[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]

 

[Adapted from website:] Adyannet

[Date:] 23 Dey 1395 [12 January 2017]

 

Baha’i Political Tactics; Confrontation of Sword With Honey

The leaders of the Baha’i Faith have instructed their followers, when taking a stand against their oppressors, to confront their swords by offering honey, with complete surrender. [They are] not even permitted to argue and create conflict.

Baha’is, however, have shown contradictory behaviour in the world of action. From this contradiction in the behaviour of the Baha’is, it can be understood that they see the command of their leaders as a mere political tactic and a camouflage.

Adyannet – The leaders of the Baha’i Faith have always prevented their followers from taking a stand against the oppressors. In this regard, they have also gone further, (and ostensibly) try to change the view of their followers regarding their oppressors.

Interestingly, not only are Baha’is barred from confronting their oppressors, they are not even allowed to argue in the face of oppression.

We saw that they have no dispute; rather, they are obliged to retaliate against their oppression with love; not to resist, and to kiss the hand of their killer. Baha’is present themselves as being greatly oppressed; in the world of practice, no resemblance to that principle can be found in their conduct.

Indeed, if Baha’is consider the teachings of their leaders to be from God, and binding, why do they oppose the government and the regime in Iran and provoke the superpowers to put pressure on this regime and the country? If they are barred from arguing, why are they standing firm in condemning Iran in international forums!

But the contradiction between the words and behaviour of the Baha’i leaders and followers can be analyzed in two ways: first, that the Baha’is, by their subversive behaviour against the Islamic regime in Iran, have practically acknowledged the non-divinity of the teachings and words of their leaders and do not consider it necessary to obey them; second, that they have come to believe that not confronting the oppressors and promoting the idea of a sword-to-honey confrontation (to camouflage) is just a political tactic by Baha’i leaders to serve their colonial masters, and that this principle does not apply to independent governments, such as the Islamic Republic of Iran.