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.

Unanswered in Davos

Mr. Khatami was once more invited to Davos for the World Economic Forum. This time he spoke at the Open Forum.

He has certainly succeeded in establishing himself as one of the darlings of the West and a kind of moderate Muslim cleric that can be talked to.

However, the most painful of all is to hear him make statements such as (I changed a little the words of the translator to make it more accurate):

"But if the intervention of religion in political life would mean to limit life, or if religion would not appreciate the human values, or would like to take away from men freedom which is one of the greatest benedictions of God, that kind of religion and interference would be a loss and the society would never accept it."

or "In the Islamic revolution people demanded freedom, independence and progress based on religion. And this is why an Islamic Republic was established. An Islamic Republic means a democratic government, where women are free, there is freedom of thought, the elections would establish the power, etc. and because people are Muslim the religious values should be present, but these religious values should not contradict these basis."

or "I don't think that in Iran anyone is prosecuted because of his religious beliefs, and if he is, this is wrong."

and that no one can (or wishes to) ask him: Mr. Khatami, you were President of Iran for 8 years, how come these lofty statements were nowhere to be implemented then?

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.

Neutrality or compromises?

Well I've either been too busy celebrating "shabe yalda" or following the adoption of the resolution on the human rights situation in the IRI, but I just noticed this tonight ... to find out that another blogger had posted about it earlier here and here.

However, I also noticed that a Swiss graphic designer spoke at the opening of the exhibition. Hmmm... Switzerland... just a week after her election, it's new President met with one of Iran's Deputy FM... and also, this year, it decided not to co-sponsor the above-mentioned resolution, although it had done so in the past... the rumour is that it hoped to be able to play a role in the negotiations on the nuclear issue. What did the Calmy-Rey quote in the IRNA release say? "Switzerland attaches special significance to bolstering relations with Tehran"? Maybe it also hopes that if the Security Council resolution passes, Iran will replace the dollar by the Swiss franc rather than the euro!

Set them free

Nearly at the outset of his statement delivered on Monday at the UN General Assembly, our president indicated:

"What afflicts humanity today is certainly not compatible with human dignity; the Almighty has not created human beings so that they could transgress against others and oppress them."

The full text in English can be found here and the webcast here.

I have already made a number of references to various reports on the human rights situation in Iran, whether by the UN or NGOs, however, another of those came out just a few days before Mr. Ahmadinejad's speech. In its introduction it says:

"Government actions and rhetoric created a threatening atmosphere for nearly all religious minorities..."

Or maybe the reference to the Almighty was only for some ...

Iran human rights religion Ahmadinejad UN

Men in robes

Whether of the West or of the East, their time is up...

Iran Khatami Religion

Freedom at its best

Someone who participated in a group investigating religious freedom in Egypt once told me how, when they officially met with the Coptic Pope, he told them that the Copts were treated very well, while making a disgusted face, and added that they had equal rights with the Muslims, while shaking his head in a no. The person believed that the Pope had done that because the room was probably bugged, but not filmed...

This reminded me of that story. And is perhaps in response to this -- although I find its contents to be quite mild.

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.

?

Good? Friday

I was talking about Easter to someone who had recently come out of Iran, and when I indicated that in fact it was the martyrdom of the Christ, she was very surprised. She commented that all she saw was about happiness -- mainly chocolate-coated, how could it be? Not quite like Ashura.

I must admit that by just uttering the word "martyrdom" -- as I thought this was the most appropriate one in Persian -- I felt awkward. Crucifixtion, sacrifice, yes, martyrdom ... not a Christian concept, it seems.

Which made me finally look into why Friday is "good" when it was in fact the day that Christ was put on the cross.

I tried to explain that I thought that the Church wanted to look more positively and focus on the resurrection of Christ on Easter Monday. But why eggs and bunnies?...

I guess we were neither in Southern Europe nor in the Phillipines, perhaps the hotter the weather, the hotter the fervour...

Interview with an Ayatollah

So the week-long report by the British Channel 4 in Iran has ended, and thanks to the fact that they had contacted Iranian bloggers from the outset, I watched it regularly, with some regret at first: it was a little light and never seemed to get to the real issues.

This until they went to Qom and did a programme on the power of the hozeh -- the clergy. Although the intro of Jon Snow was a little less “correct”, as he started by saying: “Iran is, in many ways an extremely controlling state. We have to ask permission for virtually everything we have to film. It's only the severity of the nuclear crisis that's persuaded the authorities here to open up as much as they have, allowing us to talk to ordinary people and those who run Iran.” I still found it very unnerving to watch the live interview of Ayatollah Mahdi Hadavi Tehrani. Particularly how pleased of himself he was, and of being on British TV!

(All day today as I read and listened to the various news about Milosevic’s death, I felt I could relate to the sense of helplessness of the victims -- that was what made me so uneasy while watching the interview.)

But ask an Iranian cleric about human rights or other religions or beliefs, and he will unfailingly give himself away: firstly, Mr. Hadavi firmly stated that human rights are implemented throughout the country, and then, when asked about the Sufis, he initially said they had done things against the regime, and then continued by declaring that it was not the government but the people who attacked them.

Earlier on he had clearly denied the fact that Iran would want to use nuclear weapons, but if this statement were to be compared to the two earlier ones, then how could one feel reassured?

Incorrigible...

I had promised myself that I would give religion/minorities et al. a break but there he was in the news this morning! And I could not but post it. Mr. Khatami, with your smile and your Dialogue among Civilizations, just remind me which position you held when the 13 Jews were tried in Shiraz?

Karroubi's (recent) letter

A few days ago Mehdi Karroubi wrote an (open?) letter to the Marjaiyat, the centres of emulations, in Qom. On freedom of religion or belief...

Mr. Karroubi explicitly refers to the attack on the Sufis in Qom. However, if one reads further, it is a broader encompassing text, where he appeals to the religious leaders in Qom to protect, in conformity with the lofty principles contained in Islam, the rights of all human beings – “even those who hold beliefs that we don’t agree with"
(دفاع از حقوق همه انسان‌ها حتی كسانی كه عقايد ايشان را نمی‌پسنديم)
... and hints to the fact that perhaps up to now they have rather supported those who only wear the garments of friendship.

For those who can read Persian, I recommend the whole article in Iranema.

Hmmm... probably more reason for some to feel that they have done the right thing in censoring his TV... I wonder how Iran would look like if he had come second in the first round of the elections...

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:

More about the cartoons

I thought I was done with the subject of the cartoons, but then first came that so very UNee statement by three UN Special Rapporteurs, on contemporary forms of racism, on freedom of religion or belief and on freedom of opinion and expression. From what I understand they (and their staff at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights) had agonized about it for nearly a week! They are treading a very fine line -- it is not for me to criticize.

As much as the previous days had been rather distressing and gloomy, I started to read Brooding Persian's post, qualified by "Psychic" as "brilliant"-- and I fully agree (sorry Psychic, you left no trace, so no possible link on my part). And the day became even brighter as I read in Le Monde the opinion of Soheib Bencheikh, the very enlightened former Mufti of Marseille and that of Mona Eltahawy's in the IHT.

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?