Why Iran’s Government Views Bahai Citizens’ University Education Through a Security Lens
Case Study of a Ruling from the Islamic Revolutionary Court
What are the methods used by the Islamic Republic government to impose restrictions and deprive Iran’s Bahai community of the “right to education”? How does the desire to continue education among young Bahais, combined with file-building and the imposition of security officials’ narratives, create the conditions for issuing heavy prison sentences against them?
The following report examines a court ruling in Iran against four Bahai citizens, along with some documents obtained by the Iran Human Rights Campaign. A ruling based on which all four Iranian citizens were sentenced to 5 years in prison on charges of “actions against national security through the Bahai sect organization and spreading falsehoods in cyberspace.” An examination of the court ruling shows how judicial authorities consider these citizens’ actions as examples of threats to security and Bahai organizational activities, and what methods they use to transform the issue of education in the Bahai community into a “security” matter. On the other hand, an examination of the court ruling and some documents reveals how the passion for learning and acquiring knowledge transforms several young Bahais into security suspects in the judicial system’s eyes.
The Sepah Tharallah Headquarters Report as the Basis for the Court Ruling
In the final years of the 1990s (Iranian calendar), four Bahai citizens were sentenced to 5 years in prison in one of Iran’s courts on charges of “actions against national security through the Bahai sect organization and spreading falsehoods in cyberspace.” Their sentence was issued based on Article 499 of the Islamic Penal Code. This legal article states: “Whoever becomes a member of any of the groups, associations, or branches of associations mentioned in Article 498 shall be sentenced to three months to five years imprisonment, unless it is proven that they were unaware of its objectives.”
The court ruling, which was prepared based on “a report from the Sepah Tharallah headquarters of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards,” claims that the defendants “engaged in promoting the Bahai sect” and “blackening the Islamic Republic by posting false claims about the conditions of imprisoned Bahais and the system’s treatment regarding the education of these individuals in state universities.” The court introduced these four Bahai citizens as “activists in hidden and unlawful educational organizational institutions.” The ruling repeatedly emphasized the issue of students studying at a virtual university affiliated with the Bahai community.
Bahai Virtual University; The Judiciary’s Pretext for Organizational Activity
The continuous deprivation of higher education for young Bahais throughout all years of the Islamic Republic’s rule gradually led the Iranian Bahai community, by establishing the BIHE university, to provide the groundwork for education of young people who were deprived of access to education at this virtual university. A university that is essentially the only way for many young Bahais to enter the path of education and higher learning.
The court’s narrative about these four Bahai citizens’ actions places special emphasis on the issue of Bahai university education and, in every possible way, links this matter to certain so-called “security” matters, which is clear evidence of the judicial system’s approach to cases of Bahai citizens.
In the ruling regarding one of the defendants, it is stated that, emphasizing that he obtained his bachelor’s degree from BIHE affiliated with Bahais and completed his master’s degree at a virtual university affiliated with Bahais online, “the leaders of the misguided Bahai sect, through email, asked him to organize classes for Bahai citizens and hold sessions for them and grade their lessons.”
The emphasis on this Bahai citizen’s presence at BIHE and his having relations with “sect leaders” through “email” indicates two points; first, it appears that the judicial system considers mere attendance at a university affiliated with Bahais as a “crime” in order to legitimize charges of “organizational activities” through it. The second point is the court ruling’s reference to and emphasis on the defendant’s connection with, according to their claim, “sect leaders.” In the court ruling, “organizing classes and then grading students” is described as an illegal activity. The court ruling states: “The aforementioned entered the site through a username and password that was emailed to him and entered his students’ grades into the site.”
The court’s attempt to portray very obvious and routine activities and actions of this Bahai citizen as security threats is clearly evident in this section; making “entering grades on the university website” and “holding sessions and classes” for young Bahais deprived of education appear as security concerns are examples of such efforts. For instance, the court ruling states: “One of the missions assigned to the aforementioned by the sect leaders was recruiting individuals to work at the virtual university.”
Such a narrative in the judicial system about Bahai educational activities demonstrates to what extent and from what angles the government considers these activities as instances of “threats to security” and “organizational activity.” In other words, it views every obvious and routine activity from a security angle. From the court ruling, it appears that according to the judicial system, their educational and academic activities are examples of “propaganda and promotion” of religion, and in fact all educational activities are directed toward this purpose. Nevertheless, the court ruling provides no logical reason or connection between the defendant’s activities and the promotion of Bahaism. The ruling states that this Bahai citizen had a Telegram group in which “all members were Bahai.” The judicial system’s attempt to link these virtual activities (which, according to the ruling’s issuer’s own admission, were confined to Bahai individuals) with educational activities at the Bahai university is actually another aspect of this security-focused view of Bahai citizens’ cases. A view that ultimately results in a 5-year prison sentence for the Bahai citizen.
A noteworthy point in the court ruling for this Bahai citizen is the process of injustice and discrimination that affects the daily life of a citizen in various ways; deprivation of continuing higher education and the desire for acquiring knowledge in a young Bahai compels him to pursue education through the only possible means—studying at the Bahai university. A decision that, from the government’s perspective, is considered a “crime.” This path of discrimination has been repeated for two other defendants in the case.
The Cycle of Discriminatory Education
For two of the case’s defendants, the story begins from the time of deprivation of continued university education. There is evidence that they attempted every legal possibility to secure a path to university entrance; from correspondence with the Ministry of Science, the Ministry of Interior, and the Presidential Office to meetings with parliamentary representatives. Efforts that, of course, did not open the way for these young people.
Based on available evidence, these two young Bahais withdrew from the university affiliated with Bahais after a few months. The reason was the availability of study opportunities at one of the country’s universities, which did not require a university entrance exam for admission. However, when university officials discovered their religion, they expelled these students.
In the court ruling regarding one of these young people, it states: “The aforementioned is a member of the misguided Bahai sect who has participated in all Bahai ceremonies known as Feast and was a student at the Bahai virtual university.” Reference to and emphasis on these students’ attendance at the Bahai virtual university also appeared in the ruling against another one of them: “The aforementioned acknowledges studying at BIHE, the Bahai university, and states that monthly student classes are held in the homes of Bahai individuals and communication with officials is conducted by email.”
The ruling’s emphasis on the individual’s “admission” to studying at the university actually emphasizes an accusation that was applied to these students solely because they studied at the Bahai virtual university, and in a very short time period at that. However, the judicial system’s narrative to justify the five-year prison sentence for these two young Bahais does not end here; the application of accusations, all of which stem from activity on virtual networks, is another part of this security-focused file-building. A noteworthy point in this section of the court ruling is the emphasis on their online activities regarding the issue of deprivation of Bahai education in Iran. In a portion of the court ruling regarding one of these students, it states that, by posting an article about the deprivation of young Bahais from education, he “accused the Islamic Republic of discrimination between ethnic groups.”
This emphasis is also seen in the ruling concerning another young Bahai student; in the court ruling, “organizing a campaign on the pretext of deprivation of sect members from education” and “reporting the rejection of a Bahai girl’s university entrance exam results” are cited as among this student’s activities for blackening the Islamic Republic.
On the other hand, the language used in the court ruling attempts to make very ordinary civic activities such as membership in social networks appear highly “security” related. In the court ruling regarding one of these two students, it states: “The aforementioned, through membership in social networks Line, Viber, imo, WhatsApp, Telegram, Tango, Beeswax, Bimol, engaged in propaganda for the misguided sect.”
The emphasis on the high number of social networks the defendant was a member of is clearly a product of security-focused narrative-building. The language of the ruling is such that it appears “membership” in these social networks is a crime. A re-reading of the court ruling regarding these two young students conveys several important points about the government’s approach to and view of Bahai citizens’ cases; aside from the fact that membership at a university affiliated with Bahais, even for a short period and as the only available educational option for young Bahais, is treated in a way equivalent to organizational activity, their protest against the existing reality—that is, being deprived of their most basic right, the “right to education”—is not only not tolerated, but becomes a “crime” for the court.
New Dimensions of Control Over the Bahai Community by the Government
An examination of sections of the court ruling concerning the case of these four Bahai citizens illuminates the judiciary’s broad approach to the issue of education and learning in the Bahai community from another angle. An angle that could be said to differ fundamentally from what we read previously.
According to the court ruling, the fourth defendant, like the other three, was active in “hidden and unlawful educational organizational institutions affiliated with Bahaism” and was a BIHE student. However, aside from this emphasis in the ruling and reference to some of his online activities in defense of the right to education for Bahais, another point stands out. In a section of the court ruling, it states: “The aforementioned, in carrying out the objectives of the misguided sect for the education of children and teenagers, implemented the sect’s programs by establishing a kindergarten in his home and taught the spiritual programs of the sect to teenagers.”
Assuming this claim is true—that is, the establishment of a kindergarten—the court ruling suggests that the government’s broad view of the issue of education within the Bahai community is not limited to universities and higher education. Although the court ruling’s explanation of “spiritual programs of the sect” is not particularly precise and it is unclear what exactly these programs refer to—what type of education or organizational activity—the emphasis by judicial and security authorities on “teaching children and teenagers” could be indicative of a controlling and security-focused approach toward the Bahai community and its effects could be observed in the daily lives of teenage and young Bahais.
Why Is the Court Ruling Unfounded?
The court sentenced all four defendants in the case to 5 years in prison on charges of “actions against national security through the Bahai sect organization and spreading falsehoods in cyberspace” based on Article 499 of the Islamic Penal Code. A ruling that was also upheld in the appellate court. However, what emerges from a re-reading of this case and the court ruling has no logical connection with the charges brought against these citizens. The emphasis on studying or being active at a university affiliated with Bahais for all four Bahai citizens is actually the justification for their “organizational activity” and consequently the reasoning for the charge of “actions against national security.” This is while from two perspectives such a claim can be refuted; first, a virtual university cannot be an instance of the “groups” and “associations” referred to in Article 498 of the Islamic Penal Code. Article 498 of the Penal Code, which Article 499 actually follows, states: “Whoever, for any purpose, forms or administers a group, association, or branch of an association of more than two individuals, inside or outside the country, under any name or title, whose objective is to undermine the security of the country and is not considered as Mohareb (enemy of God), shall be sentenced to two to ten years imprisonment.”
The second point regarding Bahai organizations in Iran is that, in essence, this religious minority has long been denied the right to have an organization and therefore any claim about these four citizens’ membership in such organizations is essentially meaningless.
The accusations against these four citizens regarding activity in cyberspace are also, like many similar accusations in other cases, opaque and imprecise.
In a broad view of the court ruling concerning the four Bahai citizens, one can say that the pinnacle of injustice and discrimination in the court ruling is the overlooking of the systematic process of discrimination and oppression against Bahai citizens, particularly regarding deprivation of the right to education; a process in which deprivation of continued education solely because of “being Bahai” and “security file-building” because of “studying at the Bahai university” and conviction because of “protesting the prohibition of the right to education” continues in an unfinished cycle of discrimination around the lives of young Bahais.
Has the Government Changed Its Approach to Discrimination Against Bahai Education and Learning?
A re-reading of the court ruling concerning these four Bahai citizens demonstrates that the methods and tactics used by the government to impose deprivation and discrimination are aligned with imposing a security narrative and linking any ordinary civic activity of these citizens with this security narrative. In the ruling for all four defendants in the case, reference has been made to some of their civil activities that have no connection to the charges brought forward;
For example, in the ruling against two of the case’s defendants, reference is made to their presence at a peaceful sit-in at the Bar Association.
One could understand that, in the view of security authorities, any legal and peaceful activity by Bahai citizens is a “double crime.” As if a Bahai citizen, from the very beginning and solely because of “being Bahai,” cannot participate in civic activities like an ordinary citizen.
Throughout the past years, the government has systematically suppressed the voice of protest and rights advocacy by Bahai citizens to obtain their fundamental rights, including “education,” and it appears that this systematic suppression has become more explicit than before. Earlier this year, as universities were preparing to reopen, many reports were published about Bahai citizens being denied continued education solely because of “being Bahai.” Citizens who, after taking the university entrance exam and when referring to the Evaluation Organization’s website, encountered messages of “rejected” or “rejected for general competency.” As stated in the Bahai community’s statement protesting the increase in the number of Bahai citizens deprived of higher education, this form of notifying Bahai citizens of educational deprivation—emphasizing the words “rejected” or “rejected for general competency” on the Evaluation Organization’s website—is a new procedure that formalizes deprivation of education solely because of belief in the Bahai faith. Previously, the Ministry of Science used the phrase “file deficiency” to announce the educational deprivation of young Bahais who had been accepted to the entrance exam. This change in procedure itself is a clear example of the government’s narrative and broad approach toward Bahai citizens living in Iran. A community that has been systematically deprived of its fundamental rights throughout the past years in various ways through discrimination and oppression.
Source: Iran Human Rights Campaign
