Niloufar Abi

There has been so much exposure of the Bahai Temple over the past 2 days that I think if they had wanted the publicity, they could not have done that well !

Look here, here, here, here, and here -- not to mention the official Iranian media, which, when criticizing something gives it more credit...

Of course, the government thought that this was the best excuse to close down Hamshahri, and thus attack Qalibaf, Ebtekar and the like, but I am not sure they expected this flurry, which present the so-called "misguided zionist sect" (sic.), as having an open, recognized and even praised presence in India -- one of Iran's best friends.

Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies

I don't know if it is because the situation in Iran has deteriorated, or if his statement was far worse than the usual, or just because I am depressed, but Mr. Mottaki's address to the UN Human Rights Council gave me a bad migraine.

I mean, he started with "I would like to reiterate our firm commitment to work towards making the Human Rights Council a strong, effective and efficient body capable of promoting and protecting all human rights for all on the basis of inclusion, equality and human dignity..."

-- as if all human rights for all, inclusion, equality and human dignity existed in Iran --

and then he ended with: "Our commitment to human rights stems from our firm belief and it is aimed at realizing our goal which is the "inherent dignity of man".

Of course, it is dignified to be beaten so hard that you lose your hearing, it is dignified to have your face plunged into excrement, it is dignified to be flogged...

Just as a footnote, just before the quote, our Minister said that Iran's commitment was based on the Divine Teaching of Islam and in accordance with its International obligations...

Perhaps while writing all this his assistants should have sought help from the Japanese.

Abysmal

Looks like we have entered a descending whirlwind, which is slowly encompassing all Iranians. It reminds me of Brecht's "first they came for the communists, ... , then they came for the trade-unionists, ... , then they came for the jews, ... , then they came for me..."

Now they have come after two doctors who ran a very successful anti-AIDS programme. Yeah, right, they were attempting a "velvet revolution".

They arrest anyone who is speaking up for human rights, they close down offices of human rights defenders.

They arrest young Iranians who were doing some project for the children in poor suburbs -- oh! but I forgot, they are Bahais!...

And now, doctors who help drug addicts.

And who are "they" exactly? Ah yes! Those who are supposed to bring justice and well-being to the people of Iran.

And in the meantime some eat sushi...

Fart and the temple

As can be seen, I have been reading Mr. Abtahi's blog fairly regularly and although his unfailing support of Mr. Khatami is a little unnerving to say the least, I recently had to admit that I enjoyed some of his posts.

Well, clearly now, they are after him, and I am not surprised because he has been quite critical of some of the political stances taken lately.

For those who cannot read Persian, Mr. Abtahi has been accused by an ultra-conservative site of having his blog designed and run by Baha'is. And in order to make their accusations look credible, the authors of the article included a number of links. Out of curiosity, I tried all of them... and (of course) none of them led to anything that might remotely suggest any link to the alleged designers.

Moreover, there is this box on the side of the article that without showing any name indicates "Age:24" and then what can be assumed to say "Children: no", "Ethnicity: Middle-Eastern", "speak: Persian" (which is not correct English, by the way...), and "Religion: Baha'i" . Now, the form being in English, I really wonder where in the Western world would any form ask for one's religion?...

But my final question is: so what? And even if Mr. Abtahi's website designers are Baha'is, what does it have to do with the way the site is designed or run? Are they running subliminal messages so that everyone reading the blog are going to become hypnotized and convert? Is Mr. Abtahi less of a Muslim cleric because of his webmasters' alleged religion?

Next?

There was indeed much of a hullabaloo at the visit of our President, but after all, it can be summed up in one word: denial. We knew about his first denial, now at Columbia he informed us that there are no homosexuals in Iran, and during his UN press conference he enlightened us with the fact that the Baha'is don't have a Prophet.

Clearly, after all that everyone will believe him when he says that Iran is not trying to get the bomb.

Above and beyond Mr. Ahmadinejad's gesticulations, the issue remains what is going to happen to our country. Initially, Mr. Abdi's recent interview made me quite depressed, then today I read Abbas Milani's excellent piece -- remarkably, they are saying the same thing.

Do as I say, not as I do

I read Mr. Abtahi's post last week but did not have a chance to react before now:

Isn't it strange that the "Head of the Interreligious Dialogue Institute" does not even realize what he is writing, and that when threading on thin ice, perhaps he should watch his steps in order not to crack it.

In order to cover-up for the recent attack on Christians because they are trying to "convert" Muslims in Iran, Mr. Abtahi tells us that "the present world is the world of dialogue among religions and their cooperation", and that although it is easier for Muslims to accept Judaism and Christianity, as they existed before Islam, the Christians, thanks to the Vatican II Council, have accepted to have a dialogue and cooperate with Muslims.

With all this thirst for dialogue among religions, I think one should ask Mr. Abtahi how he feels about the Muslim accepting the Bahais, who came after Islam? And why they are not included as partners in his Institute.

Of course, he does not accept comments on his blog, but I will email him the link to this post... and will let you know if he responds.

Prejudice

If the idea of having people identified because of their beliefs (and in order to better persecute them) is certainly horrendous, there is still something I do not understand:

- A lot of justified outrage at the news that in Iran Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians will soon have to identify themselves with a specific coloured cloth (subsequently denied);

- Silence when the UN discloses Ayatollah Khamenei's order to the Ministry of Information, the Revolutionary Guard and the Police Force to identify of all the members of the Baha'i faith.

?

Preach and practice

On Monday, Mr. Javad Zarif, the Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations wrote a letter to the Secretary General of the UN, Mr. Kofi Anan, to protest the US threats against Iran.

In the meantime, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, Ms. Asma Jahangir, was issuing a statement indicating that she was “highly concerned by information she has received concerning the treatment of members of the Bahá'í community in Iran.”

It seems that a number of branches of our government, including the Ministry of Information, the Pasdarans and the Police have been requested to identify all the Baha’is…

She then goes on to say that she is “apprehensive”. Well, rightly so, I would say. History has unfortunately told us that identification of a group of people, particularly of those belonging to one religion, by a government, does not augur well for their fate.

Surely, Iran’s chief representative who has just criticized the US for its “contempt” of the UN will take it upon himself to ensure that the requests of the Special Rapporteur calling upon his country “to refrain from categorizing individuals according to their religion and to ensure that members of all religious minorities are free to hold and practise their religious beliefs, without discrimination or fear" will be implemented.

Holy Places

Samarra, sacred tombs of Imam Ali al-Hadi and Imam al-Hasan al-Askari:






Qom, Hoseynieh of the Sufis:





Bamiyan, Statues of the Buddha:





Shiraz, House of the Bab:

Defamation

It is impossible not to read about the cartoons.

I wanted to post an appeal by Tewfik Allal, from the "Association du Manifeste des libertés", but could not find the link.

The three articles that are still remembered by my faulty brain are Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff in the Washington Post, and for those who read Persian, Nikahang's post and French, Olivier Roy's in Le Monde.

What comes to mind first and foremost is the issue that seems to be otherwise obliterated: why is it that it is OK for papers in Saudi Arabia to publish cartoons of Jews drinking children's blood, for TV series in Egypt to bring out the old story of the protocol of the Elders of Zion, for Kayhan to print ad nauseum that Baha'is are creations of the British, Zionism and all the ills of the world and yet when it comes to those Danes...

The OIC has made it a specialty lately to infuse the UN with cries about the defamation of Islam. All religions and beliefs should be respected and I too find it offensive to trample on what is most sacred for others (or for myself). Yet, first and foremost, shouldn't there be a principle of reciprocity?