Talk:Religious minorities in Iran

First, as I mentioned in my last change comnment, conversion from Islam has to do with Islam, not with Iran. If you feel that needs to be mentioned in the article, just put a link to Islam and reiterted that Iran's regime is a "Islamic republic". Secondly, Roozbeh, please don't "correct" a correct piece of information. Naqshbandi, is almost entirely among the Kurdish Iranians (and actually, not just the Kurds in Iran, rather, Kurds everywhere) and not among the Azeris. I also delete the "Ahl-e Haqq" as a religious minority, because I have never even heard that name. So even if they exist, they would really be too minor to deserve a mention. --K1 18:48, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The conversion matter is of major relevance as Iran is one of few countries worldwide with an explicite law in this matter - and thousands of refugees across the world claiming this - rightly or wrongly - as the main reason for their flight.

WRT to Ahl-e Haqq - There are various other names for this group, Ali-Ilahis is one of them. Among Iranian Kurds they are of major significance, whether you have heard of them or not. I think it is a bit presumptious to make your personal knowledge or lack of the same the measure of whether something is worth mentioning. I always thought this is meant to provide new information to all of us...

I will therefore revert. Please make in future additions instead of wholesale cull of articles you do not like. Refdoc 13:04, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what you are trying to acheive by injecting misinformation into Wikipedia articles, but I can sort of guess what you are up to. Anyhow, this is getting old. Aliullahis are just one of MANY MANY MANY sufi orders in iran. they are NOT a religion, and there are literally hundreds of sufi orders in iran. in fact, the aliullahis are not even one of the major ones. should we include all of them as "religious minorities in iran" ?? what are you trying to achieve here? --K1 22:45, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This is an interesting matter - All Ahl-e Haqq I know personally , are adamant not to describe themselves as Muslims and equally adamant that the Ali-Ilahi (or Aliullahi) is not how they like to be called. Obviously the religion/order/sect/cult is largely derrived from Islam and can be seen as a deviation/sect/order within Islam, but I would think that the self description is in these matters of larger concern. Refdoc 00:17, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

k1 What is your definition of "religious minority"? From where I come from, this means any group with religious views diverging from those of the majority in the place, particularly if there is a degree of "otherness" and "not belonging" beyond being "a bit odd" - irrespectively on whether something qualifies as a separate "religion" or not - which again is a matter of definition rather than clear cut. This is also the reason why I included Sunnis among teh religious minorities. I do not have any particular agenda in this or other articles as keep accusing me but try to make this encycplopedia as useful and detailed as possible. So I would really like to focus on the matter at hand rather than on personal bickering. Refdoc 06:22, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

K1 It would be so much more helpful if you could put your assumptions about my motives to the side and dealt with the matters at hand. I do not lie and have not lied. I write articles. if they are too short or do not contain all facets of the matter than it is up to you and others to add and expand. What I increasingly hate is your policy of reverting and deleting. If you have been at a Sikh temple in Tehran then this is interesting info. But it is not complete enough - is this temple registered as such or is part of private house? The conversion/apostasy matter is not simply a matter of Quran and Sharia but forms part of Iranian laws and has been applied far too many times and not just on Christians.So deleting it is quite inappropriate. Refdoc 07:41, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User:K1 writes on the history page another LIE by Refdog removed: sufis are not harrassed by the government in iran. in fact, even ayatollah khomeini considered himself a sufi. he wrote lots of sufi poetry himself), removed another lie by Refdog from the article. Other religious practices are allowed in Iran, but they are not officially recognized religions. I have been personally to the Sikh temple in Tehran and removing Bible-thumber's politically agenda and incessant insinuations from the article. Sufi orders are NOT "religious minorities" not in Iran anyway. and there are hundreds of them)

User:refdoc wrote on user talk:k1 - - As you clearly have a problem with my contributions in this article I would appreciate if you could make some comment in the relevant talk pages instead of simply reverting and deleting. - - I do understand that you have a problem with declaring Sufi orders and Sunni Muslims religious minorities, probably (I presume) as you define religious minority as "minority with a different religion", while I define it more loosely as "minority with distinctly diverging religious views". If this is the problem, then a better solution might be to find a new title for the page and move the stuff wholesale over there. Refdoc 06:32, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC

Leaving the abusive change of my user name aside and the presumption about my motives, the argument is not well sustained. Ayatollah Khomeini might indeed have been a Sufi of some order (please enlighten which as this is obviously a significant fact), but there are many different orders with widely diverging teachings and practices and some have encountered significant harrassment (as you have rightly pointed out). Soem are highly orthodox, others not. Some are well integrated and (part of main stream spirituality, others not. Some are geographically distributed, others not. Some orders like the Ahl-Haqq and [[Sheikhis] form in their respective home areas large parts of the population. Some are so secretive + orthodox in overt practice that they are virtually unrecognisable, others not. Ahl-e Haqq are easily recognisable by their lack of participation in namas and other significant religious practices. Many have therefore experienced harrassment and persecution. Some have been tortured. Numerous senior members are refugees in Western countries. I refer also to source [1] (http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-6439.html), It is not on to simply delete this with blanket assertions. What is on is to show how what the total picture is. I do understand that you have a problem with the term "religious minority" and I have tried to deal with this with my suggestion on your user page which you so kindly keep deleting. Maybe it is time to revisit this, but also to recover and maintain some civility in the process Refdoc 08:52, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

I have tried to re-edit this using a clearer definition of religious minority. I hope this clarifies matters and I hope it will be possible after K1's return to build on this.

An alternative solution would be to re-write the article from scratch and dump the title religious minorities and simply use "Iran's religions." or sometihing like this. I would like to invite opinions on this Refdoc 17:32, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please do not revert without comment. repeated reversion to pages of much less content is unhelpful Refdoc 20:10, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Contents

1 Revert war 2 revert war over 3 disputed facts 4 Removed protection 5 Support for K1's position 6 removal of NPOV notice 7 Bahai 8 Hindu temple picture 9 removed sentence 10 Anonymous User

Revert war

Please discuss this issue on the talk page - if this revert war continues, I will protect this page. Most likely on the wrong version (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_wrong_version). Mark Richards 20:45, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have wasted enough time with this one user. If you are an admin, you can examine the histroy of the page and the discussions (and ideally a look at this user's other attempts to inject agenda-oriented "facts" into articles) and decide on that basis. I cannot afford to spend all of my time in Wikipedia arguing with this one user in various talk pages. One does not need be an expert to see that he is crafting goal-oriented (as opposed to fact-oriented) articles in certain areas. --K1 20:59, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As said before, K1 you do not own this article nor others relating to Iran. You will have to accept that your views are POV - just as mine may be. We will have to come to a joint result - on which I am willing to work. i am not willing though to put up with our senseless reverts, without actually answering anything here. e.g. What is your definition for religious minority ? |I think one of your problem with my previous edits - before you went into blind reversal mode - was with a clash of definitions. Refdoc 21:16, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To have an idea of what kind of a person he is notice how he just reverted the article, but in his history message he put "Attempt at finding NPOV - not a revert". This is how sneaky and dishonest he is and that is fully consistent with his "contributions" to various articles. --K1 21:21, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please look at the history and compare the versions (i.e my last one and the last from yesterday) K1 you will see, while I used my version - much longer and more detailed than yours, I edited those specific points you were concerned about the status of Sunnis and Sufis. You will admit that there are different POVs here acting out and I tried to find for these specific points something which incorporates both my original article and your criticisms. Refdoc 21:25, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

revert war over

Thanks for that! Can we now move back to here and talk matters over ? Refdoc 21:41, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

disputed facts

1) I still think we work with different definitions of "religious minority", and we could see easier eye-to-eye if we used the same definition and clarified to others what definition we are using.

2) Sunni - religious minority: multiple Human Rights organisations mention Sunni muslims in Iran as a religious minority - so I am not alone. I am too tired now, but will add links tomorrow

3) Sufi - religious minority: same as above, maybe it depends what definition you are using, but the case is clearer cut for some

4) Sunni again - is it not so - I expect correction if wrong - that Sunnis have a guaranteed number of members of parliament - indication in my eyes that they are seen as a specific an d separate group...

5) Apostasy - Aghajari has been convicted of such, so please do not tell me it is not an issue in Iran. I know not many Islamic countries who convict people and want to punish them with execution for apostasy. Iran is not alone in this matter - but not too many share this particular honor of fellowship. Refdoc 00:19, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Removed protection

I unprotected this, since there was no discussion for a few days, if there is still an issue, let me know, and I can protect it at a more controversial version! Mark Richards 19:55, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Support for K1's position

Hello Mr. K1. I also left for you message in page of Mr. Roozbeh about this fight. It is like day clear Mr. Refdoc wants write this article in special method. I compared history of what you write and what Mr. Refdoc write and I think you say truth. Mr. Refdoc said no other religious practice is allowed in Iran. When you said you were in Sikh temple in Tehran he removed that part from article. Then he changed "not allowed" to "illegal" like we are bargaining for price in Tehran bazaar with shop owner instead of encyclopedia article writing! And I think the reason Mr. Refdoc fight you about breaking up muslims in Iran in groups is so that he can avoid fact that in Iran 99% of people is Muslim. From Christian promotion this is very bad statistic. You know they also try hard to force Christianity in China. They dream of this. In Christian mentality unless you convert to Christianity you go to hell. This is so rude and prejudice mentality. Thank you. Charles Shu.

1) K1 did not clarify where the temple is situated - private house, embassy , public place of worship or whatever.

2) I am not entirely clear how 'avoiding the facts' can help me in my 'Christian promotion'. I think this is a bit flawed logic. I would think in any such endeavour clear planning and accurate information is of benefit...

3) I have used commonly recognised terms, I defined them and I responded to criticism by sharpening my expressions. If you prefer to call this 'bargaining for price in tehran bazaar' ah well...

4) I understand that Iranian law makes a distinction between Sunni an Shia and gives them minority rights - q.e.d..

5) With regard to Christian lack of politeness and non-Christians eternal destiny - I do not think that this was really the subject of this article, but FWIW - I indeed subscribe to the position that Jesus Christ is our only way to salvation. I make no secret out of this but hope it does not influence my attempts to achieve NPOV too much. I am open to criticism. And you and others are able to correct my edits.

6) Finally: Do get a user account, otherwise the suspicion is strong that there is a bit of sockpuppetery going on. Refdoc 16:01, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

removal of NPOV notice

No debate, no editing for months. The notice is now gone Refdoc 23:08, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bahai

The addition is good, only, I am a bit at a loss about the university bit - Sure, Bahai can feel preessure to claim falsely they are Muslims in order to get entry. But this applies to every other person who is a convert or otehrwise "heretical". And it applies much further than jsut on universities - How about a Bahai wanting to get a commission in the armed forces? (Sure they are pacifist, but you get my meaning) or wanting to become judges? Or senior civil service? Or a Christian convert. Similar scenarios.

So instead of picking out universities and Bahai's it would make more sense to have a more general sentence -saying access to higher education, army commissions, positions in teh judiciary etc etc etc is restricted to those who are Muslim or belong - by birth - to a recognised religious minority. Refdoc 11:45, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hindu temple picture

Zereshk - could you provide us with a bit more information re this picture - i.e. age of the temple, currently in use, etc etc. Thanks ~~

All I know is that the temple was built in the Qajar era, and it had to do with the Indian soldiers that were serving in the British army stationed in Bandar Abbas. I dont know who the architect is, but except for the dome, there isnt that much worth to see of the building anyway. I scanned the picture from a Sazeman e Miras e Farhangi tourist guide. I dont think the temple is in use anymore nowadays. But the picture is still worth posting, I think, because it is a sign that other religions have been practising in Iran, and that Iran is not the stereotypical land of mosques only.--Zereshk 03:35, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think it is a beautiful picture, it is important, but it does require these details. Otherwise it does not really add information about current Iran. Refdoc 09:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I looked around in the internet and "google consensus" is that the temple is out of use. It further appeared that the temple is nowadays used as a fish market, though latter was only one one travel site re Bandar abbas and somewhat ambigous as a grammatical construct " We will visit the fishmarket, the former Hindu temple..." Refdoc 16:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

removed sentence

It is worth noting that during the previous regime in Iran also only the above mentioned religions were considered officially accepted religions in Iran and adherence to one of those religions was a requirement for any government or state position (at least in the application form). Also it should be noted that apostasy is Quranic and not a part of the Iranian constitution. Not all Quranic laws are practiced, or even legal in Iran.

I removed this paragraph as it adds no real current information. Parts of it can be possibly re-added in a less "guiding" form. . But the last sentence is positively misguiding - I do not know which Quranic/Sharia injuctions are not legal in Iran nor is it relevant for this article as Apostasy is an ongoing concern. Consider Aghajari, Mehdi Dibaj, and now Hamid Pourmand. Refdoc 09:41, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You should not remove it because first of all it is a true statement. Secondly, this article is about "Iran" and not necessarily the "Islamic Iran". Your removing that useful and correct piece of information from the paragraph is highly suspicious. It is best if you yourself put it back in.

At the same time, you added to the temple picture something that gives the read the wrong impression that the Hindu temple is not being used due to "lack of religious freedom". But that is dishonest, because the real reason for its abandonement is that there are simply no Hindu communities in Iran. If it was used as a temple, it must have been when there were enough Hindus in the area (brought in as a side effect of British intervention in southern Iran) and they are long since gone. You certainly seem to be manipulating this article for your Christian promotionalism, as I had already warned the Admins about this aspect of you on your request for adminship form. --Amir 17:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think you read too much into my editing. The temple is not used. I do not know the reason yet, though I am searchig for it. You do not seem to know the reason. Unless we can find sources we better leave the reasons well alone. Apart from this, Hinduism is not a legally accepted religion in Iran.

Secondly, the paragraph above is misleading as a) Sharia is part of the constitution, while not all sharia injuctions are spelled out the constitution is clear that the system is one under Sharia, instead of above or beside. b) Apostasy charges are infrequent but are there - and not at all only related to Christianity and c) the situation under the last regime wrt religious freedom was clearly different - even if not entirely satsifactorily either. The sentence above makes it seem the situation is largely unchanged. It is not. Refdoc 17:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

not at all. do your own research and you will find that during the previous regime iran had only 4 "officially accepted religions": islam, zoroastrianism, christianity, and judaism. the same is true today. it doesn't mean there is no trace of any other religion in iran, it simply means they are not "official". i think the statement that you removed is quite correct and quite important. it says "it is worth noting that during the previous regime [this was the case too]". it is indeed worthy of mention. then you say since we don't know why the hindu temple is not being used let's leave "my footnote". we do know why a hindu temple is not being used (for religious purposes) in iran -- because iran doesn't have any hindu communities DUH!!! (except scattered hindus in tehran who are business people or tourists, and the like). it seems you are whining why iran is not "a melting pot society"!! well, guess what? because we are iranians. iran is not usa or canada to be a melting pot society and as a result have a social need to be "open" to all sorts of things, including every religion and cult that ever popped up on earth anywhere. every nation has its own set of requirements.

the fact that the brits made a hindu temple in southern iran and brought enough hindus in iran to have a need for a temple, and the fact that it is being used as a fish market today, is a good indication that iranians are just not open to mixing their land and culture and traditions with others. this does not mean we are against others, it means we are very strong when it comes to keeping our own cultural identity. the brits did this same scheme with tremendous success in many other nations, but in iran neither the briths nor the russians and nor any other force could change and mold us according to their "social engineering" plans. hell, even islam couldn't do that to iran. --Amir 18:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As I said, I have given no reason for the temple being disused and without a reference I do not think we should give a reason. And while the number of "recognised" religions might be unchanged, I am not aware of any Christian Bahai or Agnostic being charegd with apostasy under the last regime. The regime had its own "problems" with applying universal human rights, but not these... Refdoc 18:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Further the previous regime allowed adherents of the minority religions to take on positions of authority / governmental positions etc. The current leaves these positions only open to Muslims. The current ongoing case of Hamid Pourmand shows this - among other matters. Refdoc 18:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

can you name one iranian official from the previous regime who was openly and "officially" an adherent of a religion other than the four official religions? --Amir 18:43, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You misunderstand - adherence to any of the four religions was acceptable, Bahai's could lead a reasonably free life and Christian converts had no legal problem dt their conversion - they might have social/family problems but this is a separate matter..

Currently though only members of one religion can be officials, including officers, judges etc. Most Iranian Christian pastors of a certain age have been at some stage officers in the Shah's army - a position now not open to them. Bishop Deghani Tafti e.g - a muslim convert and later Bishop of the Anglican church was officer during his military service.

But this covers only the first sentence. Please explain why you have restored the second sentence - re sharia , Quran, constitution and apostasy. This sentence is a separate matter and clearly misleading. Refdoc 21:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

well, i didn't restore selectively, i just restored the section that you had deleted. but i see that you have now moved it around and deleted a portion of it again. anyway i am not going to bother with this. what you deleted was correct also, not all quranic laws are practiced or legal in iran. for example, stoning to death is a quranic law, but now, not only it is not practiced in iran, it is actually illegal. so what you removed was correct information. you say that i misunderstand, but it seems that it is you who misunderstand the simple fact that the this article is about "iran" and not necessarily the "islamic republic of iran". currently, iran is theocratic, but not quite as theocratic as vatican. you know that vatican is a country, don't you? at any rate, your underlying evangelical intentions are hard to miss. --Amir 01:47, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not stoning is practiced in Iran nowadays is fairly irrelevant for this article. This article is concerned among other things with the treatment of those charged with apostasy - something still happening. Refdoc 10:05, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

i love it when people reveal more than they realize they do. so this article is "concerned" with apostasy? hehe, very interesting title for such a "concern". hey, did you choose this title by the way? did you start this article to begin with? also, why should this article be "concerned" with anything at all? it should only be an informative encyclopedic article. may i casually point out also that when someone says "for example" they usually mean what follows is just an example? by the way, may i ask what your nationality is? it seems that you have special interest in iran, but obviously you are not iranian yourself. --Amir 14:04, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think we should leave personal stuff out of here. But you are obviously right, I am not an Iranian. I am fluent in Farsi, albeit a on "street level" rather than a literary level. And I am very interested in Iran as it has a beautiful culture, wonderful food and is generally a great country - apart from the current aberration of a government IMHO. But , then many other countries have horrible governments too. And I am an evangelical Christian and subsequently other Christians in other countries are a subject of interest. I have said all this in other places. You only now got it in a concentrated form.

Wrt "concerned" - well, there are two main uses of the word - "concerned" as in "worried about" and "concerned" as in "dealing with/talking about". To clarify any misunderstanding I thought of the latter use. I would think the Wikipedia as a software installation on a set of computers will have a long way to go before it will develop humanoid feelings... And further - in a country with a majority religion a member of a religious minority either is or has become a member of such a minority. As the "becoming" in Iran results can result in charges of apostasy, apostasy is a subject here. Quod erat demonstrandum. Stoning for e.g. adultery is not a subject, though it might well be the subject of another article. You do give me ideas, thank you... Refdoc 21:39, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous User

The last edit by an anonymous user deleted important facts - potential death sentence for apostasy, and introduced falsehoods on other counts - Christians, Zartushtis and Jews do not have full and complete legal rights - far from it. Starting with reduced blood money, continueing with discriminatory inheritance rights, lack of access to higher ranks in military, judiciary and civil service, interference in religiosu education etc etc. I have not reviewed the added external link. I will do so and possibly re-insert Refdoc 23:03, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)