Baha’is mentioned at Ahmadinejad dinner in New York

Regular readers will recall that I cried “shame” in this post at the “dialogue” dinner that some of the churches were holding for Iran’s President Ahmadinejad in New York. I wondered how these church leaders thought it appropriate to “dialogue” with the persecutor of all kinds of minorities in Iran – including the largest non-Muslim religious minority, the Bahá’ís – and asked:

How come these New York “diners with the devil” are not prepared to speak truth to power and to tell Ahmadinejad that Iran’s denial of freedom of thought, conscience and religion to its citizens is utterly unacceptable?

One reader emailed me and said she thought I should have waited for the outcome of the dialogue before making a judgement about it. Well, perhaps I should have waited. Perhaps.

Commitment to religious freedom

Dr Bill Vendley, Executive Director of Religions for Peace, one of the sponsoring bodies for the iftar dinner and dialogue, mentioned the Bahá’ís in his introductory remarks at the dinner, according to a Religions for Peace press release. In speaking of the core convictions of Religions for Peace, this is what he is reported to have said:

The commitment to honor the God-given dignity of every person and the commitment to work for the related inalienable rights for all. For us, the rights of freedom of religious belief and practice are central and apply equally to all believers:  whether they be the followers of indigenous religions, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Bahá’ís or others. Our diverse cultural heritages must be respected, and there should be no exceptions when it comes to states affording full legal rights to all believers. We deplore any government’s laws or practices that penalize and threaten the freedoms of belief and practice. Belief is a matter of conscience before God, and States must provide the legal protection to practice and change one’s religion according to conscience.

Strong language – will it do the trick?

That’s good strong stuff, and I’m very glad that he said it. He did “speak truth to power” (which I feared no one would do). But – and forgive me for being sceptical (I refuse to own up to being cynical) – I don’t suppose that this will have made the slightest difference to Ahmadinejad’s views or his determination to remove the Bahá’ís from the face of the earth.

Ahmadinejad, the Hidden Imam and the Bahá’í Faith

If you want to understand why Bill Vendley’s words will make not a jot of difference to Ahmadinejad, you should read (and please read it thoroughly), this excellent analysis by Mohebat Ahdiyyih in Middle East Quarterly, of Ahmadinejad’s messianism (his Mahdism to be more accurate), his devotion to the return Shi’ism’s Hidden Imam (also known as the Mahdi, the Enlightened One) and why this entails the destruction of the Bahá’í community.

I intend to take a closer look at Dr Ahdiyyih’s analysis in another post.

The failure of dialogue

I have witnessed the failure of dialogue.

The much vaunted EU-Iran human rights dialogue that was going to resolve Iran’s human rights problems some years ago ran into the sand. Over successive meetings with British government officials who had started out full of enthusiasm for the dialogue I saw them become more and more morose about it, until they abandoned any belief in this process.

Why? Because the Iranians ran rings around them, played them along, but refused to discuss a number of substantive human rights issues, including their persecution of the Bahá’ís. And this was in the days of that supposed reformer, Mohammed Khatami.

And I have personally participated in a Christian-Muslim “dialogue” session with Mr Khatami, hosted in Lambeth Palace by the Archbishop of Canterbury and chaired by Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali.

Speeches were made. Khatami spoke fine words about “dialogue between civilizations”, but nothing resembling dialogue took place. when I questioned Khatmi about the treatment of the Bahá’ís in Iran, he obfuscated. In fact, a Shi’i scholar based in London chipped in first and told me that no one liked the Bahá’ís and the Bahá’ís would just have to get used to it.

So much for unconditional “dialogue”.

Reward and punishment

The Bahá’í sacred writings are explicit in saying that justice (which is a matter of giving everyone his just desserts) depends on two things: reward and punishment.

Dialogue which has no foundation in justice – which is just a way of continuing to get your own way without suffering the consequences for evil – is not real dialogue. I was admonished by one Church of England official for having ruined the day with Khatami, who had, allegedly, refused to fulfil the rest of the day’s engagements. My fault, apparently.

I raised this accusation with one of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s close advisers. His reaction was rather different. How can we have dialogue, he asked, if we cannot talk honestly about things such as the persecution of religious minorities and other human rights abuses?

I don’t think we should reward the commission of evil with pretend “dialogues” that allow the perpetrators to continue their egregious behaviour.

Technorati Tags: Baha’i, Bahai, Iran, Ahmadinejad, Khatami, human rights, persecution, dialogue, Religions for Peace. WCRP, justice, Mahdi, Hidden Imam, Islam, Shia, Shi’ism

Related posts:

1. The world needs the “Hidden Imam” says Ahmadinejad. Could he be right?
2. Dining with the Devil – “dialogue” with a persecutor
3. Treatment of Baha’is: a test of human rights in Iran
4. Human rights, religious freedom and Iran’s nuclear crisis
5. Baha’i arrests – Iran criticized at UN Human Rights Council

Tagged as: Ahmadinejad, Baha'i, dialogue, Hidden Imam, Human Rights, Iran, Islam, justice, Khatami, Mahdi, persecution, Religions for Peace. WCRP, Shi'ism, Shia