Why is Farrakhan Welcome and Bahais Restricted in Iran?
Ron Williams
government of Iran.
In Iran, the Bahais are severely restricted because they believe that
their prophet lived in the early 1900s, long after the Prophet Muhammed
(PBUH).
However, Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam believe that the late Elijah
Muhammed, who died in the 1960s, was a prophet of God. In fact, he was,
and still is, referred to as the "Messenger".
Why then, is Farrakhan welcomed, while the Bahais are restricted?
Massoud Ajami
>From: Ron Williams <ro...@netcom.com>
>Subject: Why is Farrakhan Welcome and Bahais Restricted in Iran?
>Date: 13 Feb 1996 14:38:22 GMT
Although I am not fond of neither of them, but Bahais took the Islam as a
tool to promote their own agenda. They do not consider theirselves as a
Muslim. Their book is a contrary to Quran [never mind the wrong Arabic
text], and also it was not emerged as a religion, per se. It was the work
out of the foriegn power [Britts] to destablize the govornment of the
region. One example is their believe of crosification of Jesus Christ, in
order to get populiraty between Cheristians to rise.
While Elijah Muhammad did not took that rout.
One point is worth mentionning is that there is a difference between
"Baabi" and "Bahai." Muhammad Ali Baab, decleared that he is the waited
Mahdi [that is Shais belive of the 12th Immam], and he said that another one
will arrive after 2000 years, then after his death, Hossen Ali known as
Bahaar, ignored the profecy, and called himself the one [man yodzherollah],
and brought up a new religion which are called Bahais. There are no Babis
left anymore.
What it sums up is that there is a difference between Joseph Smith
[Mormanism], and David Koresh (David declaired he is the Christ.)
--
Peace and Prosperity!
---==< 110 >==---
user
>I saw on the news that Farrakhan was given a heros welcome by the
>government of Iran.
>
CAn you please tell us exactly which news agency you saw
this on? Your sentence above implies that Farakhan
visited Iran ?
As we all know, Farakhan does not represent anything but
Farakhanism. Definitely not a Muslim, nor anything Islamic
Y Rapido
: Although I am not fond of neither of them, but Bahais took the Islam as a
: tool to promote their own agenda. They do not consider theirselves as a
: Muslim. Their book is a contrary to Quran [never mind the wrong Arabic
: text], and also it was not emerged as a religion, per se. It was the work
: out of the foriegn power [Britts] to destablize the govornment of the
: region. One example is their believe of crosification of Jesus Christ, in
: order to get populiraty between Cheristians to rise.
: While Elijah Muhammad did not took that rout.
rap: Yes, that is true. I have not posted intelligence files on Bahais,
because it is rather well known that Bahais are a British operation
against Iran and other countries where people who call themselves Muslims
live and/or rule. Never mind now "who is who" type of argument related to
what is Iran now, and who is Shiia or Sunni, etc. What counts here, on this
particular issue, is that Bahais are a "cult" and not a religion per se.
They are definitely not Muslims, they are anti-islamic with very evil
agenda -- Bahai cult in an intelligence, ideological and destabilization
network/operation on a global scale. Interestingly enough, they have
helped Khomeini come to power in Iran. Well, that's a long story ...
but, anyways, Bahais are sick puppies.
Minister Louis Farakhan is an African American political and spiritual
leader. He respects Quran and word of God. However, he does follow
teachings of Elijah Mohammad, because many African Americans believe that
Elijah Mohammad was sent to them to teach them Quran and to introduce
Islam to them. As I understand it, and it could be inacurate
interpretation, Farakhan and his "Nation of Islam" believe that Elijah
Mohammad has a status of a Messenger, because he came to Black people,
specifically, to teach them Islam. That is not really, Islam-proper, as
defined in Quran, but, on the other hand, there are some good intentions
there, because African Americans were sufering inferiority complex vis a
vis White race ("Man", as they called white men before 20th Century ...).
However, Elijah Muhammad (later Farakhan) came along, and told them that
they are BETTER than the White man -- which proved to be a good
psychological de--programming tool, which set African Americans free in
their opressed MIND ! [Note: People can be opressed in many ways. one
of the worst oppressions is oppresion of people's minds; it introduces
deep mental anguish and suffering amongst the victims.]. That is why
Farakhan became very popular amongst American Black people, and they do
like him, even African American Christians like him. Farakhan set them
free in their minds. In addition, he introduced Islam (not really true
to the right path, but with good intentions and with respect to Quran!),
which, in turn, set the people even more free.
That is why one can never compare Bahais with Farakhan in any context,
except to point out the above obvious characteristics of both parties.
Farakhan was labeled with many viscious labels; however, it is most
obvious that his attitude is such as to expose Banking and political
ruling Oligarchy, and not address questions of someone's race, in order
to insult those people or such. As a caucasian, this author is not angry
at Farakhan for calling white men "Devils". He is right ! White men
have done so much evil, to his people and to many more, that Farakhan has
every right to make that statement. Farakhan's teachings can be studied
in his newspaper in the USA "The Final Call". Someone should read that
paper for at least 6 months, and than make his judgement of Farakhan.
White establishment newspapers are often evil towards Muslims, and
towards Farakhan ... for all different or not so different evil reasons.
This contributor is not a "follower" of Farakhan, nor particularly
involved in studying his teachings and reading his articles and such.
However, Farakhan is not enemy of Muslims at all. Muslims should not
write ugly things about Farakhan, because he is well reapsected by many,
and he is the first person whose islamic prayer echoed before one million
people right in the middle of Washington D.C. before Capitol ("Milion men
march" 1995). That is not a small accomplisment by any standard.
Wasselam
rapido
T.O.Shanavas
>Why then, is Farrakhan welcomed, while the Bahais are restricted?
>
>
>>>>> Why? "My enemy's enemy is my friend." I do not find any other reason. What a sad world?
Peace
Tufail
Travis Porco
>From: rap...@eskimo.com (Y Rapido)
>Subject: Re: Why is Farrakhan Welcome and Bahais Restricted in Iran?
>Date: 15 Feb 1996 22:27:31 -0800
>rap: Yes, that is true. I have not posted intelligence files on Bahais,
>because it is rather well known that Bahais are a British operation
>against Iran and other countries where people who call themselves Muslims
>live and/or rule.
This is not "well known" and it is implausible. The fact that many Baha'i's
in Iran are willing to undergo suffering and martyrdom suggests sincerity. We
owe our fellow believers in God the courtesy of a fair and responsible
treatment of their views. And the western converts to Baha-ism that I have
met have been attracted to it in part because of its peaceful emphasis on
world brotherhood and the community of man.
> Never mind now "who is who" type of argument related to
>what is Iran now, and who is Shiia or Sunni, etc. What counts here, on this
>particular issue, is that Bahais are a "cult" and not a religion per se.
>They are definitely not Muslims, they are anti-islamic with very evil
Name-calling does your side no good.
...stuff deleted...
>Minister Louis Farakhan is an African American political and spiritual
>leader. He respects Quran and word of God. However, he does follow
>teachings of Elijah Mohammad, because many African Americans believe that
>Elijah Mohammad was sent to them to teach them Quran and to introduce
>Islam to them.
Some sincere followers of Elijah Muhammad eventually embraced Islam itself,
and abandoned the hate that they were taught, such as the white man being the
literal devil, and other odd views, such as the belief that Allah was an
actual person named Wallace Fard (I believe) that EM met in the 1930's.
...
>As a caucasian, this author is not angry
>at Farakhan for calling white men "Devils". He is right ! White men
>have done so much evil,
Are you speaking for yourself? Then you carry out whatever repayment you feel
is appropriate. If you are speaking for anyone else, you are only preserving
the practice of hating people because of their race, and nurturing the view
that knowledge of a person's race reveals all that is important. Certainly
you speak neither for Islam nor for the noble ideals of the American
Revolution.
>This contributor is not a "follower" of Farakhan...
Glad to hear it.
>Muslims should not
>write ugly things about Farakhan, because he is well respected by many,
>and he is the first person whose islamic prayer echoed before one million
>people right in the middle of Washington D.C. before Capitol ("Milion men
>march" 1995). That is not a small accomplisment by any standard.
Such successes do not guarantee that Farrakhan is right, as should be obvious.
>rapido
--Travis
Hyder A Khan
Greetings,
On 13 Feb 1996, Ron Williams wrote:
> I saw on the news that Farrakhan was given a heros welcome by the
> government of Iran.
> In Iran, the Bahais are severely restricted because they believe that
> their prophet lived in the early 1900s, long after the Prophet Muhammed
> (PBUH).
> However, Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam believe that the late Elijah
> Muhammed, who died in the 1960s, was a prophet of God. In fact, he was,
> and still is, referred to as the "Messenger".
>
> Why then, is Farrakhan welcomed, while the Bahais are restricted?
>
One of the fundamental teachings of Islam is that it is the duty of
every Muslim to fight against oppression and injustice and to
struggle to establish truth and justice across the earth. On this basis,
The Nation of Islam represents this struggle and Luis Farrakhan's visit
to the Middle East, and particularly to Iran, was to represent the
oppressed African people living in the USA, and to unite with the rest of
the Muslim world in its struggle to put an end to the evil, oppression,
and injustice of the Great Satan. The NOI supports the concept of Islamic
Revolution within the USA. This is the very reason for which the NOI was
created: to establish an Islamic Government on the North American
continent in coexistence with, if not in entire replacement OF, the
United States.
The Islamic Republic of Iran, being the only true government of God on
the earth, supports anyone who supports the struggle against oppression,
and even more who seeks Islamic Government in his or her land.
The Baha'is, on the other hand, seek the supremacy and dominance of
American and western power on the land. Its fundamental religious
doctrines in and of themselves are inherently western in origin, with its
empty calls for "peace", "justice", "unity", and "equality". Their support and
advocacy of the supremacy of the oppressive regimes of the west itself
classifies the Baha'is as one of them.
May Allah(SWT) guide us all,
Hyder Ali Khan
Zeki U. Gunay
>Massoud Ajami (Massou...@sdsu.edu) wrote:
>
>rap: Yes, that is true. I have not posted intelligence files on Bahais,
>because it is rather well known that Bahais are a British operation
>against Iran and other countries where people who call themselves Muslims
The different approaches taken by the Bosnians and the Chechnians
in defending their homelands can be readily seen in the writings of
Rapido. One group wastes its time on posting conspiracy theories on the
net, or waiting for UN intervention while the other group hits the
Russians where it hurts and hits them hard. If the world had given the
Chechnians 1/10th of the attention they gave to Bosnians, Chechnia would
have been freed by now.
>
>Minister Louis Farakhan is an African American political and spiritual
>leader. He respects Quran and word of God. However, he does follow
Does Quran talk about whites being created by some mad black scientist
? Not the one that I know of.
>teachings of Elijah Mohammad, because many African Americans believe that
>Elijah Mohammad was sent to them to teach them Quran and to introduce
>Islam to them. As I understand it, and it could be inacurate
>interpretation, Farakhan and his "Nation of Islam" believe that Elijah
>Mohammad has a status of a Messenger, because he came to Black people,
>specifically, to teach them Islam. That is not really, Islam-proper, as
>defined in Quran, but, on the other hand, there are some good intentions
>there,
If Bahais are an intelligence operation, why can't the NOI be one
? After all, why was Malcolm X killed, while Farrakhan has been allowed
to live and prosper ? Farrakhan's goals are identical to what
white-supremacists want--black-white seperation. He is being used to lead
blacks to open insurrection which will no doubt end with a genocide of
blacks and Hispanics. If you can't see this then you shouldn't be
going around hatching conspiracy theories.
>to insult those people or such. As a caucasian, this author is not angry
>at Farakhan for calling white men "Devils". He is right !
Rapido, your self-hatred is incomprehensible for me. If all
Bosnians are like you, God help Bosnia.
>This contributor is not a "follower" of Farakhan, nor particularly
>involved in studying his teachings and reading his articles and such.
>However, Farakhan is not enemy of Muslims at al.
Can't you see that blacks are being divided into three different
groups-- Christian blacks, Muslim Blacks and NOI blacks, whereas before
they were all Christians. Why would whites want to stop Islam from
spreading among Muslims ? It just helps divide them, and changes the
nature of war from an interracial one to a interreligious one, Christians
vs Muslims. Which Christian on earth would sympathise with Muslim blacks
against Christian whites ? Think a little.
Muslims should not
>write ugly things about Farakhan, because he is well reapsected by many,
>and he is the first person whose islamic prayer echoed before one million
>people right in the middle of Washington D.C. before Capitol ("Milion men
>march" 1995). That is not a small accomplisment by any standard.
He is leading blacks to genocide, just wait and see.
Sincerely,
--
*****************************************************************************
Zeki Uluc Gunay
zug...@mailbox.syr.edu
Tom Pastuszak
>In article <4fq7ou$c...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu> Ron Williams <ro...@netcom.com> writes:
>>I saw on the news that Farrakhan was given a heros welcome by the
>>government of Iran.
>>
>CAn you please tell us exactly which news agency you saw
>this on? Your sentence above implies that Farakhan
>visited Iran ?
The news report was broadcast on American National Public Radio, "All
Things Considered", earlier in the week. And the report did indicate
he "took the show". So it appears that he did visit Iran.
>As we all know, Farakhan does not represent anything but
>Farakhanism. Definitely not a Muslim, nor anything Islamic
There are political forces operative here. And to my understanding it
is shocking how ill-informed non-western Muslims are about Farrakhan.
Many, many have never heard of him, which should highlight the
insignificant role of the Nation cult, but also its potential danger.
murad
>
> In the name of Allah(SWT), the Beneficent, the Merciful.
>
> Greetings,
>
>
> On 13 Feb 1996, Ron Williams wrote:
>
Assalam Allaikum,
Brother, The republic of Iran is not a true Islamic state.
You should go and see for your self the way the mulahs have corupted
that country.It is unfortunate that they have be come worse than the
shah.persecution of her own citizens has not stoped.Talking of rights
of the citizens ask the Baluchis who are sunni muslims how they are
being discriminated and persecuted what a shame.
mourad
Khalid Lasfar
> CAn you please tell us exactly which news agency you saw
> this on? Your sentence above implies that Farakhan visited Iran ?
> Farakhanism. Definitely not a Muslim, nor anything Islamic
Could you please tell me why Mr. Farakhan is not a Muslim. Despite his
liking of Shiites over Sunites I still think his a plus for the Muslim
community in general, in the USA.
If you are just countinuing the old propaganda, that anything a
black person do, is not good enough, shame on you, my friend. Please come up
with some facts when you accuse Mr. Farkhan of wrong doing.
Nothing wrong with nationalism when it is used to unify a group of people
and rise them self esteem.
--
Tu es ce que tu penses, ce que tu penses tu le deviens.
Khalid Lasfar: cu...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
Behnam Sadeghi
>... The NOI supports the concept of Islamic
>Revolution within the USA. This is the very reason for which the NOI was
>created: to establish an Islamic Government on the North American
>continent in coexistence with, if not in entire replacement OF, the
>United States.
The problem is that the Nation's version of Islam is not what most
Muslims would consider to be Islam. Real Muslims do not believe in
racism. Real Muslims do not believe that God appeared in human
form. Real Muslims don't believe that a Prophet came after Muhammad.
Real Muslims do not believe that the White race is inferior to the
black race. If Mr. Farrakhan's religion is not Islam, his desired
"revolution" cannot be labeled "Islamic" either. What he espouses
in the U.S. is separatism: i.e. that Blacks and whites must physically
separate from each other in different states. Islam, on the other hand,
would say that Americans must work towards achieving tolerance of all races.
I respect Farrkhan's work for the black people. But let's not get
carried away. There are other Black leaders, including Muslim ones
(such as Warith Deen Muhammad) who have done as much and probably
more, and done so without being racist and adhering to heretical
beliefs.
Behnam
lindroth
dictatorial regimes in the Middle East? Shaking hands with
Saddam Hussein is somehow to further the cause of justice in
the world? Ignoring the existence of slavery (mostly black on
black) in countries like Sudan? Praising countries like Iran
(who sentence to death anyone who they consider insulting to
them), let alone the terrorism they support (mostly against
other Muslims), and not to mention their utter intolerance of
other religions (not only Bahais).
How is it that people who profess to be "Religious" leaders
can get away with such blatant racist discriminatory
behaviour when lay people can't (and shouldn't)?
Camm Maguire
no way seeks the dominance of any political or cultural entity over
another. On the contrary, it seeks to assist in the establishment of
a global society which celebrates its cultural diversity, and
safeguards the rights of each nation and people on earth. Baha'is
uphold the authority of all just governments under which they live as
a central tenet of their Faith. This includes obeying the
restrictions on their activities imposed by the Islamic regime of
Iran.
> The Baha'is, on the other hand, seek the supremacy and dominance of
> American and western power on the land. Its fundamental religious
> doctrines in and of themselves are inherently western in origin, with its
> empty calls for "peace", "justice", "unity", and "equality". Their support and
> advocacy of the supremacy of the oppressive regimes of the west itself
> classifies the Baha'is as one of them.
>
> May Allah(SWT) guide us all,
> Hyder Ali Khan
>
And may He bestow blessings and favors on the wondrous religion of
Islam!
--
cmag...@enhanced.com Camm Maguire
==================================================================
"The earth is one country, and mankind its citizens." Baha'u'llah
Altaf Bhimji
: uphold the authority of all just governments under which they live as
: a central tenet of their Faith. This includes obeying the
: restrictions on their activities imposed by the Islamic regime of
: Iran.
So you then consider the Iranian government to be "just" even though
they've imposed restrictions on your activities? How can these
restrictions be "just" if they turn around and give Farrakhan a great
welcome? -More like hypocracy than anything else; or maybe the fact that
Farrakhan is an American makes a difference? Or the absurd idea of the
"enemy of my enemy" is my friend makes a difference?
Altaf
GSimp95605
Date: 17 Feb 1996 23:35:27 -0800
>Could you please tell me why Mr. Farakhan is not a Muslim. Despite his
>liking of Shiites over Sunites I still think his a plus for the Muslim
>community in general, in the USA.
I'm not sure about where Farrakhan stands nowadays. He may have
changed some of his ideas about religion. But among the things taught
by the original Nation of Islam under Elijah Muhammad include the claim
that Elijah Muhammad is the last messenger of God (Islam teaches that
Muhammad ibn Abdullah [pbuh] was the last messenger).
More seriously, the Nation teaches that God appeared to Elijah
Muhammad "in the person of Fard Muhammad" and taught him Islam. (In Islam,
God is completely different from the creation and in particular,
is not a man. Even Jesus isn't considered to be God). Some followers of
Elijah Muhammad have also claimed that "the Black man is God". He has also
said that Black people are naturally Muslims while white people are
devils. (In Islam, there is no superiority of white over black or of black
over white.)
The Nation has modified the Islamic rules as well. A GQ article about
Farrakhan's restaurant in Chicago was saying that he is really into
wearing gold jewelry and silk suits. (Forbidden by Islam for men) The
Nation insists it's male members be clean-shaven (Muhammad told his male
followers to wear beards) Also, at least at one point "soul food" was
haram for the Nation.
In his speeches, Farrakhan is more likely to quote and allude to and rely
on the Bible than the Quran. He goes to great lengths to appease his
mostly Christian audiences. One issue of the Final Call several months ago
even had the headline "Jesus Saves". He has also said that Jesus was
crucified and was the Son of God. (Both claims are negated by the Quran)
In his defense, I might argue that since he is trying to reach the general
American Black community, it makes sense to speak in Christian terms.
But personally, I feel inclined to say that his teachings (not just in
form but in content) are actually alot closer to Christianity than Islam.
I don't know of him ever having spoken in a Sunni/Shia mosque but he
speaks in churches all the time.
Also, he might be changing his tune some. Recently, he has been refering
to Fard Muhammad as the Mahdi rather than God. And he has also said that
inter-racial relationships are ok if they involve true love, but cautioned
that they can often involve self-hate and mental sickness.
All that said, if it turns out that Farrakhan has received a warm welcome
in Muslim-majority countries, it is probably either because:
1) Muslims outside the United States don't really know very much about
what the Nation teaches/has taught and so they made the assumption that
Farrakhan was not all that different from Muslims elsewhere.
2) The Muslim leaders involved don't really care very much about correct
doctrine and are willing to work with Farrakhan because they don't like
the U.S. and as another poster pointed out "the enemy of my enemy is my
friend."
Peace
Gilberto
Gilberto
Dick Detweiler
>"enemy of my enemy" is my friend makes a difference?
>
I don't understand what you are trying to get at. I hope I can clarify
the points made by Camm.
I hope the moderator will allow a reply although I understand it is beginning
to stray off topic. I realize a fuller discussion would better be taken to
soc.religion.bahai or private mail but as it applies to the Islamic Republic
of Iran and a direct question regarding it, I'll attempt an answer.
Baha'is must obey the laws of the country in which they reside. The only
thing we are not to do is renounce our faith or be forced to show disrespect
for it. As examples of this religious principle in action, within a short
time of the establishment of the Islamic Republic in Iran the National
governing body of the Baha'is was arrested and later executed. The Baha'is
elected another Assembly. This group was also arrested and later executed.
The Islamic Republic then enacted a law stating that the Baha'is governing
institutions were illegal and were to be dissolve immediately. The Baha'is
obeyed immediately with the law of the land. After the law was enacted, the
Baha'is did not elect any more governing bodies and as far as I know still
do not.
But by the same token, some years ago the Baha'is in Iran shut down the
schools they had established for their children because the government
refused to allow them to close on Baha'i Holy Days. As this was seen
as forcing the Baha'is to disrespect their religion, they abandoned the
schools voluntarily.
So the balance is that Baha'is must obey the laws of the land as long as
they are not forced to disrespect or renounce their Faith. If they are
pressured to renounce their Faith, they are asked to willingly take the
consequences of their actions which in many places such as Iran, can be
death. I am aware of no sanctions however on those who are not able to
do this.
Hope this helps,
Dick Detweiler
beetodd
of a fringe, quasi-religious, quasi-black nationalist sect.
Wasalaam
Todd