Comments on: Fahrenheit 451: The Islamic Court and its Fear of Baha’i Discourse http://www.iranpresswatch.org/post/1453 Documenting the Persecution of the Baha'i Community in Iran Sat, 28 Jan 2012 01:45:12 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: Terry Larson http://www.iranpresswatch.org/post/1453/comment-page-1#comment-896 Terry Larson Fri, 13 Mar 2009 20:06:06 +0000 http://www.iranpresswatch.org/?p=1453#comment-896 This is the most stunningly right-on and moving article I've ever read! Dr. Saiedi, you have most skillfully unmasked the Iranian regime [the Emperor has no clothes here]. I'm moved to tears of gratitude whenever I think of what you've written in defense of the innocent. This brilliant, most powerful article should be read in the United Nations. This is the most stunningly right-on and moving article I’ve ever read! Dr. Saiedi, you have most skillfully unmasked the Iranian regime [the Emperor has no clothes here]. I’m moved to tears of gratitude whenever I think of what you’ve written in defense of the innocent. This brilliant, most powerful article should be read in the United Nations.

]]> By: Farenheit 451 - The Hatred Discourse « Owen’s Meanderings http://www.iranpresswatch.org/post/1453/comment-page-1#comment-691 Farenheit 451 - The Hatred Discourse « Owen’s Meanderings Tue, 03 Mar 2009 00:34:20 +0000 http://www.iranpresswatch.org/?p=1453#comment-691 [...] by owen59 on March 3, 2009 In this article, Nadre Saidi illuminates the dark corners of our world, and provides the case for the development [...] [...] by owen59 on March 3, 2009 In this article, Nadre Saidi illuminates the dark corners of our world, and provides the case for the development [...]

]]> By: Hamid http://www.iranpresswatch.org/post/1453/comment-page-1#comment-664 Hamid Sun, 01 Mar 2009 19:05:36 +0000 http://www.iranpresswatch.org/?p=1453#comment-664 dear anonymous You seem to say what Dr. Saiedi is saying. You support a liberal interpretation of Islam and criticize the traditionalist idea. Dr. Saiedi is also criticizing the traditionalist idea and its role in persecution of all progressive groups including the Baha'is in Iran. Many of those that Dr. Saiedi salutes their courage in signing the petition against the persecution of the Baha'is are also Muslims but Muslims like you who care for human rights and are not the true enemies of Islam. I wish there would be more of this type of approach to Islam at thelevel of political and public discourse. Ordinary Muslims do not know much about Islam. In addition, they are too much relying on the conservative clergy. That is why they can be deceived so easily, as the people of Iran were deceived. They thought they are engaged in revolution for the sake of democracy and freedom, but since they trusted the clergy they allowed it to be a theocratic state, which destroyed all forms of freedom. To this day the Baha'is are being killed in Iran because they ask people to think for themselves and not to imitate any other human being. The fact that you do not think Naj-Al-Balagha is written by Ali is immaterial. The point is that all Shi'ih, liberal or traditionalist, lay or clergy, believe it is the sacred and binding word of Ali. It was the Western scholarship that, despite so much disdain by the Shi'ih, argued that it is not written by Ali. If you say this in Iran publicly you will be arrested as insulting Islam. It is even the case that for many scholars even the Qur'an is not written by Muhammad. But the fact that someone may think that way is immaterial. The point is that the Muslims or at least most Muslims believe in its authenticity. That is the point. Namely, that is the way the religion had been understood, and that is a culture and message that is in contrast to the realities of this time as well as the Baha'i worldview. The fact that Muslims may not always cut the hands of the thief is a good news, but it does not change the fact that Islamic law requires it, or that the old scriptural law is in contradiction to the realities of modern times. Dr. saiedi would not have complained of the brutality of the reactionaries and the contrast between medieval culture of reaction and the Baha'i message of equality and peace if the Muslims of Iran would not have acted in the way they do in the name of Islam. That is why whenever Shariah law is enforced the result is abject violation of human rights every where. Your pure speculative point that there should be at least one jurist who has rejected the law of apostasy is strange. You talk in generality because you know very well that acceptance of the apostasy has been the absolutely dominant view among all Muslims. And that is the point. It does not matter if a few have deviated or not. The dominant Muslim culture has perceived it as the true Islamic idea. You refer to works that suggest separation of church and state. It is interesting that you are saying what Baha'u'llah said 150 years ago, and he and his followers are being persecuted to this day for that assertion. Your ideas are similar to the Baha'i ideas, and there is a contrast between medieval ideas on these issues and your modern liberal views. Dr. saiedi's article is exactly affirming the same contrast. dear anonymous
You seem to say what Dr. Saiedi is saying. You support a liberal interpretation of Islam and criticize the traditionalist idea. Dr. Saiedi is also criticizing the traditionalist idea and its role in persecution of all progressive groups including the Baha’is in Iran. Many of those that Dr. Saiedi salutes their courage in signing the petition against the persecution of the Baha’is are also Muslims but Muslims like you who care for human rights and are not the true enemies of Islam. I wish there would be more of this type of approach to Islam at thelevel of political and public discourse. Ordinary Muslims do not know much about Islam. In addition, they are too much relying on the conservative clergy. That is why they can be deceived so easily, as the people of Iran were deceived. They thought they are engaged in revolution for the sake of democracy and freedom, but since they trusted the clergy they allowed it to be a theocratic state, which destroyed all forms of freedom. To this day the Baha’is are being killed in Iran because they ask people to think for themselves and not to imitate any other human being.
The fact that you do not think Naj-Al-Balagha is written by Ali is immaterial. The point is that all Shi’ih, liberal or traditionalist, lay or clergy, believe it is the sacred and binding word of Ali. It was the Western scholarship that, despite so much disdain by the Shi’ih, argued that it is not written by Ali. If you say this in Iran publicly you will be arrested as insulting Islam. It is even the case that for many scholars even the Qur’an is not written by Muhammad. But the fact that someone may think that way is immaterial. The point is that the Muslims or at least most Muslims believe in its authenticity. That is the point. Namely, that is the way the religion had been understood, and that is a culture and message that is in contrast to the realities of this time as well as the Baha’i worldview. The fact that Muslims may not always cut the hands of the thief is a good news, but it does not change the fact that Islamic law requires it, or that the old scriptural law is in contradiction to the realities of modern times. Dr. saiedi would not have complained of the brutality of the reactionaries and the contrast between medieval culture of reaction and the Baha’i message of equality and peace if the Muslims of Iran would not have acted in the way they do in the name of Islam. That is why whenever Shariah law is enforced the result is abject violation of human rights every where. Your pure speculative point that there should be at least one jurist who has rejected the law of apostasy is strange. You talk in generality because you know very well that acceptance of the apostasy has been the absolutely dominant view among all Muslims. And that is the point. It does not matter if a few have deviated or not. The dominant Muslim culture has perceived it as the true Islamic idea.
You refer to works that suggest separation of church and state. It is interesting that you are saying what Baha’u'llah said 150 years ago, and he and his followers are being persecuted to this day for that assertion. Your ideas are similar to the Baha’i ideas, and there is a contrast between medieval ideas on these issues and your modern liberal views. Dr. saiedi’s article is exactly affirming the same contrast.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.iranpresswatch.org/post/1453/comment-page-1#comment-647 Anonymous Sat, 28 Feb 2009 15:58:00 +0000 http://www.iranpresswatch.org/?p=1453#comment-647 "Dear Anonymous Dr. Saiedi’s article is critique of reactionaries’ interpretation of Islam, and the sad fact that such interpretation has been the dominant one in Islamic culture. he never identifies Islam with the ideas of reactionaries. For example as a Baha’i, Dr. Saiedi probably believes that Islam has foretold the coming of the Baha’i faith. yet Muslim reactionaries believe otherwise, reducing Islam to a cult of ahistorical traditionalism." I would disagree that it is the "dominant" interpretation in Islamic culture. I think the majority of Muslim lay people are moderate in their interpretations of Islam. Most of the scholars are traditionalists and conservatives, indeed, but that is different to say that most Muslims are traditionalists. Besides that, I don't think traditionalism is necessarily "wrong." I disagree with it, but I don't think it is 100% bad. "But of course the reactionaries have their textual and scriptural arguments to prove that their views are the real Islamic ones. For example to use your example, the idea that women are deficient in mind is exactly a quotation from Nahj Al-Balagha, a text that for all the Shi’ih is the greatest book after the Qur’an, written by Imam Ali. In that work it says “verily women are deficient in intellect, deficient in faith, and deficient in rights”. Or to give another example, it has been the consensus of the Sunni and Shi’ih jurists that according to Islam the apostate must die. They quote for example Muhammad as saying “whoever changes his religion behead him.” It is interesting that not a single jurist or Islamic intellectual prior to 20th century has ever questioned this law." *Everyone* has textual and scriptural evidence to support their interpretations of a religion. Moderates, extremists, traditionalists, liberals, progressive *all* claim to derive their beliefs from the same texts. So, I don't think that just because hardliners say they get their beliefs from scriptural evidence, that that means they must be "right." Secondly, I doubt that Nahj Al-Balagha was actually written by 'Ali. If anything it was probably written by various scholars who followed 'Ali throughout time. Thirdly, I am pretty sure that there was at least "one" Muslim jurist prior to the 20th century who rejected the notion that a Muslim who converted to another faith should be killed. We're dealing with over 1200 years and possibly hundreds of thousands of jurists, so it is near mathematically impossible for there to be 100% agreement on said issue. Fourthly, even if a person believes in the complete authenticity of Nahj Al-Balagha, it doesn't mean that they will automatically treat women as if they are deficient in intelligence. All Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the word of God, but you don't see a billion Muslims cutting off peoples hands for stealing. Such a news story would not have been lost to the media's eyes, sir :-) "Obviously this is not easily compatible with even elementary principles of a democratic or progressive politics. Yet Dr. Saiedi mentions in the same paper that the Baha’is offer a progressive interpretation of Islam that is historically specific and qualitatively different from that of the reactionaries. But of course such interpretation is never allowed to be expressed in Iran." Of course it is not compatible with the principles of a democratic or progressive political ideology, but that is the problem with any theocracy. I'm a secularist, so I believe in the separation of Religion and State. Nevertheless I believe in God, and try to be a Muslim. I don't see a contradiction. I recommend reading "Islam and the Secular State" by Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na`im and "The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists" by Khaled Abou El Fadl if you feel like it. “Dear Anonymous
Dr. Saiedi’s article is critique of reactionaries’ interpretation of Islam, and the sad fact that such interpretation has been the dominant one in Islamic culture. he never identifies Islam with the ideas of reactionaries. For example as a Baha’i, Dr. Saiedi probably believes that Islam has foretold the coming of the Baha’i faith. yet Muslim reactionaries believe otherwise, reducing Islam to a cult of ahistorical traditionalism.”

I would disagree that it is the “dominant” interpretation in Islamic culture. I think the majority of Muslim lay people are moderate in their interpretations of Islam. Most of the scholars are traditionalists and conservatives, indeed, but that is different to say that most Muslims are traditionalists. Besides that, I don’t think traditionalism is necessarily “wrong.” I disagree with it, but I don’t think it is 100% bad.

“But of course the reactionaries have their textual and scriptural arguments to prove that their views are the real Islamic ones. For example to use your example, the idea that women are deficient in mind is exactly a quotation from Nahj Al-Balagha, a text that for all the Shi’ih is the greatest book after the Qur’an, written by Imam Ali. In that work it says “verily women are deficient in intellect, deficient in faith, and deficient in rights”. Or to give another example, it has been the consensus of the Sunni and Shi’ih jurists that according to Islam the apostate must die. They quote for example Muhammad as saying “whoever changes his religion behead him.” It is interesting that not a single jurist or Islamic intellectual prior to 20th century has ever questioned this law.”

*Everyone* has textual and scriptural evidence to support their interpretations of a religion. Moderates, extremists, traditionalists, liberals, progressive *all* claim to derive their beliefs from the same texts. So, I don’t think that just because hardliners say they get their beliefs from scriptural evidence, that that means they must be “right.” Secondly, I doubt that Nahj Al-Balagha was actually written by ‘Ali. If anything it was probably written by various scholars who followed ‘Ali throughout time. Thirdly, I am pretty sure that there was at least “one” Muslim jurist prior to the 20th century who rejected the notion that a Muslim who converted to another faith should be killed. We’re dealing with over 1200 years and possibly hundreds of thousands of jurists, so it is near mathematically impossible for there to be 100% agreement on said issue. Fourthly, even if a person believes in the complete authenticity of Nahj Al-Balagha, it doesn’t mean that they will automatically treat women as if they are deficient in intelligence. All Muslims believe that the Qur’an is the word of God, but you don’t see a billion Muslims cutting off peoples hands for stealing. Such a news story would not have been lost to the media’s eyes, sir :-)

“Obviously this is not easily compatible with even elementary principles of a democratic or progressive politics. Yet Dr. Saiedi mentions in the same paper that the Baha’is offer a progressive interpretation of Islam that is historically specific and qualitatively different from that of the reactionaries. But of course such interpretation is never allowed to be expressed in Iran.”

Of course it is not compatible with the principles of a democratic or progressive political ideology, but that is the problem with any theocracy. I’m a secularist, so I believe in the separation of Religion and State. Nevertheless I believe in God, and try to be a Muslim. I don’t see a contradiction. I recommend reading “Islam and the Secular State” by Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na`im and “The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists” by Khaled Abou El Fadl if you feel like it.

]]> By: Hamid http://www.iranpresswatch.org/post/1453/comment-page-1#comment-641 Hamid Sat, 28 Feb 2009 03:04:06 +0000 http://www.iranpresswatch.org/?p=1453#comment-641 Dear Anonymous Dr. Saiedi's article is critique of reactionaries' interpretation of Islam, and the sad fact that such interpretation has been the dominant one in Islamic culture. he never identifies Islam with the ideas of reactionaries. For example as a Baha'i, Dr. Saiedi probably believes that Islam has foretold the coming of the Baha'i faith. yet Muslim reactionaries believe otherwise, reducing Islam to a cult of ahistorical traditionalism. But of course the reactionaries have their textual and scriptural arguments to prove that their views are the real Islamic ones. For example to use your example, the idea that women are deficient in mind is exactly a quotation from Nahj Al-Balagha, a text that for all the Shi'ih is the greatest book after the Qur'an, written by Imam Ali. In that work it says "verily women are deficient in intellect, deficient in faith, and deficient in rights". Or to give another example, it has been the consensus of the Sunni and Shi'ih jurists that according to Islam the apostate must die. They quote for example Muhammad as saying "whoever changes his religion behead him." It is interesting that not a single jurist or Islamic intellectual prior to 20th century has ever questioned this law. Obviously this is not easily compatible with even elementary principles of a democratic or progressive politics. Yet Dr. Saiedi mentions in the same paper that the Baha'is offer a progressive interpretation of Islam that is historically specific and qualitatively different from that of the reactionaries. But of course such interpretation is never allowed to be expressed in Iran. Dear Anonymous
Dr. Saiedi’s article is critique of reactionaries’ interpretation of Islam, and the sad fact that such interpretation has been the dominant one in Islamic culture. he never identifies Islam with the ideas of reactionaries. For example as a Baha’i, Dr. Saiedi probably believes that Islam has foretold the coming of the Baha’i faith. yet Muslim reactionaries believe otherwise, reducing Islam to a cult of ahistorical traditionalism. But of course the reactionaries have their textual and scriptural arguments to prove that their views are the real Islamic ones. For example to use your example, the idea that women are deficient in mind is exactly a quotation from Nahj Al-Balagha, a text that for all the Shi’ih is the greatest book after the Qur’an, written by Imam Ali. In that work it says “verily women are deficient in intellect, deficient in faith, and deficient in rights”. Or to give another example, it has been the consensus of the Sunni and Shi’ih jurists that according to Islam the apostate must die. They quote for example Muhammad as saying “whoever changes his religion behead him.” It is interesting that not a single jurist or Islamic intellectual prior to 20th century has ever questioned this law. Obviously this is not easily compatible with even elementary principles of a democratic or progressive politics. Yet Dr. Saiedi mentions in the same paper that the Baha’is offer a progressive interpretation of Islam that is historically specific and qualitatively different from that of the reactionaries. But of course such interpretation is never allowed to be expressed in Iran.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.iranpresswatch.org/post/1453/comment-page-1#comment-635 Anonymous Fri, 27 Feb 2009 22:30:00 +0000 http://www.iranpresswatch.org/?p=1453#comment-635 Mr. Saiedi's article is very accurate in regards to the persecution of the Iranian Baha'is, but I disagree with his position on Islam and Muslims. I don't think Islam is an inherently anti-progressive religion. I think the majority of the religious scholars are either traditionalists or conservatives, but the leaders of all religions tend to be conservative in their worldview. Even the Universal House of Justice is made up of Baha'is with a conservative worldview, although many Baha'is entertain liberal ideas. I think it is the very nature of religious authority that seems to lend itself to conservatism for some reason. That could be another article for Mr. Saiedi to write in the future. Perhaps that tension is needed. Perhaps if the religious leaders/body was liberal, the religion would become "too liberal" as a whole, and become "watered down." I don't know. I am a Muslim, and I don't believe women are "deficient in intelligence", or that if I touch a non-Muslim, I have been "tainted", or that women are "hidden sex objects." I am appalled by such ideas, and don't think that I have to distance myself from Islam in order to be "progressive" and "democratic." Much of Mr. Saiedi's discourse is motivated by his righteous anger, which I think is self-defeating at times. It is good to be angry at an injustice, but when anger becomes poisonous and full of sarcastic remarks, he can put a lot of well meaning Muslims on the defense because they feel like their religion is under attack. It is hard to get people to help you out, if you're bashing what they believe and imploring their conscience at the same time. Not only can it be seen as rude and disrespectful, but it could be self-defeating as well. That's my only critique of Mr. Saiedi's style of writing. But as far as data, facts, and a sociological perspective is considered, I think he understands the situation very well. Mr. Saiedi’s article is very accurate in regards to the persecution of the Iranian Baha’is, but I disagree with his position on Islam and Muslims. I don’t think Islam is an inherently anti-progressive religion. I think the majority of the religious scholars are either traditionalists or conservatives, but the leaders of all religions tend to be conservative in their worldview. Even the Universal House of Justice is made up of Baha’is with a conservative worldview, although many Baha’is entertain liberal ideas. I think it is the very nature of religious authority that seems to lend itself to conservatism for some reason. That could be another article for Mr. Saiedi to write in the future. Perhaps that tension is needed. Perhaps if the religious leaders/body was liberal, the religion would become “too liberal” as a whole, and become “watered down.” I don’t know.

I am a Muslim, and I don’t believe women are “deficient in intelligence”, or that if I touch a non-Muslim, I have been “tainted”, or that women are “hidden sex objects.” I am appalled by such ideas, and don’t think that I have to distance myself from Islam in order to be “progressive” and “democratic.” Much of Mr. Saiedi’s discourse is motivated by his righteous anger, which I think is self-defeating at times. It is good to be angry at an injustice, but when anger becomes poisonous and full of sarcastic remarks, he can put a lot of well meaning Muslims on the defense because they feel like their religion is under attack. It is hard to get people to help you out, if you’re bashing what they believe and imploring their conscience at the same time. Not only can it be seen as rude and disrespectful, but it could be self-defeating as well. That’s my only critique of Mr. Saiedi’s style of writing.
But as far as data, facts, and a sociological perspective is considered, I think he understands the situation very well.

]]> By: Bill http://www.iranpresswatch.org/post/1453/comment-page-1#comment-619 Bill Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:36:53 +0000 http://www.iranpresswatch.org/?p=1453#comment-619 Nader Saiedi is writing passionately about the Baha'i case because he has lived it and because every Baha'i identifies with the innocent people being targeted. It is a false prioritization when we minimize any human rights violation as being "far from the top of the list" because "the world is full of problems." The current growing list of attacks on the Baha'is is the signal of a much more intense, coordinated, and systematic approach to "eliminating the perverse Baha'i sect from Iran" as one cleric put it. This isn't hyperbole. It is intended to be followed up by action. In the past 30 years, the authorities have successfully eliminated virtually the entire Baha'i presence in rural Iran and small towns. Villages where the majority of people were Baha'is have been emptied through systematic deprivation of livelihood, homes, property, and education, and through persistent attack - threatened and real. It is the religious equivalent of ethnic cleansing. The last stage of cleansing is "if we can't get you to leave, we will kill you all." Baha'is are tired of it and they are also tired of people who have absolutely no experience dismissing the Baha'i case as nothing. in iran, it is everything because the Baha'is represent the regime's and the clerics' demon - the absolute other against whom anything is permitted because they are not regarded as human. Nader Saiedi is writing passionately about the Baha’i case because he has lived it and because every Baha’i identifies with the innocent people being targeted. It is a false prioritization when we minimize any human rights violation as being “far from the top of the list” because “the world is full of problems.” The current growing list of attacks on the Baha’is is the signal of a much more intense, coordinated, and systematic approach to “eliminating the perverse Baha’i sect from Iran” as one cleric put it. This isn’t hyperbole. It is intended to be followed up by action. In the past 30 years, the authorities have successfully eliminated virtually the entire Baha’i presence in rural Iran and small towns. Villages where the majority of people were Baha’is have been emptied through systematic deprivation of livelihood, homes, property, and education, and through persistent attack – threatened and real. It is the religious equivalent of ethnic cleansing. The last stage of cleansing is “if we can’t get you to leave, we will kill you all.” Baha’is are tired of it and they are also tired of people who have absolutely no experience dismissing the Baha’i case as nothing. in iran, it is everything because the Baha’is represent the regime’s and the clerics’ demon – the absolute other against whom anything is permitted because they are not regarded as human.

]]> By: Kourosh http://www.iranpresswatch.org/post/1453/comment-page-1#comment-618 Kourosh Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:30:26 +0000 http://www.iranpresswatch.org/?p=1453#comment-618 What Andrew says is the best confirmation of the accuracy of Saiedi's analysis. Andrew is dehumanizing the Baha'is by saying that oppression and injustice against this particular group is no problem because in his list such oppression cannot be important, and hence condemning it or calling for the application of human rights to this particular group is not only unnecessary but something evil! Racists of the world either explicitly defend their racist prejudice and call it rational analysis (like the Nazi scientific racism or Islamic version of the law of apostasy and nejasat), or hide cowardly behind an indirect strategy that divides oppression in two categories, one that is important and one that is not. Of course Andrew is probably a Hojjatiyyih sympatheizer and he knows very well that it is the Hojjatiyyih racists who argue that Baha'is are the root of all problems. So in fact Andrew even lies. He really believes in his racist ideology that the Baha'i problem is the most important problem, yet his cowardice makes him contradict his own belief and pretend that he does not consider this issue as important. Justice means universal condemnation of all oppression. It is only the racist oppressor who defines some injustice as unimportant and therefore unworthy of discourse or action. This is the essence of that particularistic logic that is the heart of all forms of violence and racist construction of the other. The truth is that all forms of violence are related to each other. Disregarding or justification of one kind is justification of all forms of injustice. Old Testament, and later the Qur'an, has said that killing any human being is killing the entire human race. Compare this sublime logic with the KKK-like logic of Andrew. Needless to say all other forms of oppressions in Iran are products of the same phenomenon that led to the systematic persecution of the Baha'is: namely a culture of hate, prejudice and ignorance that was advocated by the Muslim clergy which led to the backwardness of Iran for at least five centuries, suppression of the rights of women, rights of other religious minorities, murder of human right activists, censorship and the like. What Andrew says is the best confirmation of the accuracy of Saiedi’s analysis. Andrew is dehumanizing the Baha’is by saying that oppression and injustice against this particular group is no problem because in his list such oppression cannot be important, and hence condemning it or calling for the application of human rights to this particular group is not only unnecessary but something evil! Racists of the world either explicitly defend their racist prejudice and call it rational analysis (like the Nazi scientific racism or Islamic version of the law of apostasy and nejasat), or hide cowardly behind an indirect strategy that divides oppression in two categories, one that is important and one that is not. Of course Andrew is probably a Hojjatiyyih sympatheizer and he knows very well that it is the Hojjatiyyih racists who argue that Baha’is are the root of all problems. So in fact Andrew even lies. He really believes in his racist ideology that the Baha’i problem is the most important problem, yet his cowardice makes him contradict his own belief and pretend that he does not consider this issue as important. Justice means universal condemnation of all oppression. It is only the racist oppressor who defines some injustice as unimportant and therefore unworthy of discourse or action. This is the essence of that particularistic logic that is the heart of all forms of violence and racist construction of the other. The truth is that all forms of violence are related to each other. Disregarding or justification of one kind is justification of all forms of injustice. Old Testament, and later the Qur’an, has said that killing any human being is killing the entire human race. Compare this sublime logic with the KKK-like logic of Andrew. Needless to say all other forms of oppressions in Iran are products of the same phenomenon that led to the systematic persecution of the Baha’is: namely a culture of hate, prejudice and ignorance that was advocated by the Muslim clergy which led to the backwardness of Iran for at least five centuries, suppression of the rights of women, rights of other religious minorities, murder of human right activists, censorship and the like.

]]> By: AndrewRT http://www.iranpresswatch.org/post/1453/comment-page-1#comment-616 AndrewRT Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:50:05 +0000 http://www.iranpresswatch.org/?p=1453#comment-616 This article is just a tide of ignorance and prejudice. It is sensationalist and lacks perspective. The world is full of problems; the situation of the Baha'is in Iran is far from the top of the list. This article is just a tide of ignorance and prejudice. It is sensationalist and lacks perspective. The world is full of problems; the situation of the Baha’is in Iran is far from the top of the list.

]]> By: Yrjö Mikkonen http://www.iranpresswatch.org/post/1453/comment-page-1#comment-595 Yrjö Mikkonen Thu, 26 Feb 2009 07:01:09 +0000 http://www.iranpresswatch.org/?p=1453#comment-595 Dear Dr. Saeidi, Thank you very very much for your excellent and deep article! It is a profound analysis of the situation of the Bahá'ís in Iran. It should us really hope so awake at least some of the blind and dumb minds against Bahá'ís. Let Moreover, it contains valuable intellectual material for my research of the problem of freedom of speech, a question so crucial in today's world. I will read it over and over again very carefully. Dr. Yrjö Mikkonen, researcher of concepts and conceptualization Oulu Dear Dr. Saeidi,

Thank you very very much for your excellent and deep article! It is a profound analysis of the situation of the Bahá’ís in Iran. It should us really hope so awake at least some of the blind and dumb minds against Bahá’ís. Let Moreover, it contains valuable intellectual material for my research of the problem of freedom of speech, a question so crucial in today’s world. I will read it over and over again very carefully.
Dr. Yrjö Mikkonen, researcher of concepts and conceptualization
Oulu

]]>