(Seyyed Mostafa Taghavi )

Before investigating the issue \'\' Baha\'ism and the relationship

of religion and policy \'\' , we restate the official view of Baha\'ism

about \'\' the relationship of religion and policy according to

\'\'Abdulbaha\'\' adapted by policy epistle .

Abdulbaha writes in the mentioned epistle : \'\' The education

and patronage of a real educator is necessary for a human

community .

The educator will be bailiff , intermediary , preventer , impediment

, encourager , and retentive for human beings . And this preventer

and , impediment , bailiff and intermediary , leader are divided into

two parts ; the first preventer and keeper are policy powers which

belong to physical world . The keep human being\'s body , property

and honor and cause for human community to be precious and high

– ranked . Fair kings , prefect trustees , wise ministers and

commanders of guard corps are centers for administering these

political powers and are axes of the circle of these divine

endowments . The spiritual holy power and heavenly sent books ,

divine prophets , spiritual bodies and divine scholars are second

these educators of human world …these holy tasks are bases on

divine spiritual affairs and conscientious facts . They don\'t depend

on physical affairs and political or mundane ones … They didn\'t

and don\'t middle with government , country and peasant affairs

have their own respective authorities and determined orderlies .

There is a holy center and a determined source for guidance

,honesty , cognition , education , and preaching humanity

prepayments . These people don\'t depend on political affairs and

won\'t intervene… This issue is similar to firm foundation in divine

book . Peasant must be honest in obeying Kings and be humble in

doing government orders and be obedient to Kingdom . \'\'

This statement shows its speaker\'s view to the world and his

anthropology clearly .On the other hand , Abdul Baha\'s theoretical

foundations are considered for explicating the separation of

religion from policy . According to his claim this idea looks like \'\'

a firm foundation in the divine book \'\' ! Based on such foundation

she has ruled for Iranian community and its scholars as :\'\' scholars\'

duty and jurisconsults \' task is preserving spiritual affairs and

preaching holy ranks . Whenever the scholars of the true religion

and the firm religious law pillars intervened in political world and

gave their opinions caused the divergence in opinions and

dispersion of the faithful . It caused decay and hostility that

destroyed a world . The country was plundered and peasant were

captured and captivated by enemies . \'\' To prove this part of his

claim , Abdul Baha pointed out the downfall of Safavi dynasty and

Iranian failure from Russia in King Fath .Ali Qajar as an outcome

of the schools intervention in government affairs in late Safavi

period of time and the wars between Iran and Russia .

Criticim and Analysis

The base of the above mentioned speech and claims is the

thesis of separation of religion from policy . Thus , acceptance or

rejection of it requiring the simplification of the extent of

scientific validity of mentioned thesis . On the other hand ,

intervening or not intervening of the religion in the policy are both

ideological commandments . Each is based on special theoretical

foundations .

So , if theoretical ideological foundations don\'t be firm logically in

scientific explicating and evaluation , it will be a nature with

ideological claim for personal or collective benefits , interests and

tastes and won\'t possess honor and scientific base . Of course ,

clarifying the relationship between religion and policy isn\'t

possible without answering to the fundamental questions

concerning this issue . There are numerous questions such as :

what is religion and what is policy basically ? what nature do they

have ? what are their applications ? Is there any relationship

between them?

We investigate the relationship and correlation

between them. And which of these four proposed correlations is

logical ? Are both of them the same or separated from each other

and don\'t have any relationship ? Do they have separate or

common aspects as two independent entity ? or is one of them

subset of the other ? if so, which one is subset of the other , why?

In this manner the mentioned four logical correlations concerning

policy and religion relationship are as follows:

2

1

Separation Unity

4 3

Policy is subset Religion is subset

of religion of policy Intermixture

Unity

In this hypothesis , the religion and policy are the same ,

religion is the same as policy and policy is also the same as

religion . The famous statement of Martyr Ayat Allah Seyyed

Hassan Modarres that says : \'\' Our piety is the same as our policy

and our policy is the same as our piety , \'\' is inferred as unity and

sameness of religion and policy in several cases in our

community . According to philosophy , \'\' Sameness\'\' is the

opposite point of \'\'difference \'\' , \'\'self \'\' and \'\' essence \'\' . Clearly

speaking , when it is said that this thing is the same as that one , it

means exactly that these two things are the same and have the

same substances .

Then concerning late Modarres\'s statement it is thought without

negligence and paying attention to background and the purpose of

its utterance , that maybe he wanted to tell policy is the same as

religion and religion is the same as policy ; anyway , Because late

Modarres has exactly defined the categories \'\' religion \'\' and \'\'policy

\'\' and has known their natures , ranks and positions , we should

consider and investigate his other statements in order to realize his

aim . Discussing about foreign policy , he said : \'\' we are friends

for the world\'s governments , whether neighboring countries or

not . Whether for south countries or north , east or west .Each

country which attack to us , so we also attack to it as long as we

can ….Then , it makes no difference ; our policy is the same as our

religion and our religion is the same as our policy . We are friend

as long as they don\'t attack to us .We behave according to the exact

that we have been ordered .\'\' He says in national parliament :

\'\'Once there was a famine in Najaf . I traveled to visit Babylon

lands . It took me 15 days . They were extracting antiques . I

thought why has Islamic countries weakened but non-Muslim

countries has advanced ? I thought for several days and finally I

understood that Islamic countries have separated policy from

religion but other countries\' policies are the same as their religion .

Maybe , I have made a mistake . Consequently , in Islamic

countries , religious people avoid politicians . When those religious

people avoided , every kinds of people entered the policy . So, [the

country ] regressed . I said to myself to take an action . I

investigated with two masters , now both of them have died ,

concerning this issue . Eventually , it was adapted with

Parliamentary and this difference would solve by it . Everybody

who is more trustful than others , serve the country more . People

who were greater than I and I confirmed Parliamentary . Because

we wanted to solve a disagreement [disagreement and separation

of religion and policy ] . It is meaningless that government and

nation ., policy and religion are two concepts . The Holy prophet

(P.H.) who was founder of religion , was the head of policy . Since

disagreement created [ between religion and policy ] , Islamic

countries weakened .\'\'

Modarres declared these statements in the fourth period , in

National Parliament in a situation that in one side the third of

Isfand 1299 coup happened and the signs of its real aims affected

in Reza Khan\'s actions and on the other side , he was observing all

the events and actions which led to the coup and considered them

as historical experiences and as a guidance for his actions . So , in

these two mentioned events , two important cases which had been

damaged by views and stands of some elites and political currents

of that period of time and was threatening the country\'s fate by its

continuation , were investigated by him .

Modarres\' paid attention to two categories independence and

development of country . In the first event he considered to defense

of independence and territorial integrity of the country as his

political stand or the issue that religion rules it . And religion rule

something that is necessary for political expedients of the country .

In this manner , Modarres\'s intention concerned with this

statement \'\' our religion is the same as our policy and our policy is

the same as our religion \'\' becomes clear . The deep understanding

governed this statement isn\'t related to common people\'s view that

assumes religion and policy as equal and peer entity . The second

parts of late Modarres\'s speech not only shows his accurate

theoretical approach concerning the relationship between religion

and policy but also indicates his realistic and applied pathology

concerned with the process of the changes of Iranian community

from the political sociology scope .

Pointing to the relationship between religion and policy in Europe

and Iran , Modarres\'s intention is the role that the unity of religion

and policy – clearly speaking , the policy\'s obedience of religion in

Iran can play as a single way to become free from lag and as a key

to open progress and civilization gate .

The other important note in both parts of Modarres speech is

his criticism about the views and stands of those people and

parties that caused mental divergence , identity anguish and

continuation and deepening of the country lag and introduced such

by ways as development and prosperity ways to the community by

proposing some issues such as incoherence between religion and

nationality , Iran and Islam , separation of religion and policy or

separation of religious people and politicians . Modarres was

trying to propose the issue of the unity between religion and

policy to show the shortages and destructive signs of those views

and stands and to announce that the realistic way for development

and independence of Iran is governing the country by religious

politicians whose pieties are the origins of their policies by paying

attention to the structure of Iranian community and available

genius in religious and national culture .

Separation, Intermixture

Other views which has been shown in figures 2,3,4 A, stress

on the separation of religion and policy basically and they are

going show no correction between them . Even if there is a

relationship between them logically , such correction mustn\'t take

place and mustn\'t be recognized officially . These views include

different approaches with anti-religious, irreligious and religious

aims . The brief claims of this approach are as follows:

Religion and government are two categories naturally .

Religion is a spiritual affair and is related to heart but government

is a formed and mundane one . Religion is related to belief and

policy is related to contract . Religion has internal validity and

holy corona .Government has external authority and official

system .Religion has spiritual proof and government has legal

formality . Religion is related to almighty and high motivations

and feelings of human being .

And policy is related to material ones . Religion is intrinsic

and policy is innate . Religion is supranational and government is

national .Religion guardianship is spiritual and ideological but

government depends on dominance and violence . Religious and

political leadership is general and special . Political leadership is

general because , all citizens whether agreed or disagreed include

each faith and sect; and it is special because , it includes just

citizens of a country . Religious leader is general because it isn\'t

restricted to geographical borders of a country and it includes all

believers of that religion and it is special because the followers of

other faith aren\'t included even if they live in the same country .

Religion is a spiritual entity and is separated from social life .

Human being builds and forms political government and system

for setting his/her life because ,he /she is a social creature . He /she

has religious behavior and organization because , he /she is

talented for motivations and has spiritual ,high and heavenly

responsibility and commitment .Policy and establishing a

government is a scientific , intellectual , civil and putative affair

and is a humane and natural right but it is not a religious and

juridical duty . According to John Luck :\'\' Every one of them

[religion and government ] should do their tasks and activities in

their domain ; that is , one of them should pay attention to people\'s

mundane facilities of their spirits… . The system proof government

consists of a group of people gathered each other in order to

provide their civil interests ; that is , life, freedom, health ,physical

relaxation , possession of external things such as money ,land ,

house , household gadgets and etc.

On the other side , church is voluntary association of people

incorporate each other according to their common agreement in

order to worship collectively in a way that is accepted by the

Almighty God and is effective for salvation of their spirits … If

each one doesn\'t exceed its duties and credentials , there won\'t be

any unfavorable contract them; that is , one of them try for people\'s

mundane relaxation and the other one for prosperity of spirits .

Religion is personal or collective experience or belief ;

government is a social bilateral contract and a public and general

issue and it\'s language must be more logical and public than

religion\'s one .

Society consists of people or groups with different credos . One

group\'s beliefs aren\'t considered as proofs for other groups . They

mustn\'t be imposed to them through the government .

Religious people like other social groups have the right for

freedom of through , belief , writing , speech and political

collaboration but ,they mustn\'t rule based on their personal beliefs.

According to Froid :

By establishing religious laws , principals and commandments , it

is difficult to distinguish between religious and putative

commandments ; that is , it is rare and difficult to differentiate

between the thing which is caused by God\'s will and the other

thing which is made by a country council or an effective and

powerful court … Generally ,God must be left out of this

framework .

If a religion and ideology as a certain and definite issue is the

base of the management and government system and control the

affairs , it will lead to totalitarianism and prevent free and natural

collaboration and public realistic thinking .

According to Erik Froum :

If government becomes a supreme source of ideology or

spiritual values , it will make the omnipotence discernable

although these values are objectively true and logic .

The difference between past and present societies resembles

to the difference between a simple mono cellular creature and a

complex multi cellular one . In primary societies , religion has

spanned all social deeds and aspects , and all institutions are

mixed together and there isn\'t job variation and division . Piety ,

government , economy , ethics , penetrated in all aspects of

people\'s lives ; so that , it is too difficult to diagnose of the other

social organizations .

But human history has experienced and spent a process of

distinction and separation of values and foundations .

Consequently , the role of religion which is expected by a complex

and variant current society is totally different from the religious

role of pervious societies . In this manner , religion is a foundation

like other foundations and establishments such as government ,

economy , education and etc . It can only meet some of believers \'

requirements and expectations . According to this view , religion is

considered as a parts of culture or is coequal with science ethics ,

art , literature and … .

Religious government considers policy as a foundation of

religious beliefs of this or that religion instead of rationality and

experience . It will repeat the previous stories such as the horrible

story of inquisition in the west, inquiry and inquisition under the

cover of disputation in Bani Abas caliphate , the story of Hallaj,

Ibn Hanbal , Gallileh among the Muslims and the Christians once

more . It only destroys the government , but also demolish the

veneration and spiritual , ethical and social eminences of religion ,

too .

The holiness of religion will hurt during political actions .

Religion must remain safe and sound against the unavoidable filth

of policy and governments .

Believers of a religious ideology can be active in different

social fields in the form of a political party like others and even

they can come to power through a democratic custom and middle

with the management of a country legally like religious parties in

Europe .

In domain of this view , there are some religious believers

who have distress of religion faithfully . Although they consider

religion as a social and public issue and as a program for individual

and social life of human beings , but they confirm entering religion

and religious people into political field ; because , they believe that

policy filth will lead to lack of honesty and wasting of people\'s

rights . They are going to unite religion and policy together . They

believe that policy is under the support of religion . But this

phenomenon doesn\'t happen now .But it will happen in a special

ideal situation in the future of history that is innocent Imam (P.H.)

government . Some of the other people don\'t believe in religion .

They believe that religion is a private experience which is created

for some people of society , so expanding and existence of this

experience among people of all walks of life lead to establishing

something called religion doesn\'t have any special purpose to

manage community affairs specially its political section whether it

is original and has relationship and bond with realities of the

existence or it is made and forged delusions made by human mind

which are used to meet some of mental needs of human beings .

It isn\'t effective although it has such an aim and purpose. Even if it

is effective ,it won\'t be useful and will have damaging outcomes .

All of all , because religion and religious institution as an objective

reality and a social institution is unavoidable along with other

society institutions , its function with other social foundation

should be attended by political management of society .In this way,

as the absolute unity of religion and policy seemed unexcused ,

the absolute separation of them (fig.2) is declared . Also , although

some declarations entities aren\'t recognized officially as two peer

phenomena and two equal kings , according to the mentioned

view; because it is clear that both of them can\'t live in the same

land . Thus , in this approach , the separation between religion and

policy means religion –as a part culture and as one of cultural

institutions has been busy with it activities in it holy threshold

alongside other institutions of society in the subset of political

management (fig4A) .

Now , this note will become clear that such a view concerned

with policy and religion relationship is based on a special

definition of these two categories . This special definition is

originated from the view of its owners to the world and human\'s

position in the world .

If we accept that the world is limited to material one and there isn\'t

any meaning and aim beyond that , human being will be

considered as a meaningless creature in the bobtailed world and his

/her only aim of life is meeting his/her instinct by any means . In

this manner , to this view, \'\' life is nothing but this ordinary life

which is created in this natural world and is continued based on

free pride in suffering natural and tame instincts in favor of social

life without undertaking to special beliefs for life meanings and

adjusting it towards the highest aim without responsibility for

human perfect ethics .\'\'

Consequently , political is nothing but justifying and managing

such a life . To this view , \'\' religion is a spiritual personal

relationship among human , God and other extraordinary facts

[that according to the dominant speech in this approach aren\'t true

and are forged by human mind ] without the least effect on

mundane human life.\'

In this manner , religion is known as a personal and private

affair without any relationship with nature facts and natural life

of human beings which span a small part of life domain . Not only

it doesn\'t have any qualification to manage the community, but

also its presence in this domain is harmful . But , because people

of society deal with it in order to fill some of their mental defects .

So, it has created customs , creeds , institutions and special

relationships in community .

And has assigned them to itself . It should be managed politically

as a social and undeniable fact like other social institutions and

political manager must pay attention to it in their decision makings

Thus , the idea of separation between religion and policy

based on special worldview and special definition of human and

life in that worldview . On the other hand , the validity of

separation of religion and policy is dependent on the validity of

that worldview and its definitions . Now , if the reasoning destroys

the bases of that worldview and its definitions or at least shakes it ,

that claimed will become unstable . Criticizing and rejecting that

worldview and theoretical explication of God concept in religious

cognition of existence , specially Islam religion and explicating of

existence extremity and human\'s task in this world and the system

and values governed on this world which are objective need to be

discussed separately .It should be briefly said:

\'\' monotheistic worldview means the realization of the fact that the

world has been created from a wise volition and existence system

is based on benevolence and mercy and taking creatures to their

merited primes .

Monotheistic worldview means the world is mono polar . It means

the world has this nature that we belong to God and return to Him .

World creatures evolve by a coordinated system towards a center .

The creation of creatures hadn\'t been vain . The world is manage

by definite systems called \'\' divine convention \'\' . Human being has

a special honor and greatness among all creatures and has a

special task . he /she is resemble for evolving and educating

him/herself and revising the community . The world is human\'s

school… .The world hasn\'t been vainly created . Wise aims are

included in creating the world and human being \'\' .

In this manner , in contrast with mundane worldview , in this

worldview , human being is idealistic targeted and responsible . He

/she can\'t be headless about him/herself or his/her society . What is

intended by religion or religious ideology and consists of customs ,

creeds , values , aims , methods ,do\'s ,don\'ts ,responsibilities and

tasks of people and communities are caused by this viewpoint to

world and human being . So , religion is explicating and

formulating this worldview and its manifestation in social and

individual life . In this viewpoint , religion is an insight which

governs all human actions .

In religious worldview like Islam ,all aspects of human life

are coordinated . \'\' so , science worldview , politics , economics ,

laws , ethics , culture … industry (technology) and all the fields

which are effective in adjusting and revising [human life] are a

part of Islam religion . This is a fact that nobody will definitely

know about the religion if he /she doesn\'t know about that fact .

Because , every body who knows this religion , knows it .\'\'

In this way , it become clear that the religion belongs to

insight and cognition category and it is the basis of all values and

actions as worldview and foundation . Because policy belongs to

the category of method and action , it doesn\'t belong to religion

divisions .So , studying and investigating them as two salubrious

or adverse social institutions are scientifically baseless . Then a

religious person is resemble for establishing his/her deeds and

economic and cultural orientations based on his/her religion ,

he/she is also responsible to strengthen his/her political actions

based on his/her intellectual values and foundations which is same

as his/her religious ones .

For societies which is governed by such an insight , how is it

possible for political action domain to be separated from other

practical domains or to be excluded from its worldview ? On the

other hand , while religion belongs to insight category and politics

belongs to action one and all actions are caused by insights

logically , which scientific logic can prevent religious insight from

entering and affecting policy domain ? Is it scientifically possible

for such an exception ?

Also many contemporary thinkers and theoreticians in the

west world , who have fundamentally challenged with the idea of

some European thinkers of past centennials concerned with this

idea that religion had belonged to simple , traditional societies and

doesn\'t have any position in modern ones , believe that religion is

an important part of modern society like past although its special

forms may change .

According to Erish Froum : \'\'Every body needs a religion \'\'

thus ,as long as human exists , religion exists too and as long as

religion exists , all domains of human beings \' life such as policy

are supported by religion . According to Mulla Sadra : \'\' There is

no way for policy except being supported by religion ; because

these two entities resemble to spirit and body in the same

physique.

Policy without religion looks like a body without spirit … the

extremely of policy is obeying the religion and policy in

comparison with religion looks like servant compared to his her

master that sometimes it obeys and sometimes disobeys . Then if

policy obeyed religion , the appearance of the world becomes

reality of the world\'s obedient and tangibles are under the shelter of

serious objects and parts more towards the entirety .\'\'

Thus , separating religion from policy is scientifically and

logically baseless . Of course ,if a religion is resemble for guiding

human beings \' and considers an important part of human beings\'

life domain that is policy and government out of its task domain, it

will accept at least the limitation of its task domain and will

confess that it is not comprehensive in addition to logical defects

that it will encountered – but , if a religion such as Islam considers

its domain of task as common and total and also considers the

human beings\' guidance in all fields like policy as essential and

according to a statement there are \'\' inner bond between Islam as a

comprehensive program for setting and adjusting human life\'\' and \'\'

the policy as a necessary means to serve this program completely \'\'

not only the separation between religion and policy but also

assuming religion as a personal and private affair and separating

affairs and life domains into religious and non- religious , religious

and scientific , religious and civil and … as considered and

practical foundations .

Reasoning and justifying related to separation of religion and

policy stress this note that even if religion and policy are logically

inseparable and the presence of religion in policy field has its

influence . So , secularism will be stressed and their separation will

be urged . Now, we should attend that why is such an ideological

commandment issued ? The onset and end of such commandment

may be summarized in the following elements and steps:

1) Motivation

2) Vouchers

3) Justifications

Motivation

A religion such as Islam believes in the prime and loftiness of

human being and community in limiting the instincts and pays

attention to other world with more expanded view and achieving

the absolute prime . This issue isn\'t possible except controlling and

dominating the carnal soul . One of consequences of the carnal

soul controlling is not violating the others \' rights and not misusing

the power . On the other side , the government and policy domains

are the fields for power and exploitation of enjoyments of

authority . Haltering the passions and educating the soul for

stepping in prime path is a too difficult task . Human being are

dominated by passions and instincts in the first stage of their

ordinary and to get rid of this situation . That\'s why they are

forgetting prime and following the passions even in the manner of

weakness and in the least opportunities . If such a creature come to

power and observe these extended opportunities ready for

him/herself , he/she will get rid of them hard . For this reason

power is intrinsically monopolist and everything that makes

limitation for it is considered as obstructive and it will be

destroyed . If the obstructive entities are people , parties people of

all walks of life , and tribes or even the most intimate friends and

relatives , their destruction will be easy . Eventually , whether the

dominant strong people will succeed and continue their way or

they will be defeated and replaced by new strong people . Anyway,

the way of enjoying and exploiting the power continues . But , if

a creed is originated from the human beings\' temperament , it will

control the carnal soul , limit the disturb the strong constantly .

They aren\'t limited to a generation , group or a special period of

history . To this view , religion in its exact and perfect meanings

considered as obstructive thing for the strong of all eras and all

generations . It seems this issue is the fundamental reason of

posing the issue of separation between religion and policy that has

been explicated and preached by the strong and their related

theoreticians during the history . In the recent centennials that

power and strength have exceeded from the limit of individual and

coherent governments , they have turned to knowledge through

industry and investment and are going to expand the domain of

power , dominance and colonialism in the worldwide field . They

have justified , preached , and imposed secularism through

destroying the cultural obstacles and resisting against the countries

on which they are and were going to dominate . There isn\'t any

difference between the philosophical , historical , and social nature

of secularism of yesterday and today . Both of them want not to

have any obstructive one in power field; unless today justifiers

assume the previous people as reactionary and dependent on the

despotic and dictators and assume themselves as advanced and

open –minded offspring of the modern world .

Excuses

Although , it is spoken about monopoly and totalitarianism as

a fundamental element in proposing secularism , it doesn\'t mean

that the mentioned issue is an individualistic reason . Of course ,

there are other causes and elements for this issue which will be

important in next steps . The legal system of religions and religious

laws and religious leaders\' functions are included , Because ,

secularism – apart from its historical background – is one of

important features of western civilization and is proselytized by

theoreticians and distributors . Some thinkers of other regions of

the world who infer that civilization as the foundation of history ,

analyze the changes of all over the world including the changes of

their own countries based on it . Thus , they consider the

relationship between religion and policy as a base to issue a

common and absolute commandment of separation between

religion and policy through invoking the function of Christian

clergymen in the middle ages and the nature of the Christianity

concerning the extent of universality or the lack of its religion in

order to span the various aspects of social and individual life .

They stress on executing it in different countries like other aspects

of Western Modernism without paying attention to the nature of

other religions or societies and their structural expediencies . Of

course , in this regard , in addition to the phenomena of Middle

Ages in the west some events related to period of Bani Abbas

caliphs are mentioned .

The previous mentioned reasoning happen in order for the

motivation to happen through invoking mentioned excuses .

Confrontation between spirituality and materiality , religion and

tradition , religion and wisdom , and assuming religion as personal

and private entity , introducing policy as putative and civil entity ,

separating the life affair into religious and non- religious , posing

hurts and dangers caused by the presence and governing of religion

such as being tainted of the holy religion , political uptightness

caused by believing in holy religious commandments and wasting

the rights of people of all walks of life , the groups of people who

don\'t obey the dominant religion and … are of reasoning and

justifications .

A suitable answer to such mentioned doubts needs an expanded

explanation about philosophical , verbal , political , sociological ,

and historical discussions . But , because this writing is theoretical

,we make the reader\'s mind pay attention to shortages of mentioned

claims by asking some short questions . Can the concepts of the

Christ religion , the function of the Christian clergymen and the

experience of the Middle Ages generalize to other religions

communities –assuming that all proposed claims and analyses in

this regard are true? Do all crimes which have happened during the

human being history in the policy field and have killed numerous

humans conduct in the framework of policies and in the form of

governments by political rulers ? Has humanity turned to

Anarchism in order to expel policy and government from social

life field of human beings in pathology process of all these

catastrophes ? Or has they constantly tried and try to revise

political governments and systems in order to find more suitable

solutions for haltering deviations of rulers? Now if a religion is

shaped in the form of a school and its legal system spans all social

and individual life domains of human including culture , economy ,

policy , tradition and the rights of citizens of the same religion or

opposite ,,, and that religion has a successful and reputable

historical experience in establishing government and making

civilization , will be a place for posing some issue like separating

the life affairs into religious or non- religious , being personal or

private of religion , confrontation of religion with wisdom, science,

tradition , materialize and civilization …? In this creed , what can

a scientific reasoning separate religion from policy or prevent

religion from being prevent in policy field?

According to philosophy view , the essence of a thing is

inseparable from the thing . According to this idea , the followers

of a school who consider the existence as a targeted creature by a

wise creator and believe that their mere task of life is adjusting and

organizing all of their social and individual aim on the existence

according to their world views believes that they must eventually

answer about their report cards in this regard in the presence of the

wise creature . Which scientific reasoning can expel the domain of

political action , which affect on other domains of life to healthy

or not , from their own program of life? In this worldview it is

surprising , contradictory and unjustifiable to say the wise God

who put human in charge of the tiniest deeds of his/her life and

scold him/her , has abandoned the expanded and effective domain

of policy and doesn\'t have aim in this domain and doesn\'t put him

in charge and scold them to do anything in this domain without

paying attention to His aims in the existence system and the

message of His prophets !

The dominance of religion on policy and mixing of them aren\'t

ideological claims which have been offered by jurisconsults ,

philosophers , and Muslim political thinkers ; but the non-Muslim

people who have studied in this field , have found out it as an

obvious affair in accordance with the nature and structure of

theoretical foundations and the practical commandments of Islam .

For instance , \'\' Hemilton Gib \'\' says:

\'\' religion and policy are joined together in Islam and are

inseparable .\'\'

\'\'Ms , Latman \'\' also says :

\'\' Islam has been recognized by mixing religion and policy . \"

Also , \'\' Bernard Louis \'\' writes with regard to the definition of

policy and government as \'\' necessary sedition \'\' by some western

thinkers:

\'\' Political overbearing not only wasn\'t human sedition but also

, wasn\'t little sedition or essential sedition but it was a divine

bestowment for Muslims . God has prescribed the political system

and dominant authority and power in order to make His religion

almighty and expand the divine law.\'\'

In recent years , Mrs \'\'Madlin Alberait \'\' the former minister of

foreign affairs of the United States of America as a western

politician and executor of the policies of one of the greatest and the

most modern governments of today has interestingly declared

some statements . On the occasion of printing her new book titled \'\'

the –Almighty ; His revelation in America and the world\'s routines

\'\' Basically , religion and policy mustn\'t be separated \'\' In

answering to this question that Did you want to explain the issue

that religion and policy can\'t be separated as your aim in writing

your book? She said : \'\' It was one of my purposes . Because in the

past we were constantly trying to separate God and religion from

the country\'s foreign policy by executing a pragmatic diplomacy .

It was totally obvious for me as a foreign affairs minister of that

period of time that religion has a determining role during the

movement of the world\'s changes more than before. For example ,

today when we are considering such issues which are related to the

Muslim communities , we obvious that we don\'t realize the nature

of Islam at all . we have some images of Islam in our mind . The

imams which have been mixed with violence . We are in lack of

insight about Islam .\'\'

He declared in this interview :

\'\' All in all presidents of the united states , have resorted to God . If

you look at the history of America with the view of religion

background , you will observe those imaginations which display

the importance of playing the religion role (in policy) .\'\'

Based on what was said , the premise of religion is separated

from policy has no logical and scientific foundation . But , at the

beginning of this writing Abdul Baha\'s justifications and

confirmations concerning the separation between religion and

policy showed that he has condemned the presence of religious

scholars in policy by this excuse .

He invoked the failure of Safavi Dynasty and failure of Iran by

Russia in King Fath Ali\'s period of time prove his claim . Of

course , apart from the weak theoretical basis , the objective

realities of history have breached his claims . Safavi Dynasty ruled

in Iran for nearly 240 years and during this long period of time , it

has experienced numerous ups and downs . The emergence and

failure of governmental dynasties are caused by a lot of elements .

But , in spite of these ups and downs and different functions of the

Kings of that dynasty , all researchers of Iranian history believe

unanimously that Savavis could form an independent , strong and

exampled Iran in the world\'s political geography by depending on

shiism (religion and policy bond)

The continuation of political , historical , and civilized life of

Iran today owes to Safavi dynasty and Shiite scholar played unique

role in all over the process of making civilization and preserving

Iranian honor in period of time . We can speak so much about the

wars between Iran and Russia in king Fath Ali\'s era . In those wars,

the scholars didn\'t encourage for the war. Specially World War II,

the government asked the scholars for help after Russia\'s testiness

including disturbing and invading to the regions of the Caucasus

Muslims and people\'s imploration to Iranian King and government.

The scholars supported Iranian oppressed nation and people in

order to save Iran and Islam\'s honor. The failure or victory of a

country in the war depends on various causes and elements

including the economic , defensive strengths , military organizing ,

and being potent in combative tactics and etc . Whether that

country is invader or an oppressed one . Although , during the war

with Russia , Iranian government was oppressed but , it was

weaker in all fields in comparison with its Russian rival . It is

obvious that weakness mustn\'t be justified for defenselessness of

the country . Scholars belonged to part of this nation with

mentioned conditions . Should they use the economic and military

weakness of government as an excuse in that situation and do

nothing and let the enemy expand its attack or they should

decrease the expansion of attack by support of government and

people ? The logical result of Abdul Baha\'s speech is the first

option !He stressed that :

\'\' peasants must be honest in obeying kings

and be humble in doing government orders and be obedient to

kingdom .

\'\' The logical result of this view and declarations of

Abdul Baha is that Ayat Allah Mulla Ali Kani must be king Naser-

al-Din\'s obedient and didn\'t attack and fight against Roiter Contract

in order to give the Iranian country to Roiter and Britain according

to that contract and the European\'s declaration . Also , Mirza

Shirazi mustn\'t fight with Reji company in order for England to

dominate on Iran more than before . Most importantly , scholars

mustn\'t do Parliamentary movement in order for the kings to be

obeyed and followed by people and peasants . So , the kings

bestow privileges , investment , honor and independence of the

country to Colonialists in people\'s absence . But , it is obvious that

the most important obstacle for Colonialists to dominate and

exploit the Islamic countries is the tyranny campaigning and

justice oriented culture of Islam and also the brave and award

scholars . Abdul Baha uttered about Secularism and separation of

religion and policy and reproached the presence of scholars in

police scene in a condition that colonialism was fighting with

Islamic countries and Islamic scholars were the only support for

Iranian country and people in this confrontation . These events are

some remarkable phrases of the deep , expanded and continuous

confrontation . Thus , in such conditions if a person utters about

secularism and non-intervention of scholars in policy , he /she will

be ignorant about what had happened in Iran and the world or

he/she will try to separate Iranian nation from the most effective

and influential weapon intentionally and in the path of colonialism

,Doyou think of another alternative ?

In addition to scientific baselessness and disagreement of the

slogan of non-intervention in policy with realities of history in the

path of Colonialism , Bahai\'s who know themselves and their

political nature better than others and can\'t hide their nature under

a sham cover of semi-religious claims as a political party ,

sometimes have to declare the crises which confirm the non-

intervention in policy for their followers . In this regard , in a

periodical No.7 has been written: \'\' assume a condition in which

most of citizen of a country are Bahai\'s . In this manner , who are

in change of managing the political affairs of this country ?

Definitely , Bahai\'s themselves .A Bahai person can be mayor , a

member of Parliament or a president . Thus , Bahai faith doesn\'t

accept the secularistic separation between religion and policy .If

we suppose that religion is separated from policy , the expression \'\'

Bahai universal government \'\' which is frequently written by

Hadrat Vali Amr Allah would be a paradoxical expression .

By comparison between Abdul Baha\'s speeches which were

narrated at the beginning the article with these statements more

facts will become clear . This comparison displays the evil

intention of Abdul Baha clearly in posing the issue of separation

between religion and policy in the path of colonialist enemies of

Iran . Also , it will clarify that they only want to omit Islam and

Islamic scholar from the community in spite of destructive signs of

their lack of presence in Islamic societies including Iran – and if it

is their turns it is necessary for them to be present in the policy

scene!

Abdul Baha\'s speeches have been similar to theoretical explicating

of Secularism in Bahai cult viewpoint . In regard to his stand and

position in this cult must be as a base for his followers\' belief and

as a the foundation of action for them . In completion of the

mentioned statements , it is suitable to state some parts of \'\' Shoghi

Afandi \'\' \'s declarations , Shoghi Afandi became leader of this cult

after Abdul Baha . He writes in a letter to one of his followers in

December , 17,1935: \'\' No Bhai faithful should be responsible for

political programs or the policies of each political party ; because ,

the dependency to such a party necessarily lead to rejecting some

principles and teachings of Amr Allah or accepting some of its

basic facts un perfectly .But the followers must avoid political

activities . Consequently , they must avoid tendency towards

parties and political favoritism in all its forms .\'\'

Stressing this viewpoint , he writes in another letter to another

follower in March , 2, 1934: \'\' the principle of non-intervention in

political affairs shouldn\'t be thought as avoiding just the villainous

and political policies but you must avoid each statement about

every dominant political system relate to every government . Not

only we must avoid favoritism of dominant parties groups and

systems but also we must avoid any responsibilities which may be

considered as favoritism or disagreement against each philosophies

or available political establishments . Avoiding completely must be

Bahai\'s stand.\'\'

Concerning these firmed and emphatic commandments of

Bahai leaders concerned with Bahai\'s avoidance of intervention in

policy even speaking about this issue we can speak very much .

The most important question regarding this issue is about the

extent of the followers\' belief and being observant to their

approach and commandments . It need separate utterance to

analyze the bond between the first forming of this cult and political

hubs inside and outside the country. But at least the function of

those whose utterances were narrated are full of policy and even

full of the most negative aspect of it . Abbas Afandi\'s (Abdul

Baha) trip to Europe and America in years 1911-1913 and

plannings and the kind of visit and return visit of the trips are

clear examples of a political function . In conditions that Zionism

appears as one of the most reactionary and the most political event

in recent centuries through supporting by the hubs of Imperialistic

policy and power of the world , and destroys million innocent

humans\' fate , Bahai\'s presence in Palestine and their cooperation

and intimacy with this event are of clear examples of political

function . In that condition millions of people died of extreme

poverty and hunger caused by Imperialism and colonialism

function and at the end of world war I Iranian people suffered from

famine , hunger and ailment and groups of people died because of

occupying their country by both sides of war , economizing of

wheat of Bahai farmers by Bahai\'s leader and collecting and

sending to the British Army in 1918 in a fair price !the Army that

was the center of policy and colonialism in the world and invation

to Iran . War it Abbas Afandi\'s affection or manifestation of

intimacy and political bond between this cult and the greatest

Colonialistic power in the world? This bond and cooperation didn\'t

limit to these affairs . It led to spying . \"Ismaeel Raeen \'\' writes in

this regard :

\'\' Not only Bahai heads in the past and Bahi coteries

now have confirmed and confirm the Zionism and Israeeli

government unanimously ; But also, in most parts of the world

specially in Arab countries it has been seen and heard that Bhai\'s

have entered into Mousad intelligent service and spy and today in

favor of the Israeeli everywhere .\'\'

Political changes of Iranian contemporary history is also an

exact and unavoidable document for evaluating Bahai leaders\'

claim concerning their non-intervention in political affairs and lack

of bond between colonial powers and them . \'\' Yahya Abadi who

is Azali and is one of activists in Parliamentary scene has declared

the presence of Bahai\'s in political posts and their bond with alien

policies through his special analysis about Russia and England

rivalry to affect on Iranian policy field and writes: \'\' The English

wants to regain their lost policy inside the country now . One of its

means is gaining political weapons which are present in its strong

rival hands .And this weapon means activating Bahai cult , who are

present in most of governmental affairs as heads .The English

don\'t let enemies use this weapon and try to hold them for

themselves to use.\'\'

Parliamentary movement is one of brilliant phrases of Iranian

history in which Kingdom was conditional for the first time in

several –thousand – year history of Iran . If this fundamental

change and its means were conducted truly , the process of

development and progress of Iran would undoubtedly move agilely

and wouldn\'t be post pond for some decades . Edvard Brown who

had intimacies with Bahis\' declared about the role of Shiite

scholars in directing and leading the movement :

\'\' People couldn\'t abolish the privilege of restricting tobacco and

couldn\'t force the King to bestow Parliamentary .\'\'

He writes in this regard in other part of his book :

\"We should only remember that religion used all of its validity ,

power and knowledge in the service of freedom and progress and

provided reconstruction of Iran in the path of conditional freedom

during the critical history of this nation .\'\'

The fair movement victory , reveal the presence of Bahai

people in political coteries and parties in this period of time and the

their direct and indirect role in creating crises , terrors ,

obstructions , divergent actions and making tension that led to

failure of Parliamentary in that period of time . Their function

caused \'\'Ayat Allah Mazandarani \'\' one of the three leaders of

movement to write a letter to answer a question of one of

constitutionalists of Azerbayjan about the movement issues: \'\' …

Because they restricted their obstacle in development of their aims

to one of us that is Hadrat Ayat Allah Khorasani and I and also we

prevented some materials which were published about secret

coterie in Tehran to be read by people; so, the mentioned secret

coterie which has centers and branches in all cities and Bahai\'s the

Al- mighty God damn them are definitely the members of that

coterie … we were award from their branch in Najaf that our

influences have been beneficial so far but from this time on our

influences are harmful ; they are ordered to try to prevent our

influence … Now that they are determined and we have received

another letters we are afraid of their making an attempt on our life.

\'\' Now , according to above mentioned statements Is there any way

for the claim of non-intervention in policy? Most importantly , was

such intervention in political issues of Parliamentary period of time

in the way of national benefits or vital needs of Iranian community

or it was in favor of interests and greed of alien policies in order

for aliens to deepen their dominance on the country through

heightening crises , turning against and eliminating effective and

original men and currents of community ?

The presence of mentioned people of this cult in Iranian policy

scene and their role in cooperation with alien troops in order to

collapse \'\' jungle movement \'\' and their presence in different

executive pasts in \'\' King Reza\'\' and \'\' King Mohammad Reza\'\'

governments that its manifestation is displayed in the following

people expressive documents of the presence and intervention of

Bahai\'s in political affairs of the decades afther Parliamentary till

Pahlavi dynasty Fall . The mentioned people are as follows : \'\'

Ehsan Allah khan Doustar\'\' \'\'Asad Allah Khan abolfath Zadeh \'\' ,

\'\'Ebrahim Khan Monshi Zadeh\'\' , \'\'Mirza Reza Khan Afshar \'\' ,

\'\'Abdul Hossein naeemi\'\' , \'\'Ali Mohammad Khan Mougher-al-

Doleh \'\' , \'\' Amir Abbas Hoveyda\'\' , \'\' Habib Sabet \'\' ,\'\'Hojabr

Yazdani \'\' ,\'\' Abdul Karim Ayadi \'\' , \'\'Houshang Ansari \'\' , \'\' Gholam

Reza Azhari\'\' ,… .

In this manner , it is clarified that the claim for the separation

between religion and policy and accordingly the avoidance of

religious scholars in middling with political affairs is basically and

scientifically baseless . For this reason , the claim of Bahai leaders

in this regard had been opposite of national benefits and public

expedients of the Iranian country and community in one side , and

on the other side it is in clear paradox with the their functions and

followers in addition to lack of logic and scientific repute . The

presence of Bahai\'s in political scene of Iran and its destructive

effect is an objective reality of Iranian history and community . In

this manner , whether the rejection of objective reality must be

logically done or we must be originally doubtful about the

religious decrees issued by Bahai leaders and the honesty of

expounder of the law . On the other hand , although according to

heavenly religion views , Baha\'ism doesn\'t have validity and

religious legitimacy and basically , they don\'t call it with the title

of religion . Their function has clarified their natures more than

anything else. And has proved that they are nothing but a political

party in the path of the hubs of colonial powers.