasing questions from the perspective of the Iranian government. But, if we allow accusations of such things to be aired, we at least ought to allow a defense. (Personally, I do believe people should be given broad latitude to join whatever insidious cults they like, though I am inclined to make an acception for cults showing mafia-like activity.)

Yes, the UN and Amnesty International sources, etc. are significant. No, they're not the final word on persecution. At the very least we ought to be detailing exactly what it is they say somebody did, and who they say did it, and any relevant responses. We can't just lump together religiously-motivated executions along with denial of registration.

On the attitude of normal Iranians toward the Baha'is, here's a quote from Eliz Sanasarian (Religious Minorities in Iran, Cambridge UP, 2000), p. 52-53:

The popular notion among Iranian Muslims and other non-Muslims is that the Baha'is enjoyed a privileged status during the reign of Mohammad Reza Shah [...]
Persecution does not lie only in the action of a state or a community, but in the mind of every individual. The Baha'is represent everything that was sanctioned (by the state, the ulama, the Shi'i Muslim community, and the secular, even Western-educated) to hate--namely, apostasy, association with the West and Israel, pro-monarchism, and an elite club bent on self-promotion and propaganda.

And this is from someone who does sympathize with Baha'i claims of persectution. So, we can't really understand the situation without explaining these various points, which of course are debateable. (Are Baha'is cozy with Israel? Are they bent on self-promotion?)

The Babi / Baha'i stuff I think goes off on a historical tangent that is anyway covered elsewhere. (It's a bit like including Jesus's crucifixion in the "persecution of Christians" section!) By including the Bayanis, I meant to add a section which sketches their CURRENT claims to the effect that the Baha'is are persecuting them NOW. For example the Baha'is, through Jewish agents, have been buying up the land around Nur--places sacred to both the Baha'is and the Bayanis--with the intention, apparently, of later making them into Baha'i pilgrimage centers. This is one of those subjects which is discussed, as far as I know, only on Bayani message boards, as we can't very well expect a UHJ encyclical on the matter.

The same sources are the ones which suggest that Baha'is have been actively trying to get some of their members "persecuted" for propaganda purposes. Apparently their Iranian leaders refused to bail the rank-and-file Baha'is out of jail (for teaching Ruhi classes) while the leaders got off scot-free. In a better world reliable information on this would be freely available, but alas, we do not live in such a world, unless some Iranian Baha'i wants to shed light on this. My take is that we should list both the accusation and responses to it, rather than hush everything up until reliable information comes.

Cunado mentions my edits on other pages. I have been active on Christianity, Taoism, Esotericism, New Age, Subud, Yiguandao, Burkhanism, Agni Yoga, and various others. I am particularly proud of Sky Kingdom, which is that Malaysian teapot cult, and I think you will agree that I've done my best to present their beliefs fairly at a time when they could really use outside support (they're on trial this week). Anyway, most of my edits have been well received, and are still up. I don't think you could guess my own religious bias from looking at these.

The basic problem on the Baha'i-related boards is that many Baha'is (moreso than other religious groups in my experience) don't want to read criticisms about themselves, and if left to their own devices, would make these entries into sectarian propaganda, basically. The fact that they're more obscure to the average Westerner than say, Scientology helps them get away with it more easily. 211.72.108.19 11:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Dawud, let me address all your comments. When you started the page you did not add any persecutions, and just created a template. Regarding, Frederick Glaysher, he is fact very critical of the Baha'i Faith, and definitely has the right to be so, but his statements, as well as Juan Cole's, are criticisms of the Baha'i Faith and it's administration. He definitely thinks there is something wrong with the administratiion, and that should be documented as it already is in the criticism page. There have been no human right violations in these cases.
Yes, Glaysher is an individual, but his website contains statements from numerous other individuals. Cole does the same for the "Talisman" and later discussion groups--extremely important records for 1990's Baha'i history. Yes, both are "critical," just as the official Baha'i sites are the opposite. Of course we should note such things.
You say "There have been no human rights violations in these cases" as if that statement would bring an end to the matter. "Persecution" needn't involve murder and rape, however. I think we need to seriously consider the question of whether and how Baha'is persecute others. --Dawud
The definition of the word "religion" is inconsequential in general, as regardless of what religion or no-religion a person adheres to, they have some basic human rights which are being denied to those people in Iran who call themselves Baha'i; they are being imprisoned without reason, they are being killed, there property is being confiscated. Now to your point of "Freedom of Religion," yes there is a discussion on what is a religion, and what is not. We know that you don't think the Baha'i Faith is a religion, and there are other people who also believe that, but the general consensus is that it is a religion. Even in Muslim countries the religious courts have ruled that it is a religion. In Egypt in the 1920s the Grand Mufti ruled that the Baha'i Faith is in fact a independent religion, and the Moroccon courts have done the same. I agree with you that if a group was sacrificing people to volconoes, which is against another human right (the right to life) then that human right has to be protected before the right of Freedom of Religion; in the Baha'i case in Iran the Baha'is are not removing anyone else's human rights.
Personally, I think the word "religion" is vague--that is, it is not clear to me what is or is not a "religion." This is important because the Iranian government (not me) denies that Baha'is are one, thereby raising the question in a practically significant way. (Court rulings in Egypt would not apply to Iran, and anyway either set of courts might be wrong.) It is also by no means clear what specific rights "freedom of religion" ought to include within it, and this has a direct bearing on the Baha'i question. For instance, did the Iranian government have an obligation to preserve their holy sites? (And if I start my own religion, would the government have the same obligation to preserve my holy sites?)
By the way, Baha'is are not "being killed". Take a look--when was the most recent execution? I think you will find it was several decades ago. --Dawud
Now in regards to your "phrasing of questions from the perspective of the Iranian goverment" that you state should be there. I agree with you that it should be there, but you have added it in a way that adds a POV. In my edits, I have only cited what other people have written, I have not written my own statements, and then I've added what the Iranian goverments says; that they believe that the Baha'i Faith is not a religion, that they are Zionist, that they are against the state, etc, etc, etc. If you want to add stuff about it, you should add it there, and have citations. My citations for Iran's statements come from (E. Abrahamian. Khomeinism: Essays on the Islamic Republic. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1993) and (Friedrich W. Affolter. The Specter of Ideological Genocide: The Bahá'ís of Iran. War Crimes, Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity, 1(1):59– 89, 2005). You have added your statements throughout the page in a way that makes it look like it is a truth that is accepted from all sides and not just from Iran, when in fact the UN does says that there is no evidence for the Iranian claims as stated in multiple UN statements (which I've all placed in the references).
We can discuss the wording and placement. While I doubt we will be able to get official statements on each and every accusation, I think outsiders like me should be allowed to play "Devil's advocate." After all, we don't say that only the Vatican can defend Catholicism. --Dawud
You state that the international sources are not the final word on persecution, and I agree with you, and that is why I have quoted them outright and stated the source rather than making my own conclusions, but they are "documented" because these are from people who have gone to Iran and noticed it. And in regards to the lumping of religiously motivated executions, and the denial or registration, I agree with you again that they should not be lumped together, they are very different; there is no human right that states you can be in the Baha'i community, and thus it is not persecution, but it is a criticism and is documented in the apologetics page.
"Documented" gives the impression that they are established facts, when in fact what is being documented are CLAIMS. By "denial of registration" I meant Baha'is in Iran not being allowed to present "Baha'i" as their religion, not the people that the Baha'is kick out. It's this that we shouldn't conflate with execution etc. By the way "apologetics" is not the dumping ground for all criticism, nor should it consist exclusively of criticism. That's not what "apologetics" is. --Dawud
Now in regards to the quote from Eliz Sanasarian which is a nice quote but it is not a proof that the Baha'is were in favour of the Shah, but just that the majority of the Iranians believe that was the case, and who wouldn't blame them for believing that since the goverment of Iran has been stating that for decades (see Affolter). There are many Iranians who have published how and why Iranians think of Baha'is as outsiders for no reason. Mohammad-Tavakoli, a muslim-persian, who is a Professor at the University of Toronto, has published in Iran-Nameh (a persian journal, which I have placed in the references) in persian a study that examines the processes that led to the eventual "othering" of the Baha'is by the religious forces in Iranian society. Other such statements that the feeling of general Iranians against the Baha'is is without reason come from Jahanshah Javid and Iqbal Latif published in the "Iranian".
At least, we need to mention this public perception if we are to understand the situation of Baha'is in Iran. An important point is that it is not only the Iranian government which is driving this sentiment--rather, there is a genuine popular animosity towards the faith. Baha'is think this is simply a mistake. It is not. To begin with, their claim that prophets have appeared after Muhammad essentially guarantees a negative reception. Their history of armed rebellion (the Babi uprisings) and cooperation/alignment with foreign governments (rightly or wrongly) similarly marks them as "other". And then, of course, by now they have become a distinct identity group with interests that do not always coincide with those of ordinary Iranians. Baha'is benefitted from the Shah's regime, while ordinary Iranians suffered. Of course we could argue that Baha'is were making the best of the situation, just as most people would. --Dawud
Let me point out at this moment that the Baha'is were also persecuted during the reign of the Shah; starting in 1955 Baha'i homes were ransacked, the Baha'i national centre was destroyed, Baha'i holy placed were occupied, Baha'i children were expelled from school, and many dismissed from their employment. Then in the years before the revolution, the Shah’s secret service agency SAVAK was asked to suppress the Baha'is (see Affolter for both statements).
Yes, it's a bit complicated. The Shah sometimes gave in to the demands of his religious critics. --Dawud
Regarding the claimed Bayani persecution, as far as I know buying up property is not persecution, but if you can find sources for things that are indeed persecution, then go ahead and state it on this page. Again I ask you to cite sources for everything. Note that Baha'i sources are not used by any of my edits, and are all third-party. -- 16:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I learned of this through the Bayan19 site, which is a discussion group. I will ask them for translations of Persian sources, or whatever they have, once I am assured that Baha'is will not attempt to remove claims of persecution BY Baha'is, as well as OF Baha'is. --Dawud
This is much more constructive. I've added info about many of your concerns. In particular I've added the historical context which states that Baha'i teachings go against Shi'i Islam, and that the Babi Faith had a violent history. I've changed "documented persecution" to "statements" which is less POV. I have added the Iranian government's statement that Baha'is were supporters of the Shah's government, I've added general Iranian belief about the Baha'is, but also given references to reasons why that is so.
I think the final points of conflict includes alleged persecution by Baha'is, against the Bayanis, and against those that were forced to resign. Regarding the Bayanis, if you can find sources for those claims, go ahead and post them. Note that all my sources of persecution against the parties are not from Baha'i sources, but from third-parties. Regarding the explusions, I do not believe that they are persecution as membership in the Baha'i Faith is purely voluntary. -- Jeff3000 16:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment

Just to say I really love articles like this that categorically list all instances of one thing (in this case references to Baha'i persecution). That way if you ever need to find out what happened where/when you can know a place that'll have it. A couple of my own thoughts which I feel are in no way binding so feel free to slate them at your will:

  1. This article should merely be a list of all "root" sources for what has been said about Baha'i persecution (by root I mean not people quoting others etc). A small amount of context would be necessary (such as "two weeks later he retracted this comment blaming it on bad information" as it is often invaluable). This article shouldn't be a commentary of whether persecution really did happen and/or more importantly wheteher or not they deserved it.
  2. Change the name to something more meaningful. Really this article is supposed to be the definition of "Baha'i persecution" but its not really. It should be something along the lines of "References to Baha'is being persecuted" (off the top of my head).
  3. Remove the responces section (but put them in the individual context where necessary). However, this place should also list quotes from Iranian individuals (there are quite a few about Baha'is being zionists etc).
  4. More concrete referencing: include author(s), exact date, ISBN and/or website. That way if someone was researching something and wanted to read the whole article, then they could. Trust me - people really do use that.

Nicely done though -- Tomhab 20:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

What do you make of the central question, of whether the site should cover claims of persecution BY Baha'is, or not?
I suppose we could make it a disambiguation page, and separate the two, if Baha'is will promise not to complain that the negative one is too POV. 218.168.238.181 11:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Personally I think they're two separate things and would most appropriately be dealt with separately, especially if my suggestions are taken seriously (there is very little in terms of public statements about Baha'is doing the persecuting). I completely missed the debate above. Let me think on it. -- Tomhab 20:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I can't imagine there is enough reference and context, not to mention relevancy, of an article about Baha'is persecuting others. The most you can say is that Baha'is ignore and shun people, which is a far cry from persecution. There were some legal battles lost by Muhammad Ali, Mason Remey, and others, but even those were rulings by established courts, again a far cry from persecution. The Bayani stuff appears to be completely unverifiable and has conspiracy-theory written on it. I suggest putting unsupported accusational stuff on the 'apologetics' page, and yes it is a dumping ground for criticism, and has been since Dawud started it under the title "Baha'i criticism".
And just for anecdotal purposes, I asked my roommate (recently came from Iran) when was the last ordered execution of a Baha'i in Iran. He said it was about 8 years ago, last name of Rohani. Then about two weeks ago a Baha'i in prison for teaching study circles was denied access to doctors, resulting in his death, last name of Mahrami (not sure about spelling). Cuñado - Talk 21:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
No, getting kicked out of one's religion is not as bad as getting killed. It can still be very serious, however, when you consider that sects like Baha'i encourage their members to dedicate their entire being to the faith. Excommunication results not only in the utter loss of one's religious identity, but a cessation of contact with one's Baha'i relatives as well. What it amounts to is that Baha'i law breaks up families for the sake of avoiding contamination with infidels. Dissidents have alleged that these purges have been ring-led by cliques of administrators who use various means (including the purges) to maintain power over the religion.
Now you can argue that this is the right of the religion (or its leaders) based on free association and all that. (A similar argument could defend the rights of men to beat their wives, who may be deemed to consent to this treatment by virtue of not leaving.) Or one might argue instead that as a social institution, such religious groupings have an obligation to follow certain standards of public morality, and may be regulated by the wider society to that end. (Like de-Baathization or de-Nazification?) The evolution of the current system (and it has not been constant) has served to transfer power from some people to others. Baha'i leaders require followers to acknowledge this process as having been willed by God, and seek to persuade outsiders that the faith cannot or could not have been construed in any other way.
When I first started "Baha'i criticism" I was roundly scolded for what Baha'is claimed was an inherently "POV" slant. "Baha'i apologetics" has evolved into a kind of catalogue of places where various Baha'i controversies are discussed, one hopes, in a balanced way. My original idea for "Baha'i persecution" was to make this one of those sites, so that the dissident material could be moved off of the apologetics page. Now it seems that some Baha'is want criticisms to stay on the apologetics page, which is an odd interpretation of "apologetics". Anyway, I am willing to move the dissident material somewhere else ("Baha'i dissidents"?) if Baha'is will refrain from calling such a site inherently POV in principle.
By the way, on deaths, I think names and causes of death ought to be supplied at some point. "Execution" means official, state-sanctioned killing (and here the question arises as to what the actual charges were). Rohani's death may be suspicious, but it is not an execution. 218.167.169.198 13:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Dawud, beating your wife, or anyone for that matter, is illegal, not allowing a person to be part of an organization is not. And furthermore, none of the Baha'i teachings are against the internationally accepted moral standards, and even if you bring about things that Baha'is don't accept like homosexuality, and drinking, there's is nothing forcing you to be a Baha'i, and Baha'is are told to respect everyone. You've brought up shunning, and I'm sure you're going to bring it up again, and again here Baha'is should respect them, just not communicate with them. Now regarding to the Baha'i administration, yes we believe it's divinely appointed, it's not something that the Baha'i leaders require, but something that is in the holy writings and central to the Faith's teachings, and if you don't believe it, don't, but the people who voluntarily choose to believe, do believe, and if after a certain amount of time, they don't believe, they can leave. There is no forcing here.
Regarding the expulsions, go ahead and make a new page, but the title, "Baha'i Dissidents" is inheritly POV, and something like "Expulsions in the Baha'i Faith" is better, and let me once again note that you need sources for such things, and personal sites or blogs explicitly do not meet wikipedia policies on reliable sources (see first comment on this page). -- Jeff3000 15:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
The Baha'i faith, like most religious bodies, suffers from corruption and similar human failings, which they then try to cover up. The fact that you have shunning at all is itself a deep moral flaw. I blame this on your leaders who see themselves as divinely appointed, and require the rank-and-file to kowtow accordingly. Shunning is one of the tools they use to keep them in line. Why else do you think the practice still exists, when the "covenant breaker" groups it was designed to combat are now so obscure?
Just because you have the right to behave this way does not mean that it is moral, any more than lying or adultery are. A number of people have thrown their whole life's energies into this sect, or are born into families of believers in it, only then to be faced with the choice of cutting themselves off from all this. Leaving the sect can't be a casual decision for such people. Anyway, a decent religion would never put them in such a position.
You will no doubt be pleased to learn that dissident information is available as articles as well as blogs. So the world, including prospective or current Baha'is, will be in a better position to stop and think about what kind of organization they are associating themselves with. --Dawud

Shunning people with malicious intent is practiced in every religion.

Romans chapter 16
17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
19 ... I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.

If you think a decent religion should not have this practice then you are anti-religion. Your professed religion is a mockery of everything sacred.

I can't emphasize this enough, the act of avoiding somebody is in no way persecution, it is passive by nature. It is also very rare. The cases you're talking about are a handful of people around the world over decades. The act of expulsion is only done after a long process of investigation and after the individual is given several chances to reconcile. The fact that they are expelled is not controversial, and there is no doubt that anybody expelled will be angry and go on some web blog and complain about how unfair it was and how innocent they were. Cuñado - Talk 18:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

It would never occur to most Jews, Christians, Buddhists, or Hindus to ostracize one of their co-religionists in the name of religion. Some Christians sects probably do. Muslims sometimes declare others to be infidels (usually as some sort of political statement). So I suppose your nearest theological relatives would be your arch-enemies, Muslim extremists.
Let's consider a public case: the Expulsion of Ruhi Afnan. Shoghi Effendi gave three reasons: (1) he "allowed" his sister to marry a CB, (2) he travelled to America "without permission," and certain unnamed sins "related to his marriage." I think this pretty much speaks for itself. Take a good look--what kind of people are running your religion?
Expulsions are targeted not only at the people kicked out, but also at others who might be tempted to act against your leaders' interests. So they are more significant than you think. I would be interested to see numbers. (Of course most Baha'is who fall under this treatment quit before it comes to that.)--Dawud

Clarification of some incorrect assertions that went unchallenged

I realize that this is an old discussion, but it reads as if Baha'is are expected to shun ex-members, which is largely not true. In the limited case of a Baha'i breaking the covenant, Baha'is are required to shun that former member. Even in that case, they are not forbidden from doing business with that person, but are asked to limit their interaction with him to the business at hand, and not become drawn into discussion about Baha'i topics. Furthermore, if one leaves the Baha'i Faith, or is "disenrolled", so to speak, a form of excommunication which is distinct from being declared a covenant-breaker, then Baha'is are free to associate with the person, though if that person becomes an avowed enemy of the Baha'is, then members may not wish to do so, and they might find a cold shoulder. However, no Baha'i can be sanctioned for associating with a non-Baha'i - it is only in the very limited case of violations of the covenant that such shunning is obligatory.

I believe that this is part of why Jeff3000 would regard excommunication as not being a human rights violation, since anyone is free to believe what they want. Membership in an organization with membership criteria, however, is not a right. If I show up at an Alliance church and expect to be taken in as a member, and have rights to mininster to the congregation, or sit on administrative committees, it would not be unreasonable to be refused. In no cases are Baha'is asked to attack, vilify, punish, cause economic damage, slander, libel, or in any way abuse Covenant-breaker, much less a former member. Membership in a voluntary organization is not a right, per-se.

Lastly, Baha'is are not, to my knowledge, automatically required to divorce a Covenant-breaker. Granted the shunning provides extremely difficult circumstances for a marriage in the matters of family communication, etc. However, I do not believe that there are any situations within the existing guidance and scripture that require a mandatory divorce. The couple will have to work out how to remain a loving couple in the face of this deep deep challenge, but this would be the same if an evangelical christian couple had one member decide to become a Muslim, while the other did not. Some multi-faith couples simply don't talk about religion if it's too contentious. If this last comment is untrue, then let's get sources for specific examples of Baha'is being compelled to divorce, because I haven't seen it. And let's have more than hearsay by people avowedly opposed to the Baha'is, but published divorce court documents that identify cause, or whatever. --Christian Edward Gruber 12:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks Dawud for your additions, especially the legal context which I believe adds a lot to the article. -- Jeff3000 17:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

My pleasure, Jeff. --Dawud

Iran

The introduction says that Iran is "the location of the largest Bahá'í population in the world." From going over figures on the statistics page, I don't think that's true. Maybe we should change it to something like "Iran's largest religious minority." Cuñado - Talk 23:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm not sure. Although it was wrong - I think I prefer stating that it is "one of the largest populations of Baha'is" or at least something to say that it is a (relatively) large pocket of Baha'is.
Thoughts? -- Tomhab 00:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Sure, sounds good. Tomhab, can you make the change. -- Jeff3000 00:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Persecution Outside Iran

There was a move by Refdoc back in December to move this page to Persecution of Bahá'ís in Iran. While it seems that this idea has stalled, I'm not sure if it was decisively nixed (I didn't get that impression) or is merely in limbo. I'd like to add some information about the situation of the Faith in Egypt that is quite relevant to an article simply on Persecution of Bahá'ís, but I'm not sure whether the motion to move is still being considered, in which case, should I perhaps hold off on that? Keldan 05:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I think any previous suggestions have been orphaned. I suggest adding the part about Egypt on this page. My understanding was that Egypt and Iran are the worst cases of persecution, so that seems to be on point. Cuñado - Talk 06:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Great addition Keldan. I think its best to have all the countries on one page, rather than many small pages. -- Jeff3000 13:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but the article is too long (39KB as of now). It is still Iran-centric, for example the need to call a section "Outside Iran" means that the rest of the article is about persecution in Iran.

I would suggest rewriting the "Legal Context" section to be not based on Iran, and then changing "Current Situation" to "Iran" and adding a bit on Iranian legal issues in that section. Then the "outside Iran" section would be changed to just ==Egypt== and use the top level heading for every other country. 203.218.87.44 04:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Good points. I have some free time next week, and I'll try making those changes then. -- 05:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits and gramatical corrections.

Greetings all. There were quite a few edits recently made that correct spelling and grammar. However improved the grammar may seem, some of the edits are within quotes. I think it's very important that we correct the quotes to be accurate to the original, even if the original contains mistakes. Citations are citations and should be quoted verbatim. I suggest we audit the quote and return any changes to match the originals. --Christian Edward Gruber 18:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree. I will be correcting them. -- Jeff3000 03:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
It is pretty sad to see UN statements with such poor grammar, though. :{ It takes every ounce of strength NOT to correct some of it. <sigh> --Christian Edward Gruber 04:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
The thing is that they don't know how to use the term "Baha'i." Sometimes they use it as a noun, othertimes they use it as an adjective, but they are not consistent. -- Jeff3000 04:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Youths, by the way, is good grammar

I decided not to change 'youth' back to 'youths' in the article lest I start a grammar edit 'skirmish' but, at least according to http://www.dictionary.com, 'youths' is the acceptable plural of 'youth' so 'Arrest of 54 Youths in Shiraz' was correct, and better sounding to my ears as well. The capitalization issue is a matter of debate of course, but if that's the way that it was quoted in newspaper articles and the like then perhaps it should've been left? Iainsona 17:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

According to dictionary.com, youth is also plural and portrays a collective of young people. Plus I have never heard anyone say youths except people whose mother tongue is not English. -- Jeff3000 03:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
My mother tongue is English and I would use 'youth' to mean something like a plural (though it's really a mass noun) if I were talking about an undefinable or non-defined number eg. 'Youth today have no idea of what it was like before computers.' However, as a count noun, I would apply the 's' to the end of the word i.e. 'youths' or, if I were Cousin Vinny from Brooklyn, New York, then 'yoots'. Iainsona 03:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I went to dictionary.com again and this is exactly what it says. You were obviously reading the second definition from WordNet, "2: young people collectively; 'rock music appeals to the young'; 'youth everywhere rises in revolt'" to be a plural. It is, however, a mass noun, and were it plural then the last sentence of that entry would read "youth everywhere rise in revolt" not 'rises'. Iainsona 04:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
From news.bahai.org, "Three of the Bahá'í youth arrested in Shiraz, 19 May 2006" -- Jeff3000 04:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
That's again as a mass noun. It doesn't read "Three Bahá'í youth"; the 'Three' and the 'Bahá'í youth' are in different NPs —- that's noun phrases — the "the Bahá'í youth arrested in Shiraz, 19 May 2006" NP being the daughter of the PP —- prepositional phase —- headed by 'of'. In fact, as there were 54 in total, the 'Bahá'í youth' being referred to here is much more than 3. It means '3 of the 54.' As the photo caption does not mention the total number, the usage of the mass noun is acceptable and, in fact, required. It's not a plural. Any more examples? Iainsona 04:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"People" is plural, but the opening sentence of the Promise of World Peace says "To the Peoples of the World..." When I was teaching English in China and showed that sentence to someone they got really confused, because they were told in school that 'people' is the plural of 'person'. So in other words, even though 'youths' can potentially in some strange circumstance be grammatically correct, 'youth' is more correct. Cuñado - Talk 04:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah! You've hit on one of my favorite words! There are three distinct words here.
  • 1. A count noun of clearly identifiable humans with singular 'person' and plural 'people'
  • 2. A usually mass noun 'people' i.e. 'the Iroquois people' but when you talk of different groups of people throughout the world, it becomes a count noun and you pluralize it to 'peoples' ; this is the same word used for the third-person-insubstantial i.e. 'People say ...'
  • 3. A count noun of not so identifiable humans with singular 'person' and plural 'persons' eg. 'Would the person or persons who left the note in the staff room, please report to the manager'. Iainsona 05:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Did I mention that I'm a linguistics major? If that's not already obvious? Mind you, I was like this before I joined linguistics as well ... on top of that, I'm copyeditting an about-to-be-published book right now.Iainsona 05:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

P.P.S. I have to get some actual work done now and get to bed, not that this exchange hasn't been interesting; it's quite late but I look forward to responding to further examples tomorrow and the eventual reinstatement of '54 Youths' in the associated article. I do believe that I have provided MORE than ample proof of its correctness. Iainsona 05:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I actually love language and grammar, but in this case I realy just don't care. If you want to make it correct, change the sentence structure so that it uses a count noun of identifiable humans. Cuñado - Talk 06:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
That's refering to the 'peoples' comment that you brought up, not the 'youths' in this article. Although similar issues, they're not the same. I'm not editting To the Peoples of the World: A Bahá'í Statement on Peace by the Universal House of Justice, 1986. Its grammar usage is already impeccable and correct all the way through without exception. Iainsona 06:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
P.S. The 'strange circumstance' to which you referred for the usage of 'youths' is called counting. Iainsona 09:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Seeing as how the word 'youths' is absent from your (Cuñado19 and Jeff3000) vocabularies, I would posit that your dialects are non-standard ones and that you have not yet made the leap on this particular word to standard English usage. Being a linguist, I hate to be a prescriptive grammarian like this but it needs must be done in order for communication to be clear for all concerned. I honestly thought that the response to my first post on this issue would be "Oh yeah! You're right. Go ahead and fix that." I didn't expect to have to give a lecture on count nouns vs. mass nouns and how to construct an English sentence phrase by phrase. Iainsona 10:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and a little bit of humility might be appropriate. I'm not saying anything. I'm going to change it to something that doesn't say youth or youths. -- Jeff3000 13:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Re: personal attacks — not at all. In fact, having grown up in Newfoundland my everyday dialect is also a non-standard one; no shame in that. I add the habitual-aspect 's' at the end of verbs and call a 'hair burette' a 'hair buckle' among several other non-standard usages. Nothing wrong or shameful in speaking a non-standard dialect, though I apologize that you would take that as an insult. In fact, NO ONE speaks a truly standard dialect. Only the dictionary does and it ain't saying much. I'm a Bahá'í that wants the grammar, punctuation and the vocab choice to be as impeccable as possible and I invite you to read again over the arguments to leave 'youths' as 'youths' as Standard English dictates. We all have to make deviations from the way that we actually speak in order to write Standard (that does NOT mean CORRECT) English. 'Correct English' is whatever your spoken dialect says it is. Comments about a person's dialect in relation to Standard English are not comments about the person's character, thoughts, beliefs or anything else. They are in no way personal attacks. Your response is way out of proportion. Iainsona 14:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Your comment "I would posit that your dialects are non-standard ones" is a statement regarding mine and Cunado's English, and is not appreciated. You don't know anything about us, and you are assuming certain things which is not accepted in Wikipedia and is considered uncivil. I do not appreciate your tone in much of the above comments at all. -- Jeff3000 15:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Definition of Personal attacks as per Wikipedia:No personal attacks

I decided to go and re-read the page you cited and found one or two references which might apply to me and one which might apply to you so I guess we're in the same boat :

To me, it is possible that 'Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.' might apply but the only suggestion that I made of affiliation was that I was in linguistics. Perhaps even 'Be civil and adhere to good wiki etiquette when stating disagreements to avoid personalizing them and try to minimize unnecessarily antagonistic comments.' might apply to me but the only reason that I included your UserIDs after 'your' was so that it would be quite clear that I was using the plural and nor the singular 'your'. I thought that I was stating facts about your dialects and what is in the dictionary and about standard usage.

Additionally, under 'Examples that are not personal attacks' it states "It is important not to personalize comments that are directed at content and actions, but it is equally important not to interpret such comments as personal attacks. Specific examples of comments that are not personal attacks include, but are not limited to:

Disagreements about content such as 'Your statement about X is wrong' or 'Your statement is a point of view, not fact' are not personal attacks." [Emphasis added]

Hence, I have trouble seeing the above as a 'personal attack.' We are all supposed to not seek to offend nor to take offence so I'm *REALLY* confused quite honestly. Iainsona 15:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I only assumed one thing: 'youths' is not an accepted vocabulary item in your lexicon which is a fact that you have been vehement about. Iainsona 15:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Your tone in the above comments clearly reflects that because you are a linguist that you know better than Cunado and I. I am removing myself from this thread and will not comment any more. -- Jeff3000 15:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that either Jeff3000 or Cuñado actually said "youths is incorrect". The closest is Cuñado's "youth is more correct".
It would appear that youth-as-plural is indeed Standard English. The [Compact Oxford English Dictionary http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/youth?view=uk] includes this: "3 treated as sing. or pl. young people."
I've rarely, if ever, heard "youths", but that could well be Standard American English, which is Cuñado's mother tongue as well by the way. I have heard/seen Canadians use "youths" at times, but that doesn't appear to be universal.
I do agree that quotes should be verbatim, idiosyncracies and all. MARussellPESE 21:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Following the above link to the Compact OED, we find the standard and wider spread version, "youth: noun (pl. youths)" given first:

"noun (pl. youths) 1 the period between childhood and adult age. 2 the qualities of vigour, freshness, immaturity, etc. associated with being young. 3 treated as sing. or pl. young people. 4 a young man."

Further, the third definition, the one which you quote, commences with the qualifying word "treated" as though it were, in the opinion of the dictionary writer, a definition that he or she begrudgingly included. The problem that the dictionary writer was having was the concept of mass vs. count nouns else he or she would not have so qualified the entry with 'treated as ...' and been more in agreement with this meaning of its being a mass noun which is often taken as a plural by speakers of English.
I don't know much about American English per se, but in the movie, My Cousin Vinny (1992), which I referenced above when I was still in a joking and carefree mood about this, Vinny — speaking a strong New York accent (I can't remember if he was supposed to be from the City or somewhere upstate) — uses 'yoots' which he corrects to 'youths' for the judge. You can do a search of the third reference at that article if you don't believe my just saying so: http://www.law.indiana.edu/webinit/tanford/movies/MyCousinVinny.htm and I hadn't read the transcript before writing 'yoots' — I just wrote what I remembered the character saying and it agrees with the fictional court proceedings' transcript. Assuming this portrayal to be correct, it would suggest that, in at least one American dialect, 'youths' is the plural count noun for 'youth'.
The original reason I started this thread was because of the edit comment which Jeff3000 made twice on 8 July 2006, exactly one month before I joined Wikipedia: "('Youth' is plural, 'Youths' is bad grammar)." I didn't want, as I stated upfront, to start a grammar edit skirmish. I wanted to establish the reasonings on the talk page in a reasonable manner first and I have done so or, rather, no one else has conclusively proved 'youths' to be wrong to the degree that it should not be in the article as '54 youths'. Every example given thus far that 'youths' is incorrect (or I prefer the less insulting 'non-standard') usage has been quickly debunked. Iainsona 02:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
You guys are all great! I haven't laughed this hard in a long time. "Two Youts," Iainsona? Classic! For myself, the term "youths" is fairly odd to my ear, though I admit it may be valid in many varieties of English. But that is opinion only, and I have no specific knowledge of which is technically correct, if any such statement can be valid in a language as varied, fluid, and exception-ridden as English. I figure as long as we have the quote right, let's leave it alone. --Christian Edward Gruber 11:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
God Loves Laughter (title of a book by Bill Sears being the reason for the capitals) so I'm glad that our discussion could bring some into your life. It is true that 'youths' has fallen out of use in most modern dialects that I'm aware of. I, myself, rarely use it, possibly because I don't use the word 'youth' very often or possibly because 'youths' isn't in my lexicon either. It is something that I recognize as good usage, however, even if it's not in my own non-standard dialect or idiolect per se. It's not very often that you go about counting young people with the word 'youth/youths'. In my everyday speech I'd say "There were 5 guys hanging around outside the convenience store." (or probably "Der wus 5, caudem, 5 guys hengin' out ou'side de store. Scarin' de old people!") not "There were 5 youths hanging around outside the convenience store." It's simply not a word that I use frequently hence I rely on the printed sources such as dictionaries and respected publications. Regardless of our everyday dialects, 'youths' remains standard English and 'good grammar' and should not be editted to 'youth' on a whim. Iainsona 13:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

After the explanation I realized that using "youths" can be technically correct. What I meant was what Christian said: "the term 'youths' is fairly odd to my ear". It does sound funny, and because it is frequently used incorrectly by non-native speakers, I would assume just re-arrange the sentences in such a way that I never have to use the word "youths". I'm not even sure why we're still arguing. The page is fine now, so I'm not going to watch this any more. Cuñado - Talk 00:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)