Talk:Political objections to the Baháʼí Faith

Category:Persecution of Bahá'ís

@Soundofmusicals: I removed the Category:Persecution of Bahá'ís, which you reverted, citing the reason: "Relevant - since these accusations are generally aired as justification of persecution." This article is just an essay (a very one-sided essay, at that) – it does not constitute "persecution". Many of the people and events cited would qualify as Category:Persecution of Bahá'ís, but they would need to have pages about them, for the category tag to be relevant. This article title is "accusations", which (presumably) lists conspiracy theories about the Bahá'í religion. Because of this, I request that you revert your reversion.

If sufficient, credible sources exist (without the use of original research, which this article contains much of), then it would be good to create a new page, titled Bahá'í conspiracy theories. However, remember to avoid categorical assertions and weasel words.

After reading through this a bit more, I agree with the previous IP person, that this is a pretty ridiculous article. Sadly, they proposed that argument 5 years ago, and this article is still ridiculous. For this reason, I've added maintenance tags: NPOV, written like an essay, all significant viewpoints, and weasel words. I've also suggested that the article be merged with Persecution of Bahá'ís, since that's where this information should go. Hopefully, as the page is merged with Persecution of Bahá'ís, all of the issues might be fixed. Also, the Category:Persecution of Bahá'ís already applies to the page, Persecution of Bahá'ís, so that would be covered.

^Knowledge_Battle | ^Talk_Page | ^Godless_Infidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 15:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

And I support the reversion. Whipping out attacks of someone being "too close" to the article and hints of "original research" and arguments to either delete, merge, or rename the article, are all together a pretty narrow range of ideas about what's going on with respect to the subject. Maybe you don't understand the issues. Perhaps you should read the sources. --Smkolins (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

more possible sources

• Kazemzadeh, Firuz (2000). "The Baha'is in Iran: Twenty Years of Repression". Social Research. 67 (2): 537–558. ISSN 0037-783X. JSTOR 40971483.
• Paul Marshall; Nina Shea (January 2012) [Dec 1, 2011]. "Iran". Silenced: How apostasy and blasphemy codes are choking freedom worldwide (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199812264.003.0003. ISBN 978-0-19-981226-4.
• Reza Afshari (2 October 2012). "The Discourtse and Practice of Human Rights violations of Iranian Baha'is in the Islamic Repuglic of Iran". In Dominic Parviz Brookshaw; Seena B. Fazel (eds.). The Baha'is of Iran: Socio-Historical Studies. Routledge. pp. 232–277. ISBN 978-1-134-25000-4. (and possibly other chapters - "Reflections on secular antiBahaism in Iran", "The historical roots of the persecution of Babis and Baha'is in Iran", "The comparative dimension of the Baha'i case and prospects for change in the Future", …
• Miki Talebi; Michel Desjardins (June 2012) [9 April 2010]. "The Immigration Experience of Iranian Baha'is in Saskatchewan: The Reconstruction of Their Existence, Faith, and Religious Experience". Journal of Religion and Health. 51 (2): 293–309. doi:10.1007/s10943-010-9351-x.
• Milad Haghani (January 16, 2014). "Iran Denies Education Rights to Bahá'ís". Western Journal of Legal Studies. 4 (1).
• Mehrdad Amanat (May 2012). "Set in Stone: Homeless Corpses and Desecrated Graves in Modern Iran". International Journal of Middle East Studies. 44 (2): 257–283. doi:10.1017/S0020743812000049.
• Sarah Oliai (Dec 21, 2011). "Religious Minorities in Iran: Baha'is, Jews, and the Islamic State" (PDF). Michigan State University. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
• Soli Shahvar; Boris Morozov; Gad Gilbar (30 November 2011). Baha’is of Iran, Transcaspia and the Caucasus, The Volume 2: Reports and Correspondence of Russian Officials. I.B.Tauris. ISBN 978-0-85772-069-6.
• Moojan Momen (23 Nov 2012). "The Constitutional Movement and the Baha'is of Iran: The Creation of an 'Enemy Within'". British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies. 39 (3): 328–346. doi:10.1080/13530194.2012.726920.
• Jamsheed K. Choksy (2012). "Non-Muslim Religious Minorities in Contemporary Iran". Iran and the Caucasus. 16 (3): 271–299. doi:10.1163/1573384X-20120017. ISSN 1609-8498.

--Smkolins (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Smkolins: That's great, but the problem isn't just the sources. It's a defense article, entirely devoid of neutrality. And it's full of assertions, with authors having written everything as though they were absolute, rather than writing just about the facts. Also, as I stated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political accusations against the Baha'i Faith, the fundamental premise of the article already exists within Persecution of Bahá'ís. It's a duplicate article, with a different title, written as an essay. Those sources seem fine to add – to the Persecution of Bahá'ís page – after it's merged, and NPOV is fixed. ^Knowledge_Battle | ^Talk_Page | ^Godless_Infidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 20:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

You speak as if the assertions are on an arguable and to be debated whereas the sources outline unique history of the stance the governments of Iran have had in relation to making Baha'is. Baha'is are not making up these wild ideas - they have been promoted quite independently and it is the soundness of the sources that make the reality clear. Find reliable sources that make the case of any of this. I can't find one.

And the uniqueness of the case of Iran also is prominent in the sources - there were brief cases for the Soviet period in the degree of persecution though perhaps less in the verbiage come to think of it, or Egypt though events took the government and society in some other directions and the language against the Baha'is had less repetition and duration, whereas the Iranian case has certainly gone one far longer and sustained. In any case this section is for finding more sources about the issue. --Smkolins (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Mina Yazdani (4 September 2012). "Anti-Bahā'ī Polemics and Historiography". Baha'i Studies Review. 17 (1): 87–100.
• Pat Twair; Samir Twair (July 2012). "UC President Yudof Enlists ADL, Museum of Tolerance to Monitor Campus Civility". The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. 31 (4): 48–49.
• Homa Katouzian (Jun 1, 2013). "Miracles at the Saqqa-khanih: Power Struggles, Baha'i Pogrom and Murder of the American Envoy in Tehran". British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies. 40 (3): 295–304. doi:10.1080/13530194.2013.791136. ISSN 1353-0194.

--Smkolins (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Ashaq Hussain (March 2013). "Religion in Iran" (PDF). International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention. 2 (3): 1–8. ISSN 2319-7722.
• Mesaq Kazimi (June 17, 2013). A tale of resilience: a documentary on Baha'i persecution (Thesis). Master of Arts in Television, Film, and New Media Production, San Diego State University.

--Smkolins (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Smkolins: Yea, I get it. It's unique – just like everything else is unique. Everyone and everything has a story. That's irrelevant. Much of this falls under Persecution of Bahá'ís, the article still needs to be Neutral Point of View, it still needs to abstain from Weasel Words, it still sounds like an defensive essay, and it still shouldn't make categorical assertions. You keep arguing the same things, over and over. "Special case", "unique circumstances", "but it's different", "good sources"... yea, I get that. But everyone thinks that their religion's persecution is unique/special. There's nothing special or unique about persecution. The Soviet Union (largely atheists) persecuted people of any religion. That's extremely similar to Iran, which persecutes Bahá'ís and people who aren't Jewish, Christian, or Muslim (and even they can be). There's nothing unique or special about this. It's government-backed persecution, combined with conspiracy theories.

I've redirected the page to "Bahá'í conspiracy theories".

Over the next few days, I'll get around to fixing up the page, to clear it of weasel words, POV, defensive rhetoric, and combining the relevant aspects with the Persecution of Bahá'ís page. Don't even worry about it, I'll take care of it.

^Knowledge_Battle | ^Talk_Page | ^Godless_Infidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 00:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

You've proceeded without consensus. I'll take care of it?! --Smkolins (talk) 00:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• State-sponsored Persecution of Baha’is in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Siyamak Zabihi-Moghaddam, Contemporary Review of the Middle East, May 27, 2016, doi: 10.1177/2347798916638207 --Smkolins (talk) 10:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Can tags on this one be justified? Also removed long discredited "conspiracy theories" from article title.

I look forward with bated breathe to constructive changes (from the helpful gentleman (or lady, perhaps) who inserted the remarkable battery of tags on this one) to improve its "quality". (NOT)

Nonetheless - the article does not really do its subject justice in some ways, and probably could do with yet another rewrite. It will STILL (how ever much it is pruned and moderated) probably attract hysterical reaction from some quarters - but having an article about the subject (as opposed to an article on these terms) is very far from "ridiculous". People who order the bulldozing of whole cemeteries on the grounds that the people buried there remain fit targets for further persecution, even after death, must have very powerful motivation. A fair statement of that motivation seems to be far from "ridiculous". On the other hand such an article needs, perhaps, to be a little less closely linked to fellow religionists of the bulldozed corpses. Does no one else care, perhaps? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Monster "tag"!

This article is (alas) quite factual, and has many valid references. It cannot be disputed that it might benefit in places from more dispassionate writing and while it is not notably biased or unfair perhaps a reorganisation that separated the criticisms and their rebuttal, and gave them even more equal weight might be useful.

Does someone want to add more material from a Muslim point of view? This needs to be reasoned, cited, and certainly at least as dispassionately stated as what is already there.

Does anyone (preferably NOT a Baha'i him/her self) want to have a go at a complete reorganisation of the headings?

Something along these lines would actually render it more in keeping with Baha'i teachings anyway! (IMHO)

--Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Bahá'í ties to Freemasonry

I think this should be merged here. It doesn't have a life outside of these issues in this article as I understand it.--Smkolins (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

There previously was a subsection in this article titled Bahá'í ties to Freemasonry, however that was deleted on 10:50, 28 May 2016 by Soundofmusicals with the reason that "This section has very marginal relevance - as it is cultural, even religious rather than political." With that being the case, Bahá'í ties to Freemasonry should stand as its own article. A35821361 (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Soundofmusicals:, care for a rethink? There may be internal similarities (per Soundofmusicals's comments on that talk page) but externally I think it only comes up with agendas of political or social worries, (which take on the form of political when lifted from worries to actions or spurring to actions.) --Smkolins (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The ideal encyclopedia article is to the point, balanced and dispassionate. The original form of this one was a powerful and well-reasoned but intensely partisan attack on (some of the arguments of) the enemies of the cause, by someone with an insecure mastery of the English language - not the sort of thing anyone wants on Wiki, on any subject, and from whatever point of view. The faith is better served here by "good" articles than by classically bad ones. To put this another way - while we want the articles on the Faith to be fair - they are far more likely (IMHO) to to be taken seriously by an "uncommitted" reader if they are scrupulously "warts and all". Now, we were assured by a most vociferous critic of the original article (who for all his lack of sympathy and ignorance did have a point or two) that the "Freemasonry link" bit was a not an issue, and irrelevant and why did "we" even mention it. Point (if there is one) is that it's not "us" who normally mention it - so I took it out altogether. Our most recent "gadfly" put it back, but in its own article. If "the other side" feel it is significant enough, then by all means leave it in, but putting it into an article about political objections seems a little unfair to the Masons, apart from being off-topic. For all that I don't like having my name taken in vain here, as if I was an authority of some kind (which, sadly, I'm not) I do in this case tend to the "leave it as it now is" side. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I think that content in the other article should be merged back into this article. The subject of that article by itself is not notable enough, and it is is used as a political objection in the sense that any outsider from Iran was seen as a political force. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you about the notability of an article about the Masons and the Bahá'í Faith (in fact IMHO it has no notability whatsoever, even as a section here) but so long as it sticks to the facts it does no real harm, and I'd leave where it is. We're in the realm of what people more or less opposed to the Cause want on Wikipedia. If "they" want an article on "us" and the Masons, for whatever reason, it probably isn't up to "us" - as good Wikipedia editors scrupulously avoiding any hint of religious bias, to tell them what they can and can't have. Our interest in such articles should be restricted to correcting factual errors, and countering unreasonable inferences. Wikipedia is NOT a teaching tool (nor a propaganda source for anything else for that matter). We need to respect this, or we shouldn't be here at all. Further - the question is NOT "political" in the normal sense of the word - I'd rather NOT open possible floodgates to more and more esoteric interpretations of that word. It is VERY important to keep articles like this strictly to the point. Very simply, it's not a political argument, at least not one with any validity. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, so it happened anyway while I wasn't looking - in spite of my earnestness expressed above I will accept that I'm a minority on this point. But we do need to have the link redirect to the appropriate part of the article! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

`Abdu'l-Bahá's knighthood

This has always been an acknowledged as fact here (for what it may be worth) - endless piling on of side details seem to be giving it grossly undue prominence. Even recent edits, however, have acknowledged the "seminal" nature of Lady Blomfield's Chosen Highway - which gives a far too glowing account (much too favourably partisan) for our context here - including a description of the "charitable" activities involved. If we (perhaps justifiably) decry any tendency towards pro-Baha'i bias here, we don't want the opposite tendency either. Have trimmed this back to a version which is fair, succinct, and makes it clear the degree of "reason" that exists for this "objection" without being partisan in either direction. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

No one disputes, as far as I know, that the knighthood of Abdulbaha is an acknowledged fact among Bahai circles. What you dismiss as "side details," however, is the very crux of why the British knighted him. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The "revised" version (before your latest efforts) already made it clear that the matter was (rather) contentious. The "official" Baha'i line (a la Lady Blomfield) of the (real and well documented) "charitable work" did need balancing with the other reasons, as actually expressed by British sources: but identifying one side over the other as "the very crux of the matter" would be inappropriately partisan, whichever "side" it came down on. Fact is both sides now have about the right weight. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The inclusion of the reference to Blomfield's Chosen Highway is important. Far from being a "side detail" of a "partisan," hers is a firsthand account by a leading contemporary Bahai about the specific aide that Abdulbaha rendered the British military leading to his being knighted. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Relevance and notability?

There may well be quarters in which acquaintance with prominent Jewish people is evidence of "Zionist" activities. Not in an encyclopedic account to which it is barely relevant. This whole article was unduly partisan in a "pro-Baha'i" and needed "balance" - but going too far the other way with barely relevant assertions "cited" to well-known "anti-Baha'i" writers is even less appropriate. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the title of the section "Bahá'ís as agents of Zionism" is objectionable. Looking at the history of the article, however, it is clear that the title was placed there by a "pro-Baha'i" as you term it. I suspect the objectionable title was chosen to dismiss any relation between Bahais and Zionism as being purely conspiratorial. Nevertheless, it remains that Abdulbaha encouraged the Zionists' settling of Palestine and met with not merely a prominent Jewish individual, but someone who was the chief financier of the movement. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

In spite of the above - your efforts to reduce bias in the earlier form of the article is actually much appreciated. Just that we have probably already reached the point where we have the right balance between the risk of partisanship (for OR against) and, frankly, just making more of the subject than is really appropriate in a general encyclopedia article as opposed to an exhaustive thesis. (Undue weight and all that). Your further constructive comments (as always) remain welcome. Have you though of revamping the lead paragraph a little, to make it a better introduction for the more balanced article? May even have a shot at this myself. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

This relates to your comment above, which I didn't initially notice. "Encourage" is a bit strong - he certainly didn't discourage (then) Jewish aspirations re. the Holy Land - but just how relevant and notable is this in context? Try another wording of this perhaps? -Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

In the header of the section, "agents of" has been changed to "ties to" and in the text the word "praised" replaced with "stated." Regards, A35821361 (talk) 13:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

"Bahá'ís and political activity in the Ottoman Empire"

I have several problems with this whole section - although I want to discuss its possible removal before doing the deed!

1. Chronology - at WHAT time - in context this must mean the late WW1 period / early twenties, just before `Abdu'l-Bahá's death. "At THAT time" there was no longer a Sultan for `Abdu'l-Bahá to have had contact with his political opponents, as the last Sultan of Turkey had been deposed ten years or so earlier (in 1908). This makes nonsense of the worst implications of the section.

2. Relevance. This article is about (current) political objections some opponents of the Baha'i Faith habitually use (among other things) to justify persecution. What exactly has the alleged "political activities" of `Abdu'l-Bahá in the years leading up to 1908 got to do with the subject of the article? Is this still raised as a bone of contention in (say) Iran in the early twenty-first century. I trow not.

3. General notability. A present day rather dogmatic Baha'i might feel that `Abdu'l-Bahá might have been wiser to have avoided all contact with the "Young Turks" while they were in open opposition to the then rulers of the Ottoman Empire - but the text makes clear that this "contact" was not subversive - more like bringing the Faith to their attention in a reasonably favourable light. Something for an opponent (or sensible supporter) of the Faith to get under the collar about? The Baha'is make no claims of prophethood for `Abdu'l-Bahá (or they shouldn't, since he denied such claims himself) so he might be allowed a very minor lapse of complete wisdom and prescience now and then. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

To address your concerns:

1. Chronology - Sultan Abdul Hamid II was deposed in 1908 by the Young Turks, beginning the Second Constitutional Era under Sultan Mehmed V. Just before the end of World War I, Sultan Mehmed V died and Mehmed VI became the new Sultan. The abolition of the Ottoman sultanate finally occurred in November 1922.

2. Relevance - Bahai political activity in the time of the Ottoman Empire highlight the assertion of the opening sentence of this article, that "Opponents of the Bahá'í Faith have accused the faith's followers of various "political crimes", such as dual loyalty and being involved with foreign or hostile powers." It should be noted that Wikipedia article titled dual loyalty, links to "Political objections to the Baha'i Faith" through a redirected link for Iranian anti-Bahá'í conspiracy theories, when in fact political objections against the Bahai Faith are not merely conspiratorial but rooted in historic fact.

3. General notability - The sensibilities of a dogmatic Bahai should not be the litmus test of whether this subject matter is notable or not. Neither should the degree to which Abdulbaha's contact with factional agitators constitute politically subversive activity, and therefore objectionable enough to be included in this article.

Regards, A35821361 (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful clarification of the Turkish historical context (proves even I am not infallible!) - although this only makes it even clearer that `Abdu'l-Bahá's "activities" were in actual support of the then dominant political powers-that-be in the Turkish government of the time (the days when the Young Turks could be regarded as "factional agitators" being long past). To describe these "activities" as "subversive" is, frankly, grotesque. Support of, and loyalty to, the government of the day is by any rational argument the direct opposite of "subversion". My mention of a hypothetical "dogmatic Bahá'í" was certainly not in reference to your own goodself, nor, as I hope you have noticed over our several exchanges, little me - but to a very strict Bahá'í who may have been troubled by ANY political activity at all by `Abdu'l-Bahá - given that such activity is so strongly discouraged by Bahá'i teaching. But this objection is hardly in context, is it? On balance - your own comments confirm that the section is not relevant to the point here and can be safely deleted. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Sources don't report `Abdu'l-Bahá as "hosting" Rothchild, or "praising" Zionists

Reading sources - the first does not mention `Abdu'l-Bahá "hosting Rothchild - in fact since R was only in Haifa for less than a hour, and presumably had other business, this seems very highly unlikely. His actual reference to Rothchild is actually rather uncomplimentary than otherwise - so once again this is a clear case of the sense of a source being directly opposite to the text to which it refers. `Abdu'l-Bahá's actual words, as reported by the second source is reserved, even mildly critical, of the Zionists, and cannot be described as "praise". As I have said before - sources are good, provided we take what they actually say rather than what we wish they said. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I recommend you read the sources again. The Star of the West article mentions the visit of Baron Edmond James de Rothschild, and `Abdu'l-Bahá's comments regarding Zionism are nothing short of laudatory.

On February 23, 1914, at the eve of World War I, `Abdu'l-Bahá hosted Baron Edmond James de Rothschild, a member of the Rothschild banking family who was a leading advocate and financier of the Zionist movement, during one of his early trips to Palestine.

Subsequent to the British occupation of Palestine, at a time when tens of thousands of Jewish settlers were arriving under the auspices of the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association, `Abdu'l-Bahá praised the Zionist movement, proclaiming that "There is too much talk today of what the Zionists are going to do here. There is no need of it. Let them come and do more and say less" and that "A Jewish government might come later."

To call even this somewhat selective quotation "praise" of the Zionists or their aims is singularly bizarre - at best (worst) it is neutral or even mildly critical. It is, of course, not especially prescient - one gets the impression A. believed a "Jewish government" (in Palestine) was unlikely, whereas as we know ... which gives little support to enthusiastic Baha'i views of `Abdu'l-Bahá as being aware of all future events. His remarks about Rothchild, and in particular R's extreme wealth, are even less supportive of your POV - it gives no indication whatever that they had a chance to meet (without some such evidence it seems, as I have said, most unlikely, if only due to R.'s VERY brief stay in Haifa - he was hardly there long enough to do more than exchange the briefest of pleasantries. No time for "hosting", for sure. I have said this before, but I am concerned that this article does NOT avoid legitimate doubts or criticisms, where these can be accurately sourced. NO article in an encyclopedia should be based on either questionable sources, or (even worse) arguments that actually run counter to a source, no matter how reliable. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Freemasonry symbols in the Baha'i Faith

There are many DISTINCTIVE massonic symbols in the Baha'i monuments and even in its latest official symbol (33rd degree massonic symbol) altogeather. Progressive infiltration or secret submission to freemassonry, let the historians do their work..

I have been reverted twice by "Soundofmusicals" twice because he doesn't like facts and my source, apparently. This is part of my recent edit:

Specific accusations connecting the Bahá'í Faith to Freemasonry include the display of massonic symbols such as the obelisk on Mount Carmel (as the future location of the Baha'i House of Worship in Israel), or the globe over the marble column erected over the resting place of Shoghi Effendi in London; or yet the NEW three intermingled triangles, which represent the official Baha'i symbol (as displayed on their official website at "www.bahai.org" as of 2018).

• • end of proposed edit**

I would like to hear other opinions (neutral, non-bahai and uninvolved with baha'i topics in Wikipedia) as to WHY this material information needs to be censored. "Because it is impossible to deny" is not a good reason IMO.

The "Baha'i" nine pointed star would most certainly not be recognised as a masonic symbol by the Masons themselves - although when it is drawn in the form of three triangles it might vaguely resemble one. The point is that in spite of Baha'is being criticised for many years as being "connected to" or even "like" the Masons this particular point has never been made. If one could point to a citation in a reliable source that someone had made the connection then there might be a case. (The citation suggested doesn't mention the Baha'is so how it can be brought into this argument I have no idea.) As has often been pointed out no one has ever said that the Baha'is and the Masons are "enemies" or antagonistic in any way - so far as I know they are most certainly not. Baha'is are simply not allowed to belong to "other" religious or quasi-religious organisations. They are no more allowed to belong to the Cathothic Church or the Jehovah's Witnesses, nor to be Mormons. In Iran, in particular, the Masons and the Baha'is happen to have some common enemies, and it might be a handy handle criticise them in one go? This would be supposition, so it doesn't belong in the text of Wikipedia, any more than the fantasy that either group is "infiltrating" the other. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Soundsofmusicals: You raise false issues that are NOT raised in the above questions and fail to answer again. First a Baha'I who represents the UHJ should answer. What a scam this has become!... 99.203.24.12 (talk) 02:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. If you have citations just share them, but unreferenced conspiracies will be deleted. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Citations were given in 2018: "Shall I Be a Masson, Life or Death" by P.D. Stuart. ISBN: 978-0-9562867-3-4. (for page numbers see edit page history). The issue is not "censorship" & the above are FACTS everyone can witness (not any "conspiracy theory"). & apparently, your cult is considered a (secret) "sect" by a reliable source (i.e. your "friends" at the MoFA of Israel). 99.203.25.209 (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

If I'm understanding you right, you were citing the book by Stuart to support the statements that Freemasonry uses certain symbols, but it is your personal opinion that the use of an obelisk to mark a location in Haifa means that Baha'is have a connection to Freemasonry. That doesn't fly here. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

For your info, Wikipedia can also become CENSORED. Respectfully, it is your logic, disregard for a body of [ https://archive.org/details/gov.uscourts.njd.295395 PROOF or FACTS] and chronology that doesn't make much sense. Are you a real "baha'i"? 99.203.24.253 (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Political infiltration?

This fact is undisputable and material. Yet, it is reverted for no reason by someone who claims to belong to that Sect:

"Other assertions, include that Hoveyda (who was the prime minister of the late Shah of Iran), was of Baha'i extraction and a freemason. Moreover, Hoveyda had many ministers of Baha'i extraction (despite the fact that there were not many Baha'is relative to Iran's general population) at that time." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.9.26 (talk) 20:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

And you are an antisemitic troll, who has spent months plunking your fascist crap on multiple pages on this site. Why should any of us listen to you? Go take your nonsense somewhere else. We don't welcome this kind of terrorist propaganda anywhere on the Wikimedia sites, regardless of shape or form. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 05:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@LightandDark: You are a "terrorist", a child molester, a troll and a REPORTED-stalker with a locked user-talk page (& I am not all these persons - in the sense that not ALL the edits are mine, including some of those edits made on the same or consecutive days (see tag about "shared IP address" at the bottom).99.203.25.50 (talk) 04:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Wow. For someone who claims to be unrelated to a known troll, you seem to care a lot about my comment that supposedly has nothing to do with you. Why the anger if it wasn't you to begin with? Anyhow, consider this your only warning. If you make another unsubstantiated attack as you did just above, I will report this behavior to an administrator. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@LighrandDark2000: If you don't feel at home in the USA, may be you should move to a different country, just a thought...99.203.24.66 (talk) 05:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

That something you're considering? Wow. I'm a Nationalist, thank you very much. Anyhow. I'm done wasting my time here. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 08:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Bahaism doesn't tolerate nationalism. What they like is patriotism I was told. No surprise u want to leave then. Good bye.. (By the way, i am not "anti-anything", but Pro-"truth"). 99.203.25.163 (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

List of high ranking Iranian officials referred in the above: Hoveyda, thse Shah’s 13-year Prime Minister as well as Minister of the Imperial Court and Minister of Finance; Mehri Rasekh, Farah’s boon companion; Gen. Abdol Karim Ayadi, the Shah’s special physician, who held 23 high-ranking government jobs; Gen. Ali Mohammad Khademi; Gen. Sani’ee, Minister of War; Habib Sabet and Hojabr Yazdani, two major economic supports and two financial arms of the Zionists in Iran; Mansoor Rohani, the Shah’s minister for 13 years; Mrs Farokhrou Parsa, Minister of Education and holder of tens of other jobs; Shapour Rasekh, the Shah’s sincere advisor; Hossein Amanat, the famous capitalist, designer and executor of the Shahyad Monu­ment; Parviz Sabeti, Director of Internal Security of the Shah’s security police; Lili Amir-Arjomand, trainer of the Shah' children.

This list might not be complete however. 99.203.25.157 (talk) 11:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for exposing yourself as an agent of the Iranian government, cause nobody else would walk around with a list like that. This is the kind of propaganda the government is spreading so they can justify their extermination of a religious minority they don't like. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Read the above reference. I am affiliated with the U.S. Air Force, u clown.99.203.25.147 (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

& don't shoot the messenger :) 99.203.24.53 (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Stop editing over older comments. I'm moving your "reference" here: https://thebahaiinsider.com/2013/11/10/bahai-role-in-the-50-year-crimes-of-the-pahlavi-regime/ Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Please don't shoot us, Youtube is the medium (not the reason why u are persecuted by the Iranian regime) :) 99.203.25.139 (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Freemasonry section

I fixed some POV, tense, titular, and capitalization issues in the section regarding the Baha'i Faith's supposed connection to Freemasonry: 1. Freemasonry is always capitalized, as it's the name of the practices and beliefs of the fraternity. 2. Mason, freemason, masonic, etc. Are never capitalized unless used as a proper bame or the beginning of a sentence. An example of a proper name would be the Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of Iran (in Exile), or the Masonic Service Association. 3. The belief that Freemasonry is a secret society is debated, especially since the descriptor arose in common usage during the previous century, and the very public nature of American grand lodges.

I welcome questions and critiques of my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepe Oats (talk • contribs) 16:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)