[PROVISIONAL TRANSLATION FROM Persian]
[Translator’s notes appear in square brackets.]
[Personal information has been redacted.]
[The excerpt below is from the section of the article that pertains to the Baha’i Faith]
[Newspaper:] Eradeh-e Azerbaijan
[Date:] 30 Ordibehesht 1334 [21 May 1955]
[Issue No:] 107
Publication of Falsehood as Criticism or Expressing Hostility in the Name of Friendship
The Voice of Falsafi is the Voice of 400 Million Muslims around the World
The author of Sahar weekly newspaper, discussing the nation’s efforts to confront the sedition of Baha’ism and this political dilemma that has plagued Iran for years now, has, in a series of published articles, not only demonstrated his lack of expertise in articulating opinion, but also contradicts himself. Moreover, while he introduces himself as a Muslim, he dedicates the majority of the newspaper articles to relating commentaries on individuals linked to this detestable political party. In between the lines, his pen directly defends these transnational spies and, as he concludes his comments, calls his opinion “friendly criticism.”…
…After that, this naïve or dogmatic author [criticizes] the point that Mr. Falsafi has made a special and general warning with his own rhetoric during successive sermons, exposing the treachery, deception, dishonesty, and falsehood of the architecture of the Bab and Baha.
Today, it is apparent to everyone that the evil sect of Baha’ism is nothing but moral and political corruption and the disgraceful scandals of this treacherous group are known to all, everywhere. What is apparent is that, in one of the political corners of the world—or better said, in some corners of the political apparatus of the world, Washington—the truth of this cause is not yet clear...
It is surprising that Mirza Hossein-Ali Baha himself, while issuing the epistle of the “Ebne Ze’b” called “Son of the Wolf”, the person who has protested against his prating labels this group as a party on at least three different occasions. Moreover, no one in any part of the world ever calls it a religion. Additionally, the organizations and propaganda of this party have nothing to do with anything but destruction and corruption in every angle. And in Iran, they are recognized, in a deeper sense of the word, as being against the national government and official religions of the country. Besides that, as stated in the article in the previous issue, it was verified that, as stated in the writings of Baha, he himself is opposed to freedom and considers liberty to be ignorance.
Is the offence of the unlawful Toudeh Party any different from the offences of the Baha’i party? And those who were executed for collaborating with the Toudeh Party had other convictions than this? And were the Toudeh Party’s operations, printing office or their other assets not confiscated on the basis of this very offence?
The author of that newspaper, who did not even study the alphabet of the school of freedom, believes that blockading the abhorrent Baha’i party would be against liberty. If the meaning of liberty is for the Baha’i party to be free, then the Toudeh Party, which claims to have an international ideology and [has deceived] millions, and oppressed people support its ideology, must be free in the first place. On the contrary, however, it is noted that not only the Iranian government, but not even the American Democrats nor England [Britain], which is considered the cradle of the world democracy... [Illegible]
... We should mention that this amount of action does not serve the high Islamic and national goals of Iran; rather, the government is obliged to take the final step, and just as it destroyed the illegal Toudeh Party, to strive against this detested and dangerous party [Baha’i]. Otherwise, it would be like having a double standard.
In response to the fact that the minister of the interior has expressed doubts and ambiguities in his statements regarding the confiscation of the property and assets of the destructive espionage organization of Baha’ism, during the private session of the parliament saying, “A legal solution should be sought for this issue”, and at the same time, has considered the views of the international community to support the principle of ownership, we would respond as follows: “Firstly, you acknowledged, yourself, while confirmed by the parliament, that the Baha’i party was among the disruptive parties, and likewise that any deal that had already been made in connection with the confiscation of the properties of the Toudeh Party, such as their printing houses, etc., had not been challenged by any legal authority or international circles, and that therefore, the same sentence could be applied to them as well…
Thirdly, did not the Turkish government, which, in its newly established political system, separated religion from politics, exclude the Baha’is from the society, and despite their having foreign passports, considered them international spies and disruptive elements? Did anyone protest against the Turkish government?
Now, the gates to Africa should be opened to the Baha’i herd and they should be guided to those forests. In any case, with all the background and understanding regarding this issue we expect more from the government, and we shall not withhold our opinion on this matter…