Talk:Persecution of Bahá'ís
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 |
[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)
- 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)
[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)
-
- 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)
-
-
-
- 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)
-
-
[edit] more refs?
- 20/20 episode from 1983
- Heretics in Islam, Monday, Jun. 06, 1955 --Smkolins 21:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Acceleration of Iranian persecution
There are a lot of documented cases of persecution within the last few months, and these have been reported in a series of articles on Baha'i News Service. The pace and severity of persecution seems to be increasing, and I think it would justify a new sub-section under current persecution in Iran.
Also, there are a great many photos that should be in the public domain illustrating persecution against Baha'is. These include the destruction of the National Center in the 1950s, photos of missing and murdered Baha'is, photos of demolished holy sites and cemeteries, photos of anti-Baha'i grafitti, etc. --Parsa 03:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, but if it's used from the Baha'i News service then some people will consider it biased. It's better to use references from third-party observers and human rights groups. Jeff3000 has done well at sourcing this page with verifiable sources. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 08:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] arguments for denigrating Islam as violent and possible regime change
There are increasing instances of noting the situation Baha'is are in as documented in here and then framing this as a justification of characterization of Islam as inherently violent or of calling for regime change. I believe this conclusion is not supported by Baha'i stances but I'm not sure of any citable quotes. But I'd suggest this be an theme worth exploring. Is this page the place for it? I know I could review the instance of the Moroccan situation and the efforts of diplomacy rather than calling for regime change or denigrating Islam....--Smkolins (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't believe such an argument is for wikipedia to make, as it is a synthesis of published material. A good essay for a course, but not for Wikipedia. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think that this page is specifically the place for discussing a critical view of Islam or the policies of modern Muslim countries. End of neutral point. Non neutral point, as a Baha'i I think that attributing the actions of some proclaimed Muslims to be the reality of Islam is a broad and prejudicial generalization, and that most Muslims would probably find the accusation to be quite insulting. Peter Deer (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think Smkolins was saying that Bahai's were making such arguments, indeed it appears he specifically said that that conclusion is not supported by the Baha'i stance. I think he was actually referring to the inclusion of the Baha'i persecution in the rhetoric of those who are already making such arguments. Jeff3000 was saying that collecting statements from some of these regime change pushers would not be as good as siting a paper of someone who has already done so. -LambaJan (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think that this page is specifically the place for discussing a critical view of Islam or the policies of modern Muslim countries. End of neutral point. Non neutral point, as a Baha'i I think that attributing the actions of some proclaimed Muslims to be the reality of Islam is a broad and prejudicial generalization, and that most Muslims would probably find the accusation to be quite insulting. Peter Deer (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Split
Huge article This article is 71 kb, and a large bulk of it is about Iran. If that content was split into Bahá'ís in Iran, it would make for two reasonable articles. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 08:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Given that the majority of the article is the persecution of the Baha'is in Iran, that article would not be much smaller, and the persecution of the Baha'is is most apparent in Iran, I disagree with the split. It should all be on the main page. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 10:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- While there is increasing material to document persecution of Baha'is in many places and this is leading to a longer article, there is also a problem calling a split off page Bahá'ís in Iran because there is a great deal more to the history of Bahá'ís in Iran than the persecution Baha'is have suffered there and would open up several volumes of material. Nor can I think of an easy alternative - as Jeff3000 says, most of the article is about one case and that article would be still prone to grow as events unfold. That such events are being mirrored increasingly in other countries doesn't make it easier to summarize as there are other places where events like these are simply being denied. --Smkolins (talk) 14:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Simple solution Then make a separate History of Bahá'ís in Iran or Bahá'ís in Iran article and Persecution of Bahá'ís in Iran if there is really that much material. As it stands, this article is much longer than it should be. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 12:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- WP:Article_size#Readability_issues suggests a maximum size of 30-50 kb. This article is about twice that. I agree with Jeff3000 on the "History of Baha'i in Iran" idea. There is a lot of information to cover, and very good reason to document these, but overloading the presentation diminishes it. However, I don't think splitting into "Persecutions in Iran" & "Persecutions everywhere else" articles are really useful. One option I'd suggest is setting a cut-off date, say 1979, and having "Historical persecutions" and "Current persecutions" articles.
-
-
-
-
-
- That approach would not really cut the article down though. The article is written in more of a thesis style; so, I think another very good approach worth considering would be to really follow WP:SS and cull much of the prose into more concise summary statements and rely on the external citations for the reader's additional information. There are extended quotes reproduced here. I really think that this article can be improved on that score. We have a reference used twenty-seven times, and several instances where a reference is used three, four, or five times on consecutive sentences. That practice is, according to my old Turabian (13th ed., §9.15, pp. 124-125), poor form; and to me a sure sign that, in Summary Style writing, the material can be streamlined. MARussellPESE (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- Could a superstructure suit? A template of the various articles - and break this one up into some articles (general article on persecution with brief reference to Iran, Egypt and other countries; historical situation in Iran(which could actually grow somewhat longer); a focus on events near the Revolution, and recent history of oppression in Iran since the Revolution, and then put the template on all the article pages.--Smkolins (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- That approach would not really cut the article down though. The article is written in more of a thesis style; so, I think another very good approach worth considering would be to really follow WP:SS and cull much of the prose into more concise summary statements and rely on the external citations for the reader's additional information. There are extended quotes reproduced here. I really think that this article can be improved on that score. We have a reference used twenty-seven times, and several instances where a reference is used three, four, or five times on consecutive sentences. That practice is, according to my old Turabian (13th ed., §9.15, pp. 124-125), poor form; and to me a sure sign that, in Summary Style writing, the material can be streamlined. MARussellPESE (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Update needed on current situation
This page needs some update on the current situation. I will see if I get time soon... Help is welcome. Wiki-uk (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "Persecution"
I wanted to remind everyone of this. Unless an action, or view, or law (etc.) is specifically labeled as "persecution" (by a reliable source), it should not be in this article. This article is about persecution of Bahai's, not unfair acts against them, or anything that is not persecution.
To be "persecution" it must be called "persecution" by a reliable source (preferably multiple ones).
This is an accordance with consensus on Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Archive_34#Persecution. Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Video
There is a great video that highlights all the injustices in Iran. www.kdkfactory.com/quench/ Where can we add it in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.201.144 (talk) 08:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- While it may be a good video, it cannot be added to the article. Self-published sources like youtube videos are not considered reliable sources and thus don't meet Wikipedia's verifiability policies. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 10:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The video is made by a production company - its not self-published and lists all sources. take a look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.202.33 (talk) 22:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)