The Baha\u2019ism leaders have emphasized on the necessity for not meddling with policy and have considered the extent of being Baha\u2019i as not meddling with policy. While, the Baha\u2019i leaders have been changed into a symbol for inexpert politicians by meddling with policy and cooperating with the Colonialism. Thus; according to the criterion, the Baha\u2019i leaders aren\u2019t considered as Baha\u2019is.<\/p>\n
In the Baha\u2019i leaders\u2019 works, the necessity for the lack of Baha\u2019is intervention in the policy has been continually emphasized: \u201cIf a disciple wants to negotiate about the political affairs in his\/her house or others\u2019 assemblies, it will be better for him\/her to cut his\/her relationship with Baha\u2019ism<\/a> and all should know that he\/she will not be bound to the faith.[1]<\/a>\u201d it is more interesting to be noted that \u201cthe extent for being or not being Baha\u2019i is that a person who meddles with the political affairs and says a word out of his\/her duty, this proof will be adequate for not to be Baha\u2019i. It won\u2019t need any other reason.[2]<\/a>\u201d<\/p>\n However, the Baha\u2019ism leaders have defined meddling in policy as the condition for remaining Baha\u2019i while they have changed into symbols for inexpert politicians by meddling with policy and cooperating with the Colonialism and the authoritarian governments[3]<\/a>.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n [\u06f1]<\/a> Abdul Hamid Ishraq Khawari, the treasury of limits and commandments, Tehran: the national institute of the faith press, 134 Badi\u2019a, p. 337.<\/p>\n