Ayatollah Montazeri clarifies his position on Bahai Faith
June 17th, 2008Question:
Your Excellency,
In one of your [previous] answers to [the questions regarding] Bahai sect, pointing out that Bahai faith is not considered a legal religious minority for it lacks a divine scripture, you stated:
“However, for they are citizens of this country and have a right due to belonging to this country, they have the right of citizenship.”
Following your response, some of the followers of Bahai faith abused [it] and made significant claims, and it’s even said that your pre-revolution opinion about them has changed [into this newer version]. Please kindly clarify this issue and your point about ‘right of citizenship’.
*****
Ayatollah Monatazeri’s Answer:
Blessing and peace
My opinion regarding Bahai sect is still what I did believe in since pre-revolution years and has not experienced any change. However, due to Quran stating that “Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice” (60-8), and due to Imam Ali’s letter to Malik Ashtar (a sincere companion of Imam Ali, appointed by him to govern Egypt) that “Maalik! You must create in your mind kindness, compassion and love for your subjects. Do not behave towards them as if you are a voracious and ravenous beast and as if your success lies in devouring them. Remember, Maalik, that amongst your subjects there are two kinds of people: those who have the same religion as you have; they are brothers to you, and those who have religions other than that of yours, they are human beings like you”, the humane rights of those who do not follow any heavenly religion must be respected.
‘Right of Citizenship’ is a general term, and its limits should be defined according to public customs and the constitution of which the majority are approving. However, if any person is trying to be the enemy of country’s people, or cooperate with external enemies [of the nation] and their cooperation is proved in a credible court, they must be punished. And their citizenship is not a barrier to the law being enforced. And attention should be paid so as the youth do not get trapped by their malicious propaganda; and if doing business or having companionship with them works as a mean strengthening their position, it should be avoided.
God-willing you will be successful,
25-Khordad-1387 (14-June-2008)
*****
Source: Comments to a post in Radio Zamaneh. Note that the source is not that reliable; however, since the issue is of a relatively high importance, I do expect several other sources to publish it as soon as possible.
Update: Here is a reliable reference from the official site of Ayatollah Montazeri. the first 3 fatwas are about Bahaism, including the previous one published earlier in MEY and this newest one. And there is something in between them repeating the same theme.
Loading ...
Loading...
Thank you Mohammad for breaking this on MEY. His reply here is within expectations and reason, given who and what he is. Please keep us posted.
If this is true, I am sorry.
I was hoping our religious leadership would show the same respect for Bahais that Muslims demand from the West. The Iranian government ridicules, oppresses, and insults Bahais, while at the same time the Ayatollahs complain about how the West insults Islam. Can you imagine American universities banning Muslim students? How is it that we allow Bahai students to be banned from our Iranian universities?
It seems like we are allowing a double standard. It is humiliating for us Muslims that are doing our best to believe.
Do we like it when Christians call Islam a cult, sect, or false religion? Why do we allow this to happen to Bahais? Why do we make-up stories to justify our treatment of Bahais. One day we say that Bahais are the agents of America, then Israel, then Russia. I don’t believe it. None of us believe it. We are not monkeys. We are not sheep that will blindly follow any story.
For the sake of Muslims around the world, we need our leadership to demonstrate the highest compassion, dignity, and respect for all humans (especially non-Muslims like Bahais). Otherwise, I fear that the trend away from religion will continue. When people don’t see that the religious leaders upholding the highest values then they will turn away. This would be the greatest hardship. Just some thoughts from a sincere person.
Omid:
You seem to have a low level of expectaions
I find his answer quite a bit self-contradictory, for socially marginalizing a people (as the last few sentences imply) contradicts respecting the right of citizenship (whatever its definition).
Mohammad, thanks for the piece!
I thought it would only be a matter of time until he would have to “reconsider” his previous statement. Looks like he is still keeping the matter open and awarding minimum human rights to those who do not follow a “heavenly religion”. In any case, good for him for speaking out on the matter.
I understand he is under house arrest by the government and they have been giving him lots of grief over the years.
[...] full text of the translated response can be read here. Filed under : Recent news, Iran, Baha’i [...]
Ali, thank you for speaking out so clearly in favour of compassion, dignity and respect for all human beings. Islam teaches this. All the great religions teach these virtues. No matter what your religion, it is always painful when others (in ignorance or by malice) say things that are clearly false about your faith and about what you revere. I am a Baha’i and I have friends here in the UK from all the major faiths, including Islam. I know my Muslim friends have suffered a great deal of pain here in recent years, but at least they are recognized as part of one of the world’s great faiths, as citizens of the UK, as having important contributions to make to British society - and they are free to build mosques and to worship.
The other day young Muslims from the charity Islamic Relief were standing in the Underground station in London collecting money for the victims of the earthquake in China. They were cheerful and smiling and I was very happy to make a contribution.
I think Mohammad Memarian is right. What Montazeri is saying now could easily be used to excuse further bad treatment of the Baha’is in Iran.
Of course this makes sense:
“if any person is trying to be the enemy of country’s people, or cooperate with external enemies [of the nation] and their cooperation is proved in a credible court, they must be punished.”
And this as well: “And attention should be paid so as the youth do not get trapped by their malicious propaganda”.
False and vague accusations of espionage aside, it all boils down to what is the criterion for being an ‘enemy’ and what is ‘malicious propaganda’. In the Netherlands, there is continuous debate, for instance, on whether apparently anti-democratic or discriminatory sermons by some Imams are grounds for legal action against them because these sermons constitute ‘malicious propaganda’ undermining the foundation of the Dutch society.
I guess that for some of the Iranian clergy merely believing and proclaiming that divine revelation has continued and will continue after the revelation of the Qur’an is in itself sufficient to make one an enemy of the country’s people and guilty of malicious propaganda. In that view baha’is are criminals by definition.
I suspect this view is especially strong among those whose position in society heavily depends on the people believing that they are the caretakers and expounders of the latest and final divine revelation that took place more than 1300 years ago.
Ayatollah Montazeri states that Bahai Faith is not considered a religion because it lacks “a divine scripture”. The Bahai Faith does have a divine scripture and in fact it has many scriptures that they consider as divine. I think the view lies in the definition of what is considered as divine. Maybe if God had delivered the scripture personally or through His foreign minister with lots of pictures in reputable world newspapers then the scripture would be considered as divine.
Barney: “Ali, thank you for speaking out so clearly in favour of compassion, dignity and respect for all human beings. Islam teaches this.”
What, really, does Islam teach? There are a few decent verses in the Koran like for example:
2:42 Confound not truth with falsehood, nor knowingly conceal the truth.
17:36 (O man), follow not that whereof thou hast no knowledge. Lo! the hearing and the sight and the heart - of each of these it will be asked.
But a horrifyingly big part of the Koran is just an expression of hate, cruelty and violence:
2:6 As for the Disbelievers, Whether thou warn them or thou warn them not it is all one for them; they believe not.
2:7 Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom.
2:10 In their hearts is a disease, and Allah increaseth their disease. A painful doom is theirs because they lie.
2:39 But they who disbelieve, and deny Our revelations, such are rightful Peoples of the Fire. They will abide therein.
43:89 Then bear with them (O Muhammad) and say: Peace. But they will come to know.
These are just a few verses; there are many more, and worse, to choose from.
Hassan:
You raised a nice question. let’s suppose for a while that what you say comes true… in which case, I think, Ayatollahs position would be something close to this: He, who sent the scripture, is a false God.
The main problem is that if they (i.e. Ayatollahs) come to accept Bahai texts as some divine ones, they have to convert.
Mohammad,
We as Baha’is expect political posturing, which in my opinion this is ultimately what this is. I have no doubt in his belief in human rights, but what is interesting is his timing. As a cardinal principle of keeping our hands free from politics, we really should not have jumped on his original statement to begin with. Mullahs in Iran were some of the first Baha’is and their influence there is quite important. The Ayatollah has essentially created a controversy and made this a very politic issue.
Listed below is one of many quotations Baha’is have as guidance. it was originally penned in the 1930s. How appropriate it still is today…
“…By the principle of non-interference in political matters we should not mean that only corrupt politics and partial and sectarian politics are to be avoided, but that any pronouncement on any current system of politics connected with any government must be shunned. We should not only take sides with no political party, group or system actually in use, but we should also refuse to commit ourselves to any statement which may be interpreted as being sympathetic or antagonistic to any existing political organization or philosophy. The attitude of the Bahá’ís must be one of complete aloofness. They are neither for nor against any system of politics. Not that they are the ill-wishers of their respective governments but that due to certain basic considerations arising out of their teachings [of] their Faith they prefer not to get entangled in political affairs and to be misinterpreted and misunderstood by their countrymen.
In the light of this principle it becomes clear that to contribute articles on current political affairs to any newspaper must inevitably lead the writer to express, directly or in an indirect manner, his view and his criticisms on the subject. He is, in addition, always liable to be misinterpreted and misunderstood by the politicians. The best thing to do, therefore, is simply not to write on current politics at all.”
(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi)
Magnus each of these quotes is taken out of context. The Quran is filled with 10 times as many more quotes of kindness, justice, peace, tolerance and virtue.
Let’s not turn this into a quotation battle please.
When I, a Baha’i, saw the original statement from Ayatollah Montazeri, it was clear to me that it was couched in careful terms that could be interpreted in various ways. The Baha’i institutions did not use Montazeri’s statement to promote any kind of “propaganda” advantage, because of its ambiguity. In the Internet world, some individual Baha’is thought this statement signalled a major change of heart on the part of Shiah clerics in Iran. It does not. It is a particular posture that contains within it the possibility Baha’is can still be falsely accused of crimes they have never committed, as an excuse to persecute them for their religion.
As a Baha’i, I will also state my firm conviction that Islam and the Qur’an are a divine message of compassion and justice. It is clerics and ignorant people who have corrupted it. “Corruption of the Text”, Baha’u'llah says, occurs when one corrupts the meaning of the Word of God such that the truth is veiled.
Omid!
You aren’t surprising me; the out-of-context argument is probably the most commonly used when Muslims or Islam apologetics try to disapprove critique of the ideology in question. But you are perhaps right about the good verses being 10 times as many as the 2 that I quoted, though they can not in any way be said to actually fill the Koran; to do that would be making a rather ludicrous statement.
If you want to defend the Koran I’m afraid you will at least have to make references to it with numbers of chapters and verses.
the out of context argument is a valid defense of any of the Holy books, Torah, Bible, or Quran. Each one of these scriptures, along with the scriptures of all the other religions, including the Baha’i faith, must be examined carefully and wisely. grasping one quote and running with it is the action of every fanatic, villifier and ursuper. Like I said, I do not want to have this arugument because it has been had countless times before…
Christianity: “So in everything, do to others, what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the law and the prophets”
– New Testament: MT 7:12 NIV
Buddhism: Treat not others in ways that yourself would find hurtful.
– Udana-Varga 5.18
Baha’i: Lay not on any soul a load that you would not wish to be laid upon you, and desire not for anyone the things you would not desire for yourself.
– Baha’u'llah Gleanings
Confucianism: One word which sums up the basis for all good conduct…loving kindness. Do not do to others what you would not want done to yourself.
– Confucius Analects 15:23
Hinduism: This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you.
– Mahabharata 5:1517
Islam: Not one of you truly believes until you wish for others what you wish for yourself.
– The Prophet Mohammed, Hadith
Judaism: What is hateful to you do not do to your neighbor. This is the whole torah; all the rest is commentary.
– Hillel, Talmad, Shabbat 31a
Native Spirituality: We are as much alive as we keep the earth alive.
– Chief Dan George
Janism: One should treat all creatures in the world as one would like to be treated.
– Mahavira, Sutravitanga
Sikhism: I am no stranger to no one; an no one is a stranger to me. Indeed, I am a friend to all.
– Guru Granth Sahib, pg.1299
Taoism: Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbors loss as your own loss.
– T’ai Shang Kan Ying P’ien, 213-218
Unitarianism: We affirm and promote respect for the interdependent of all existence of which we are a part.
– Unitarian principle
Zoroastrianism: Do not unto others what is injurious to yourself.
– Shayast-na-Shayast 13.29
Mohammad, thank you for the follow up. He might be more moderate than the others but what we need to make a change in Iran is not finding a more moderate voice. We need to rewite our constitution in a way that not only Bahais, but all other minorities that exist and the ones that will emerge later on, suppose, the Noahides, would have the rights like others. In a country with the right constitution in effect, the voices of moderate people could be appreciated and the voices of those who incite hate, tolerated or confronted, all according to the laws.
Omid!
You are quoting versions of the so-called Golden Rule in various religions. This is quite nice, but rather diverging from the subject. What context can make the following verse one “of kindness, justice, peace, tolerance and virtue”?
2:7 Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom.
And this for being guilty of not believing Muhammad.
The last paragraph, if indeed is his own words, appears to be for “public consumption”, or in other words it is a qualifier that helps keep the “balance”.
Also note that his statement “…their cooperation is proved in a credible court…” is very telling. Baha’is were never convicted of such accusations in any “credible court”. He knows this very well–he is a very smart man!
Please note correction to my last comment as indicated below in the quotation “…if…their…”:
The last paragraph, if indeed is his own words, appears to be for “public consumption”, or in other words it is a qualifier that helps keep the “balance”.
Also note that his statement “…if…their cooperation is proved in a credible court…” is very telling. Baha’is were never convicted of such accusations in any “credible court”. He knows this very well–he is a very smart man!
Here is a reliable reference from the official site of Ayatollah Montazeri: the first 3 fatwas are about Bahaism, including the previous one published earlier in MEY and this newest. And there is something in between them repeating the same theme.
Thank you Mohammad for the reference.
Two points:
One of the most difficult bits of guidance for me as a Baha’i is the one quoted above about complete political aloofness. However, it does help discipline me to keep discussions to the high road. There are several “most important” activities for Baha’is. One of them is to share this Faith with every “receptive soul.” In fact, while not indicated in the above quote on aloofness from current political questions, another key reason given in Baha’i teachings to avoid current political discussions is that it is time taken away from teaching the revelation of Baha’u'llah, which itself contains plenty of guidance relating to political life (e.g. the need for collective security among world governments, etc). This is why Baha’i influence is seen as pernicious in Iran. In this sense I agree with what was stated above about how being a Baha’i is itself the problem in strict “Eclesiastic-ocracies” such as Iran.
Second, Baha’i institutions in speaking out in defense of Baha’is in Iran are not calling for a role in government. Entreaties are limited to respecting basic human rights. It is really a stretch to see how the government would see being allowed to go about one’s business, including normal social intercourse with others outside one’s group, could corrupt the morals of an entire nation. Even if some Muslims including youth find the Baha’i message appealing I really do not see mass conversion happening like that. However, fanatically suppressing/oppressing/repressing, which is increasing now, cannot but create quite a buzz as the public will wonder, “What is this Baha’i business all about.” That is why Baha’is do not feel discouraged by opposition since it ultimately is an opportunity to clarify what we stand for.
My background is Christian and I have been a Baha’i since 1959. I have met Baha’is of Jewish, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, agnostic, and atheistic backgrounds. What we have in common is of course a belief in Baha’u'llah as God’s most recent divine Messenger. Because of this belief in Baha’u'llah, these people of such disparate backgrounds also share in common is a firmly held belief in the truth of the Holy Qur’an and in Muhammad as a Messenger of God. Strange that Iranian religious and political leaders persecute the Baha’is who by their teaching spread sincere reverence for Islam. Had I not become a follower of Baha’u'llah and the Baha’i faith, I would still regard Islam as a false religion.
Magnus,
You want context? Here is some context, I hope this helps:
The Qur’anic word “khatama” has been interpreted erroneously as ’seal’. Syr. “khtam” means ‘make a mark, stain’ (Isa. 1: 18; Jer. 2: 22), etc. The Qur’anic word “qulubihim” means ‘birdcage’. The Qur’anic word “absaarihim” has been interpreted erroneously as ‘their eyes’. Aram. “basar” means ‘take away, diminish, inaccessible.’ (Deut. 3: 5, Lev. 25:5, etc.) The Qur’anic word “ghashawat” has been interpreted erroneously as ‘covering’. Syr. “gesho, gesha” means ‘to hide’. The Qur’anic word “walahum ‘adhaabon ‘adheemon” has been interpreted erroneously as ‘for them is a great punishment.’ The Qur’an is not talking about punishment. Aramaic ‘zb’ means ‘leave, depart from’ (Gen. 44:22, 2 Kings 2: 2 etc.) “zb” also means ‘abandon, forsake’ (1 Sam. 31: 7, 1 Chr. 10:7, etc.) The Qur’anic word “‘adheem” has been interpreted as ‘great’. Aram. “’sm” means ‘might’ (Dan. 8: 24, Gen. 26: 16, etc.), Syriac “‘atmo”.
Therefore, the punishment imposed on those who are not covered by 2:5 is abandonment.
There is nothing radical about this.
[...] the very system he helped establish. Not only does he regret the hostage crisis but he seems now to questionthe treatment of Bahais in Iran and in addition the very Velayate Faghih (Islamic guardianship that makes Iran Islamic and [...]