Talk:Religious minorities in Iran

	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Iran

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Religion in Iran#Other religions]] The anchor (#Other religions) has been deleted by other users before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

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], 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)

Please discuss this issue on the talk page - if this revert war continues, I will protect this page. Most likely on 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

One correction: The Majles has passed and the Guardian Council accepted a change in the qesas rule. Now all recognized minorities and Msulims have the same qesas (blood money). Women still entitled to only one half the amount. JKA

Any examples ? Refdoc 12:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC) The Majles has passed and the Guardian Council accepted a change in the qesas rule. Now all recognized minorities and Msulims have the same qesas (blood money). Women still entitled to only one half the amount.[reply]

I am not sure how to go about making this change, as I am new to this game, but the Shaykhis are NOT a Sufi order. They can best be described as a school of Shi`i Islam. The main-stream school is the Usuli School, to which all of the Ayaullahs belong; then there are Akhbaris, of whom there are no many left in Iran but they exist in Iraq and Bahrain; and the Shaykhis are a third school. One could even say that the Ahl-i Haqq are a Shi`i school rather than a Sufi order. It is true that they have Sufi-like practices, but they also have a belief system with a strong Shi`i basis. The main Sufi order in Iran - which is not mentioned in the article - is the Ni`matullahi Order which has several sub-divisions. It is much larger than the orders that are mentioned. - --Nikravan

If there is going to be a gallery, then a picture regarding the Baha'i Faith and it's persecution has to be in that gallery given that it is the largest religious minority. -- Jeff3000 04:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it posible to produce more up-to-date figures for the numbers of each minority. The pre-revoultion table provided is from 1976, and the overall population of Iran has more than doubled since then. Given that Iran recognises Judaism, Christianity and, Zoroastrianism, surely somewhere the republic lists a population estimate for these groups at least. If not, there must be reliable estimates floating somewhere in cyberspace? --Indisciplined 13:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains now severela referecnes to Bahai religion as largest religious minority. This is obviously wrong - 1) Sunni if seen as a religious minority are many time smore 2) we do not have any numbers for e.g. Ahl Haqq, Shaykhis etc 3) Christians are given in the various published numebrs anything between 100.000 and 300.000. Latter is identical with estimates about Iranian Bahai. Refdoc 03:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Federation Internationale des Ligues des Droits de L'Homme "Therefore, despite the fact that they constitute the largest religious minority in Iran, the Bahá’ís are a “non-recognized” religious minority without any legal existence, classified as “unprotected infidels” by the authorities." -- Jeff3000 03:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate this but it is not an academic trext- and a lot of it comes back to what is the exact definition of religious minority. Sunnis - 9% of population outnumber Bahai +++.Refdoc 03:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a 3rd party reference, that meets the verifiability standards of Wikipedia. -- Jeff3000 03:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, Jeff - simple maths also meet WIkipedia standards. 9% of Iranians are SUnni i.e. ~ 6 million) , 300.000 Bahais... Largest minority?? The definition of "Religious minority" is certainly used in this article in its widest - and I am not sure what definitiuon the article you refer to uses. With the one used here Sunnis are the largest religious minority. Refdoc 03:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a peer-reviewed academic article, then take a look at "Christopher Buck. Islam and Minorities: The Case of the Bahá'ís. Studies in Contemporary Islam, 5(1):83–106, 2003." which also states the same thing. The article clearly passes Wikipedia's

reliable source standards, and can be cited. -- Jeff3000 03:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Jeff, be reasonable :-) Are Sunnis a religious minority? If yes, then they are the biggest one. Refdoc 03:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really depends. The different Christian denominations in the US are not considered minorities in the US, and even Iran doesn't consider the Sunni population a minority, but part of the whole Islamic population of the country. -- Jeff3000 03:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really depends - Exactly. And depending on the view of the author various groups will be discounted and subsequently others are suddenly the largest minority. The contitution makes that state religion is 12er Shia Islam. All else is divergent, heterodox, minority, whatever. From some points of view Sunni heterodoxness is irrelevant, form others it is crucial. The same vagueness applies to the various Sufi sects. We had this discussion at the very beginning of the article. Or rather it never became a discussion dt K1's disruptiveness. S where does this leave us? I do not think it is right to scatter variously "largest minority" wirthout actually having a clear, unambigous defintion - at least for the sake of this article. Refdoc 03:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But note in all forms for the government of Iran the option is Islam; they don't divide it into two or more. Regardless I've used the term "non-Islamic" religious minority which when used with the reliable sources is accurate. -- Jeff3000 03:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is clearer. —The preceding

) .

Jewish picture removed

I removed the picture of the Jewish film - it was a nice picture, but it was not fair use. Fair use of a Screenshot would be something discussing the film. Refdoc 03:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have also removed the second church picture. One is enough. And Jeff has removed the picture of the martyred Baha'i girl - her picture is in the main article on Bahai persecution. Refdoc 04:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very poor section. Large parts should simply not be there - we have a full length article on Bahai persection and do not need to dublicate effort. Refdoc 03:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Baha'i section is used in

summary style which is an acceptable practice in Wikipedia. -- Jeff3000 03:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Not exactly. the whole section is mingled up, a clear reference to a full length article is missing, I think the picture of the martyred girl, evocative as it is, is superflous in this section etc. It is the wrong time of the night now to deal with it, but I will Refdoc 03:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, a summary style execution, as it is currently, is warrented in this article. The wording and flow might be cleaned up, but the amount of content that discusses the persecution in this article compared to the length of the

summary style guidelines. -- Jeff3000 03:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

The picture? Refdoc 03:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about the picture? Remove it? I don't really have an opinion? Remove it if you feel strongly. -- Jeff3000 03:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the census table as it is so out of date it has become pointless. Population growth and emigration of religious minorities have made this not even useful as a general iundicator. I think we would be better off with some vague estimates based on current knowledge. Refdoc 04:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, how do you think this information is best presented? -- Jeff3000 04:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know. But when I wrote the original article I simply put vague estimates behind each mentioned group. Refdoc 04:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only have estimates of the Baha'i population. Do you have any others? -- Jeff3000 04:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have the 9% figure for Sunni Muslims and on the Christian page are others. Refdoc 04:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the editing RefDoc. -- Jeff3000 04:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The map is sourced and of a recognised source too. It might not be accurate - if so, sources for a dispute are required - both for putting up a tag or for deleting it and exchanging it with something better. Saying "I don't like it!" does not constitute a dispute Refdoc 11:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious about more ethinic/religious demographic details in Iran, especially these questions: Are most non-Muslims in Iran Persians? Are most

Muslims in Iran Persians? Are most Arabs in Iran Muslims? What about the percentages of the ]

= religious Persecution

Someone has shortened the article by taking all non-Bahai related stuff. This is not acceptableRefdoc 09:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of POV problems and unverifiable/loaded claims, some about communities that do not even exist in Iran (ie Sikhs), I tried to clean it up a bit, but the whole article needs re-writing in a more neutral manner.--07fan (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've sourced most of the statements and cleaned up some other problematic parts, and thus removed the tag. If you have specific other concerns, please fix the specific problem. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's better now, but my concerns regarding the neutrality of the article have not been addressed, the article is far from neutral and encyclopedic. A neutral and encyclopedic article would look like this: http://lexicorient.com/e.o/iran_4.htm . --07fan (talk) 02:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just stating that it is not neutral, without bringing any specific concerns, and sources to back them up, does not make it not neutral. Most everything in this article is sourced by reliable sources, but let's look at the article section by section:

• Religious minority groups: Just goes over the Islamic and non-Islamic religious minorities that exist and lists their size.
• Historical status: Gives the status of the religious minorities during the time of the Shah. If you have more material about pre-Shah times, that may be appropriate, or the section can be removed outright.
• Contemporary status: This section goes over the recognition of religious minorities, and their rights. Quite germane to the article.
• Reserved seats: Also quite germane to the article, as to the rights and responsibilties of the religious minorities.
• Persecution: Given the current government's human rights record in regards to religious minorities, this is quite pertinent.

I'm removing the tag, until you bring up specific concerns. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but you have no right to remove the tag. What you call " reliable sources" are political/partisan sources like US state department. I am asking neutral editors to improve the page by making it more neutral and encyclopedic. You're not a neutral editor, most of your contribution are Bahai POV-pushing. --07fan (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another core policy

]

I'd like to note, that you haven't brought any specific concerns as of yet. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US State Department is a partisan and political source, and not a considered a neutral or reliable source on Iran issues. Partisan sources are not allowed in Wikipedia --07fan (talk) 02:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Show me a Wikipedia policy that states that US sources are not applicable on Iranian pages? I doubt it exists. Bring other sources in, but don't remove totally acceptable sources by Wikipedia policy. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partisan sources are not allowed. Period. --07fan (talk) 02:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't agree that the US source is a partisan source, I have reduced the reliance of the article on the US article, by using a European document instead. The US report is still used, mainly for population numbers. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to quote the source each time you use it, you can't just dump a source in front of every sentence without specifying how it supports your assertions. --07fan (talk) 03:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source is online, you can read it and see it states what I replaced the US report with. But as a statement of good faith, I'll bring the quotes to the talk page in a little while. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the quotes that the article uses as references

• "the Islamic Republic of Iran is not the mere fact that Islam is the religion of the State"
• "Article 12 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran states: 'The official religion of Iran is Islam and the Twelver Ja’fari school,'"
• "Article 13 of the Constitution gives a special status to three religious minorities named 'recognized religious minorities': 'Zoroastrian, Jewish, and Christian Iranians are the only recognized religious minorities,'"
• "As a consequence of Articles 12 and 13 of the Constitution, citizens of the Islamic Republic of Iran are officially divided into four categories: Muslims, Zoroastrians, Jews and Christians."
• "Conversion from Islam to one of the three recognized religions (apostasy) may still be punishable by death"
• "Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians can only run for the specific seats allocated to these minorities by Article 64 of the Constitution: one seat for Zoroastrians, one seat for Jews, one seat for Assyrian and Chaldean Christians, one seat for Armenian Christians in the North and one seat for Armenian Christian in the South."
• "Although Sunni Muslims are accorded full respect by the Constitution, some Sunni groups have reported to be discriminated against by the government."

Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baha'is as a matter of principle do not lie about their religion, (i.e. They do not practice Taqiyya). There are a multitude of Baha'i sources, see here, here, and here. But since I didn't want to use a Baha'i source, I found another source. Do you have a source that states that they lie? Unless you have a reliable source, the statement stands. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 04:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm listing here all the sources that I have access to to the so-called Golpaygani memorandum which was originally reported on by Galindo Pohl in UN Doc. E/CN.4/1993/41, Commission on Human Rights, 49th session, 28 January 1993, Final report on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran by the Special Representative of the Commission on Human Rights, Mr. Reynaldo Galindo Pohl, paragraph 310.

• From Federation Internationale des Ligues des Droits de l'Homme — "The peculiarity of the persecution faced by the Bahá’ís in Iran is its systematic and particularly organized nature, proven by the emergence in early 1993 of a secret official document giving precise instructions for the slow strangulation of the Bahá’í community. Drafted in 199121 by Iran’s Supreme Revolutionary Cultural Council at the request of the Islamic Republic’s Supreme Leader and approved by the latter, this memorandum came to light in the 1993 report by the Special Representative to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. It sets forth specific guidelines for dealing with “the Bahá’í question” so that Bahá’í “progress and development [be] blocked”.^[1]
• From the Journal of War Crimes, Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity — "Since the early 1990s, there have been increased efforts to suffocate the Iranian Bahá'ís through more 'silent' means. Most noteworthy is a confidential circular (see Appendix A for a reprint) issued by the Supreme Revolutionary Cultural Council and signed by President Khamenei in early 1991, which actually organized the methods of oppression used to debilitate the Bahá'ís.2 The memorandum contains specific recommendations on how to block the development and the progress of the Bahá'í Community notonly inside but also outside of Iran, while avoiding the most excessive types of persecutions."^[2]
• From the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center — "Evidence of a renewed regime focus on the Bahá’í community came in a confidential memo dated February 25, 1991, written by Dr. Seyyed Mohammad Reza Hashemi Golpaygani, Secretary of the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution.332 The memo summarizes the steps taken towards the development of a new government policy on “The Bahá’í Question” before enumerating the actual policy initiatives that resulted from the process. In December of 1990, Ayatollah Khamenei instructed President Rafsanjani to address “the Bahá’í Question,” and the issue was referred to the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution (SCCR).333 It is clear from the text of the memo that Ayatollah Khamenei was seeking concrete policy proposals “devised in such a way that everyone will understand what should or should not be done.”"^[3]

• "Memorandum by Dr. Seyyed Mohammad Reza Hashemi Golpaygani, Secretary of the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution, dated 6/12/1369 (February 25, 1991) [hereinafter SCCR Memorandum] [attached as Appendix 7]. The documentalso appears to contain a note from the Supreme Leader (see IRAN’S SECRET BLUEPRINT, supra note 186, at 51). This document was brought to the attention of UN Special Representative Reynaldo Galindo Pohl in 1993"^[3]

• In Religious Human Rights in Global Perspective — "In 1993, a secret document surfaced which confirmed that these acts were all officially sanctioned by Iranian President Rafsanjani and the states' religious leader, Ali Khamenei."^[4]
• From the journal Studies in Contemporary Islam — "Personally endorsed by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on 25 February 1991 and written by Dr. Seyyed Mohammad Golpaygani, secretary of the Supreme Revolutionary Cultural Council, this document advises government officials, among other things, to expel Bahá’ís from universities, “once it becomes known that they are Bahá’ís.”"^[5]
• In Minorities, Peoples And Self-determination — "The most vivid indication of the intentional government policy against the Baha'is in Iran, and particularly its focus on economic, social and cultural denials tagerting them, stems from a 1991 governmental direction. This directive was uncovered in the 1993 report of the UN Special Representative of the Human Rights Situation in Iran to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Whilst the Iranian delegation dismissed it as a forgery, many other observers acknowledged its accuray in relation to the Baha'i situation. The Circular has been issued by the Supreme Revoluationarly Cultural Council on 25 February 1991 and concerned official policy to be follwed in relation to the Baha'is. Its main thrust was encapsulated in section (a)(iii), 'the Government's treatment of them shall be such that their progress and development shall be blocked through sever educational, ideological, cultural, propaganda and economic pressures."^[6]
• In Religious Minorities in Iran — "However, a secret memorandum from the Supreme Revolutionary Cultural Council and Ayatollah Khamenei offered recommendations on the "Bahai question"^[7]
• In 2001 Report on International Religious Freedom — "In 1993 the U.N. Special Representative reported the existence of a government policy directive on the Baha’is. According to the directive, the Supreme Revolutionary Council instructed government agencies to block the progress and development of the Baha’i community, expel Baha’i students from universities, cut the Baha’is’ links with groups outside the country, restrict the employment of Baha’is, and deny Baha’is ‘‘positions of influence,’’ including those in education."^[8]

Note that all of them are non-Baha'i sources. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 07:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? There is no reason for a separate

]

Support merge The religion in Iran article was created later, so that's why there are two. I agree that the minorities one could be merged here quite nicely.

talk) 08:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Oppose Merge - [...] could be merged here quite nicely - only to require unmerging again after a while because the article has grown too much. Refdoc (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge I would have to say it should be merged into the Religious minorities section of the article. Why would it require unmerging again after a while? There are already articles on

talk) 14:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

With a vote of 3 to 1 in favor I will be merging this article in a week unless I hear any protest. --

talk) 23:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Page has been merged. Just changed page to redirect

talk) 22:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]