Jump to content

Talk:Christianity in Iran

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by 103.67.165.58 (talk) at 04:46, 7 September 2024 (Iranian are not allowed to be a christian). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Iran banned Christianity Iran banned christian because islam are only allowed in iran in other islam countries they allowed christianity If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:


"The Islamic conquest of Persia, in the 7th century, was originally good for Christians as they were a protected minority."

You might want to work on this. The second class status of non muslims in muslim conquered lands and the mechanisms that killed off the original cultures is well documented by Bat Yeor although I don't know of texts relating to Persia in particular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.124.143.3 (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewardashir and ethnic Persian Christians in ancient times.

[edit]

You may also want to mention the Metropolitan of Rewardashir (Simeon) and his communications with Catholicos Ishoyahb III. The former wanted independence as he felt the his province (Fars) was evangelized by Thomas, while the latter represented the sea of Mari and Adai.

It's interesting, further, than Simeon produced a book of Canon Law in Pahlavi. There is also a Psalter written in Pahlavi.

I point this out because the article makes it seem that ancient Christianity in Persia was only due to the presence of non-Persian minorities (Armenians, Assyrians, etc.), whereas this is not strictly true. There were likely *ethnically* Persian Christians, who had strong contacts with their brothers in Malabar India. In fact, the community of Syrian Christians in Kerala, India are probably the result of intermarriage between Persian and Indian Christians. To this day they possess Crosses from the 9th century (or earlier) with Pahlavi inscriptions.

References: 1. "The Church of the East," (book) by Wilheam Baum & Dietmar W. Winkler on Ishoyahb III of Adiabene (650-8): "In a letter to the metropolitan of Rewardashir (present-day Zaydun), he summarized his views regarding primacy in the East and mentioned congregations in India. Ishoyahb had to content with efforts for independance in the Persian province of the church -- his rival Simeon of Rewardashir produced a law book in the Persian language -- and only through a personal visit to Rewardashir was the catholicos able to persuade the metropolitan to recognize the supremacy of Ctesiphon." (p. 43)

2. "History of the World Christian Movement," (book) by Dale T. Irvin, Scott Sunquist "We know very little of any distinctive ethical teachings the community [Malabar Christians in India] may have upheld, although in one of Timothy's letters he states that marriage between Persian and Indian Christians is permissible, another indication that there were Christians whose cultural identity was fully Indian." (p. 310)

Sources Needed, No Drive-By NPOV Tagging Please

[edit]

First of all, I removed the NPOV tag. I'm not really saying that I actually believe the viewpoint is neutral; my main concern is that if you put an NPOV tag on an article, you should state why you believe it is NPOV. In other words, there should be an actual ongoing documented NPOV dispute in the talk page that specifies which way and how it is skewed. No drive-by NPOV tagging please. To quote from Wikipedia:NPOV_Dispute...

Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.

That being said, this article has a much bigger problem than merely neutrality. Almost nothing in the article is sourced. Unfortunately, I am basically a drive-by-reader. I have no information on Christianity in Iran and I really can't help with many of the sources except via Googling. It seems many of the sources that would be needed to substantiate the "current status" content are not in English. Can someone who is familiar with Iran or with Christianity in Iran please help to clean up this article?

It's an interesting read, but currently with almost no substantiation whatsoever.

JorenCombs (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreements on history wrt Nestorian schism

[edit]

A ntv recently modified some edits I had made so it seems a short discussion here is in order.

First, the text originally discussed the Nestorian schism as a split between the "Western" church and the Persian church. This, of course, refers to the fact that the Persian congregations split from the official Roman imperial establishment in the 5th century (of course, the church in the Roman Empire split during the same period). Although Persian historians commonly use and understand the term "Western" within this context to refer to the Roman Empire as a whole, East and West, this is not necessarily the way the general public would understand the term. In fact, because the article really doesn't go into the world context of the time the average reader might not even be aware that this refers to any part of the Roman Empire. Euphamisms like "Western" which can be so easily misunderstood in a context like this should be avoided in favor of more literal terms like "Roman". A ntv apparently seems to suggest that the distinction between "Roman" and "Byzantine" might be confusing to laymen so perhaps using "Roman/Byzantine" addresses that concern. I'll change accordingly.

Second, A ntv took issue with my mentioning the Nestorian schism as being the genesis of the Assyrian and Chaldean Churches arguing with both the timeframe and the relationship between these churches and the original community of believers. My thoughts:

  • The timeframe is debatable I suppose but it was the 5th century schism that established the independence of the Persian community of faithful and began its independent hierarchy.
  • I'm not sure that I agree with the argument that there are other communities of faithful that consider themselves theologically descended from the original Persian Christians. I'd be interested to know the literature that discusses theses.
  • Regardless, the history discussion is incomplete. It does not clearly explain the origins of the Assyrian Church (or even the Chaldean Church).

I'll leave this alone for now to allow for some discussion.

--Mcorazao (talk) 02:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If there is some particular phrasing that is preferable to "Roman/Byzantine" by all means please feel free to edit. I'm only suggesting that the phrasing should not mislead the average reader (i.e. the fact that a scholar on the subject would understand what is meant does not mean that it is not misleading). --Mcorazao (talk) 02:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When a reader reads "Roman" about Church history he thinks to the Papacy that in this case was not involved at all. The issue was between the Church of the Byzantine Empire, urged by its emperator to be united with Costantinople, and who wanted to be out from its jurisdiction.
The divisions in Chaldean Catholic Church/Assyrian Church of the East/Ancient Church of the East happened many centuries later, and all of them claim to be the true heir of the ancient Church of the East. So in wiki we shall be WP:NPOV and do not give priority to a single claim.
About the history of these split up, I've written it with lots of refs in Chaldean_Catholic_Church#History (please read it: the present chaldean do not came from Sulaqua split). It is anyway the history of the Church of the East, it does not exists a separate history of the Christianity in Iran. Anyway the areas of the present Iran where Christians lived in the 17th-19th centuries was the area West to Lake Urmia: the area of Urmia was under the Patriarchate of Alqosh, the area of Khosrowa unde the Patriarcate of Qochanis, but the influeneces changed a lot.
Anyway all the Chaldean Catholic Church/Assyrian Church of the East/Ancient Church of the East claim that the Church of the East was not borne in the 5th century but it was borne with the Saint Thomas the Apostle. In the IV century there was the split of the hierarchy between the pro-Byzantine_Empire and the East part, but the hierarchy itself was probably more ancient. A ntv (talk) 06:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

600 Churches?

[edit]

I'd envite comment - see Talk:Religion_in_Iran#600_Churches.3F please Smkolins (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I great enjoy for Iran Christians fellow for I heard the christian revolution is highly dominate and truth become reflect even though they may be persecutes, murder and a devil protest face them as result I would like to thanks Lord that being with them his glorious power and spirit with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.85.45 (talk) 12:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed one leading space in the comment above, so that Wikipedia inserted line-breaks, instead of one real long sentence. This was merely a formatting issue; I did not wish to offend someone by editing their post.71.101.33.73 (talk) 10:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New persecution situation in the world-wide news now: Rev. Saeed Abedini, a U.S. citizen, may face the death penalty for preaching

[edit]

Rev. Saeed Abedini, a U.S. citizen, is being held in IRAN on trumped-up charges of National Security issues, but in actuality, for preaching the Christian religion.

Abbas Pir-Abassi, known as a "hanging judge" because of his draconian rulings, is set to hear Saeed's case at 9:00am Iran Time (GMT +3:30), e.g., 1230am (the 21st) EST. Here is his Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/PrayForPastorSaeedAbedini

You can Google search and verify that Pastor Saeed Abedini has been in the news lately, so this is a current situation.

New persecution situation in the world-wide news now: Rev. Saeed Abedini, a U.S. citizen, may face the death penalty for evangelizing the Christian gospel.

71.101.33.73 (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda by Lisa Daftari (FoxNews)

[edit]

Case examples:

She's a political activist, daughter of Iranian political emigrants, apologist of former Pahlavi dictatorship. She even wrote article supportive to Saudi Wahhabi monarchy against Iran [1]. We wish good luck to mrs. Daftari with her political agendas, but she should know that encyclopedia isn't place for that. --109.165.148.54 (talk) 02:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what you are saying here - she did not edit the article. You've also been warned on your profile talk to stop disruptive editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.22.29 (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Christianity in Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Christian mission"?

[edit]

What does this sentence mean? "Christians of Iran have played a significant part in the history of Christian mission." It is unreferenced so no context. It doesn't seem to fit the linked article "Christian mission". --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Christianity in Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Christianity in Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claims by Evangelicals

[edit]

A 2015 study estimates between 100,000 and 500,000 Christian believers from a Muslim background living in Iran, most of the evangelical Christians. - this sounds like a mere fantasy for anyone engaged in Iranian studies. Such claims come from missionary organizations whose reliability is highly questionable. --MehrdadFR (talk) 18:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article also doesn't say that; it has not said that since the 19th of October, when I actually read the associated cite (which appears in fact to be a serious piece of research), updated the sentence to reflect what the study said, and removed some questionable claims from missionary organisations. So why are you complaining about text that isn't even in the article? Pinkbeast (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was indeed referring to older version (I even made a small mistake when edited), but even in this way it's questionable and requires more serious studies. As far as I know, there are only a several thousands of protestant Christians in Iran, more then ten times less then the lowest claims by those missionary organizations. Claims about apostasy are removed because it's utter nonsense without any basis in Iranian law or Shia Imami (Twelver) tradition. I'm well aware there are tons of articles (mainly non-professional) which claims otherwise, but it's factually wrong. --MehrdadFR (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"As far as you know" is not the basis on which citing is done; it is not as if you are in a position to count all the Christians in Iran. The paper cited (which I've actually read, unlike you) appears, again, to be serious work, and not simply to take the claims of missionaries at face value. Likewise it is not sufficient for you to claim something is "utter nonsense"; I have cited Der Spiegel on the subject of apostacy, and would have no difficulty in producing more cites. What you should do is produce cites that support your position (note that given the extensive state censorship and repression, a source from Iran that says everything is fine cannot be trusted); what you are doing is working up to yet another block for edit warring. Pinkbeast (talk) 10:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is that you "can not trust Iranian source" (despite it's scholarly work) because you think there's "the extensive state censorship and repression" (your personal prejudicial opinion), is not the basis on which citing is done. Again, there are academic publications regarding to the subject, and there are also all Iranian laws available online. Regarding mine "as far as you know", I forgot to add "...from serious studies, books, and official data". Vast majority of Christians from censuses are Armenian and Assyrian, while several thousands others are Catholic and Protestant. --MehrdadFR (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I just found in Sanasarian:2000 the number of Protestants are "a few thousand", with estimates giving from 5,000 up to 15,000. I also found in Afshari:2001 (a dissident) that there's no any law regarding religious conversion, but he himself claims that Iranian government sometimes used "extra-judicial" methods for apostasy cases, although they denied everything. If issue is to be addressed in article, then everything should be included: (1) No laws, (2) No religious basis, (3) Official denials, (4) "According to Afshari...". I'm sure you can find plenty of citations more but Wikipedia is not a news aggregator, you can find the same for flat Earth or "no internet in Iran". Be a little bit more constructive next time, happy new year and greetings from Tehran. --MehrdadFR (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is entirely straightforward to show extensive state censorship and repression; Amnesty document it routinely.
Not according to Afshari: according to Der Spiegel, a perfectly good source. Deal with it. Pinkbeast (talk) 08:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious you're trying to force POV, so conversation is over. --MehrdadFR (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot simply remove cited material because you don't like it. Have you learned nothing from your previous blocks? Pinkbeast (talk) 13:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You should seriously study more about WP:Neutral point of view and WP:Identifying reliable sources. Beside, your threats are laughable. --MehrdadFR (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on recent edits

[edit]

The RfC participants (Pinkbeast, Jzsj, and Fusion2186) all agree that this prepared edit looks good.

Cunard (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I invite comments from other editors on recent changes to the article pertaining to the state of Christian converts in Iran. My position and a proposed edit are in the section immediately below. I regret this is a "Bad Question", as described at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, but to be more specific would be to (non-neutrally) restate my own position. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]

Discussion

[edit]

This edit was done after the above discussion. I do not think it is helpful.

Material added

[edit]

"Conversions have been the subject of several controversies" is useless verbiage. The paragraph's text serves to establish the issue.

"it has been reported in the Western press" is pure weasel wording because the editor doesn't like what the source said. Der Spiegel didn't say that it has been reported in the Western press that apostates can face the death penalty; Der Spiegel said that apostates can face the death penalty. We should write what the source says.

Additional cites are available and could be added. http://www.deathpenaltyworldwide.org/country-search-post.cfm?country=Iran - "Apostasy is also punishable by death under shariah, which is enforceable by domestic courts". https://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/Rapport_Iran_final.pdf - "judges have invoked the said Article 214 to mete out the death sentence in many apostasy cases on the basis of the views of Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of the IRI".

Hence a simple statement that apostates can face the death penalty should be restored.

"Iranian officials repeatedly rejected such claims" - that a murderous regime like Iran denies many of its own murders is not remarkable. Unless there is some reason to suppose their assertion can be proven, it should be removed.

"the Islamic Civil Code was silent on apostasy" - other cites explain how apostates may nevertheless face the death penalty.

"According to Reza Afshari, the Judiciary still provided legal space for the clerical judges to apply traditional Islamic law, not codified in state laws, so the crime was punishable by fines, lashing, and prison terms, leaving it to the Islamic judges to impose the death penalty if they desired."

This literally says that judges _can_ impose the death penalty.

"According to the Iranian scholars ..." - this sentence is a pointless diversion, serving only as a smokescreen over the well-cited fact that apostates can in fact face the death penalty. It hardly seems pertinent to the point at hand and hence should be removed.

"insisting that Nadarkhani has a history of committing violent crimes ..." - it does not seem necessary to so expand upon the regime's denials (especially not by direct cut and paste from the source). The regime is not one we would typically regard as a reliable source on the probity of its own actions, and hence it is not helpful to give undue weight to their self-justification. A simple statement that they have denied the claims would suffice. (The source added is useful for this purpose and should be retained.)

Material removed

[edit]

"Hence the statistics of Iranian Christians omit an unknown number of secret conversions." Now, I hear the cry of synthesis coming, but this does follow fairly obviously from the fact that apostates can face oppression and death. It could be altered to "Hence, reliable statistics on the number of Iranian Christians are not available.", cited to https://www.theguardian.com/world/iran-blog/2014/may/12/iran-converted-christians-sanctuary-germany-muslim - "The underground nature of the Christian conversion movement has made numbers impossible to determine accurately". (This cite also states that apostates can face the death penalty.)

(There are a lot of American Christian evangelist Websites that blithely assert there are loads, but I don't think they're remotely reliable sources either...)

"After the Iranian Revolution, Christians in Iran were not allowed to proselytize or evangelize Muslims" - this could stay removed; we are more concerned with the current state of affairs, anyway.

"There are some officially recognized ethnically Iranian Christian communities, as the descendants of Muslims who converted to Protestant Christianity in 19th century were exempted from the laws passed in 1979" - a simple "citation needed" would be more appropriate than removal of this material. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a prepared edit in my sandbox incorporating my proposals above, to make the intention clear. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your prepared edit appears good to me, but it would help to briefly summarize what remains at issue here. Jzsj (talk) 11:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I make it I expect to get reverted immediately, so I'm endeavouring to establish that there is support for my proposal in the hope that that reversion won't happen. Sorry for the delay in replying - I've been away from Wikipedia for a week. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I Think the prepared edit looks good. Fusion2186 (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Need clarity on Anglo-American Protestants sects

[edit]

In most of the article, we are quite careful when describing each Christian group and their position in Iran. It appears that most of the older groups are tolerated there.... Syriac, Oriental Orthodox, Chaladean Catholic, etc.

When it talks about "persecution" of supposed converts from Islam, it doesn't mention that this is to completely artificial Protestant sects created in very recent times, originating mostly in the United States (such as Assemblies of God) and Britain. Some of these groups are strong supporters of Zionism and have shady political connections to those aforementioned powers, who may be hostile to Iran.

You do not get a sense of this at all from reading the article. There are very legitimate reasons to be wary of some of these sects as thinly veiled political fronts, for national security reasons. We need to make clear that this is not like the Saudi Arabia situation. Claíomh Solais (talk) 08:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt you will be producing solid cites for this proposed change. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]