Mr. Shahriar Razavi – Profile
Mr. SHAHRIAR RAZAVI holds a degree in Physics from the University of London and worked as a management consultant. He also served as an Auxiliary Board member in England.
Mr. Shahriar Razavi – Nature and Characteristics
As the Iranian authorities at the Airport would not allow any Bahá’í to leave Iran, many Bahá’ís fled Iran declaring themselves as Muslims on the Immigration card. UHJ lost no time in depriving them of their voting rights for such cases.
The Coward Mr. Shahriar Razavi also fled from Iran disobeying the orders of Universal House of Justice. Mr. Razavi wrote on the Immigration form, while leaving Iran, that he is a Muslim. Surprisingly he was not deprived of his voting rights rather he was awarded by being elevated as an ABM in England. Later on he was raised as a Counselor from 2000 to 2003 and in 2003 he was selected for International Teaching Centre where he served for five years. Finally he was elected on the supreme body.
While in UK, Mr. Razavi sowed the seeds of discontent amongst the local Bahá’ís when he would elaborate his close relationship with Mr. Farzam Arbab. He was less of a Bahá’í and more a showman. During his tenure as a counselor he grabbed every achievement of Bahá’í community for himself.
Mr. Razavi’s Election to the supreme body demands an explanation from UHJ
- Why was Mr. Razavi not deprived of his voting rights for disobeying UHJ – as UHJ asked the Iranian Bahá’ís not to leave Iran but Mr. Razavi left? Did he not shamelessly sin and can a sinner be elected to UHJ?
- Is not depriving Mr. Razavi of his voting rights an injustice to all those Bahá’ís who left Iran through Mehrabad Airport and who were deprived of their voting Rights? Why this double standard with regards to Mr. Razavi?
- Why was Mr. Shahriar Razavi not declared a Covenant Breaker – as he broke the covenant with Baha’u’llah by stating (with cowardice) on the immigration card that he was a Muslim. This is in stark contrast to the sacrifice of the Yaraan, presently bravely facing imprisonment.
- Why no action was taken against him for sowing discontent amongst the local Bahá’ís and the Persian Bahá’ís in the UK?
The Message of the UHJ to the Counselors says that:“If it becomes necessary to modify the manner in which a given country is being served, the Board should not hesitate to consult frankly on what changes might need to be made. As all members of the Board bear responsibility for the entire continent, no feelings of territoriality or tradition should cloud their views as they consider what is in the best interests of the Faith in a country at a given time.”
- Why no action was taken against him for companying his candidature for UHJ elections. How was he able to get 300 votes for himself?
- When Mr. Razavi’s named was announced as the member of UHJ, it took almost half an hour to come on the stage, a case of extreme feigning of humbleness. No doubt Mr. Razavi had become a seasoned actor, by then.
- On what grounds was he promoted to ABM, then Counselor for Europe and then ITC counselor. Although the institution of the boards of Counselors was brought into being by the Universal House of Justice to extend into the future the specific functions of protection and propagation conferred upon the Hands of the Cause of God.
Letter to Mr. Anaraki dated 2 February 2010
“Having considered Dr. Anaraki’s recent conduct, in particular the manner in which he has chosen to respond to the question put to him about the disclosure of confidential information, the House of Justice has concluded that he has shown gross failure to fulfill the basic spiritual obligations of a Bahá’í serving on an institution of the Faith. On that basis, you are instructed to deprive him of his administrative privileges forthwith, a sanction that will, of course, require his immediate removal from membership on the Spiritual Assembly of Bangkok. You should notify the Assembly accordingly, in a manner that you deem appropriate. Dr. Anaraki should be informed of the reason for this decision, and he should also be told that if consideration is to be given to lifting the sanction now imposed upon him he will first need to demonstrate a pronounced change in attitude towards the institutions of the Faith over an extended period of time.”
Letter to Mr. Jamshed Fozdar 18 December 2007
“The House of Justice was most surprised to learn that, beyond expressing such opinions in your letter to the Spiritual Assembly of Sarawak and its attachments, you have been taking steps in a number of countries to gather a cadre of believers around you, urging them to take action in support of your particular views, which are often contrary to the clear direction being given by the Universal House of Justice to the Bahá’í world. As you will recall, in the letter to you dated 7 December 2004 sent on its behalf, the House of Justice conveyed its displeasure regarding similar actions on your part. Your obstinacy in persisting in this pattern of behavior demonstrates a total disregard for the appeal made to you in that letter to correct your mode of conduct. You should consider this letter a final warning, which if not heeded will necessitate the removal of your administrative rights in the Bahá’í community. The House of Justice would profoundly regret having to take such action.”