From: ghbr@fmg.bt.co.uk (Hossein Bagherzadeh Rafsanjani)
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination,alt.news-media,soc.culture.iranian,soc.rights.human,talk.politics.mideast,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: PROMINENT IRANIAN BAHA'I EXECUTED
Date: 15 Apr 92 09:23:17 GMT
Organization: British Telecom

In article <1992Apr14.135627.6297@fmg.bt.co.uk> ghbr@fmg.bt.co.uk (Hossein Bagherzadeh Rafsanjani) writes:

> In article <dfs.703194746@ro> dfs@doe.carleton.ca (David F. Skoll) writes:

> > In <1992Apr13.174855.3057@cs.brown.edu> dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) writes:

> > >If I am not mistaken, the Baha'i religion originated in Iran about a 
> > >hundred and fifty years ago. It calls (among other things) to 
> > >brotherhood of all people, and is very peaceful. 

> > >Why are these people persecuted and killed in Iran?

> > >The Baha'i center is in Haifa, Israel. Could that have anything
> > >to do with it?

> > Possibly, but I'd doubt it - the Iranian govt has persecuted Baha'is
> > much more brutally than it has Jews.  For some reason, they have a
> > hatred towards Baha'i philosophy.  Maybe a militaristic state which
> > advocates exporting revolution throughout the Middle East feels
> > threatened by a group espousing pasificism, tolerance and brotherhood.

> The execution of Baha'is is one of the most deplorable atrocities carried out
> by the Iranian regime.  And the reasons are more than just a "hatred towards
> Baha'i philosophy".  

> There is a distinction in Islamic, and in particular Shi'a, jurisprudence
> between pre and post Islamic beliefs and also between someone born inside a
> religious belief and someone who acquires one.  

> Islam, on its own birth, accepted existing religions but regarded them as
> elapsed.  But then, faced with the resistance of adherents of those faiths to
> convert to Islam, made a concession and allowed them to continue in their
> beliefs with some restriction in the Islamic society.  But any religion born
> after Islam, especially in its own realm, is regarded as a heresy and so is
> unacceptable as a religion.  In view of the Islamic theologists, to do
> otherwise is an admission of inadecquacy of Islam.  They regard Islam as the
> last and most perfect religion for all time.  The ones coming before it were
> imperfect.  The one coming after it make Islam look imperfect by implication.
> That is something very hard to accept by an Islamic theologian.  The result is
> persecution and murder on a grand scale as Baha'is have witnessed in Iran and
> other folowers of similar beliefs in other Moslem countries.

> But there is another feature which is more strange (and anti-human) and is
> common in respect of ALL non-Islamic religions.  That is: A person born out of
> Islamic wed-lock has virtually no right to convert to any other religion.

A correction.  By "a person born out of Islamic wed-lock" I meant a person who
is the child of Moslem parent(s) and who is conceived inside a legal Islamic
marriage.  Illegitimate children have much less rights in the Islamic society,
and (apparantly) may not be so harshly punished as a legitimate child in cases
like this either!  Read the word "out" in the above sentence as "as a result",
even though it is not apparantly correct in English!

> Again, the "rationale" behind it is that such an action is a proclamation that
> the other religion is somehow better than Islam.  If you are born with that
> belief you may be forgiven.  But if you have experienced Islam, how dare you
> declare a deficiency in Islam by converting to some other religion?  This has
> been the ground for executing a number of Christians in Iran who by their very
> name were obvious to have been born as Moslems!  Two of such executions are
> Hassan Dehghaani Tafti (a Bishop In Tehran/Esfahan) and Hossein Soodmand (in
> Mashhad).  A convert to Baha'i faith can hardly expect a better treatment.

> Indeed, the treatment of someone who is born as Moslem and then is converted to
> some other religion is very severe.  In Shi'a (I am not sure of other
> Islamic sects' positions on this), such a person is condemned to death and no
> repentence is allowed (mortadd-e fetri)!  This is in contrast with someone who
> first converts from another religion to Islam and then changes her/his mind and
> goes back to the old religion (mortadd-e melli).  The action of both is
> regarded as a capital offence and punished by death.  But in the second case,
> repentance is allowed and the death threat may be lifted.  However, there is no
> way out for the one who is born in a Moslem family.  S/HE HAS TO DIE.  Period.

> This is indeed a good example of the "Islamic tolerance" that many Islamic
> and/or Shi'a authorities claim, and use verses of Qor'an (especially Surah 109:
> The Unbelivers) to "substantiate" their claim.  This also explains why in view
> of the Shi'a authorities in Iran, the death sentence on Salman Rushdie may
> never be lifted--no matter what he will be ready to do.  After all, he was born
> in a Moslem family, and his action in writing Satanic Verses is tantamount to
> rejecting Islam (in favour of atheism, say).

> Of course, using this criteria implies that millions of Iranians should be 
> sentenced to death.  But then you can not kill people in their millions.  
> However, they did murder quite a lot of people, who were charged with being
> apostate, in early years of the revolution.  And they also pick up on someone
> like Rushdie because of its international significance for propaganda
> purposes in the Islamic world.

> -hossein