[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:] Ettelaat

[Date:] 22 Mordad 1362 [13 August 1983]

[Issue No.:] 17082

 

A Look at the Anti-Baha’i Society, [From] its Establishment to [Its] Dissolution (6)

In the previous sections of this article, we focused more on the intellectual issues and the position of the association around them. … separation of religion from politics and silence in the face of oppression and Islam of Ghaedin, its rules and historical roots, and finally the Baha’i Faith as a colonial movement and the struggles against it,… and the way the Society [Hojjatieh] dealt with them was criticized.

...The previous regime, due to its dependence on global arrogance [imperialism], could not move without being affected by … their demands. Baha’ism was also a colonial movement, both defending the interests of the colonialists and supporting their domination and that of their mercenaries at home. The relationship was reciprocal, and the goal was exchangeable. The shah and the Baha’is needed each other’s support to protect each other and to continue [to support] the interests of imperialism, and this was vital to both.

In such a situation, when the Society was established, the shah could find an answer to the religious majority of our society as to why the Baha’is were present, especially since the Baha’is operated in secret and the Society was more formal and public. On the [one] hand, allowing the Anti-Baha’i Society to operate and freeing it for intellectual struggle against the Baha’is, especially when SAVAK suppressed other activities, meant that the regime was anti-Baha’i and pro-religion, but rebellion and sabotage under the guise of Islam and religion made [the shah] angry and bitter. Finally, the presence of the Society could be a cover for the intensification and growth of the clever and secretive activity of the Baha’is, and ultimately the strengthening of this pro-regime base.

On the other hand, the Society is not a threat to the regime, since they have made a commitment and guarantee. Baha’is, who claim to be non-political, acted politically and held many sensitive positions. Since the Society’s struggle against the Baha’is was purely intellectual, there was no danger to them in this regard, and thus the looting and plundering of Muslims by the Baha’is continued with the support of the regime, resulting in the prevention of a serious struggle against the Baha’is and their economic and political interests. The huge complexes of agroindustry, factories and [other] large industries of the country, which were in the possession of people like Hojabr Yazdani and Sabet Pasal, of course, along with the Zionist Jews and the extinct Pahlavi dynasty, are the best evidence of our claim, and it is interesting that the Society never dealt with these issues.

The foregoing text has been transcribed from the original document. Please send us an email to the address on our contact page, if you notice something that has not been transcribed precisely.