Who should apologize?

If there is anyone who must apologize it's the regime in Tehran

Share/Save/Bookmark

Who should apologize?
by Fariba Amini
12-Feb-2009
 

If there is anyone who must apologize to the Iranian people, it is first and foremost Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his four year regime of economic collapse, corruption, executions and more suppression of Iran's civil society activists.

Like most Iranians but only more so, I have lived with the sad history of US and the British involvement in the coup against the democratically elected government of Dr. Mohammad Mossadeq. In many ways, our history either begins with Cyrus the Great or Mossadeq. The latter is very dear to me, not just because my fa ther was his personal attorney, but because the more I read about him and his vision for Iran, the more I believe in the democratic values he upheld: a free press, an independent country based on social justice involving a fair distribution of wealth. Like many Iranians, I wish that history could be reversed.

But the Islamic regime is far from all of that, especially under Ahmadinejad's presidency. Almost four years ago, just returned from Iran after seeing the bad, the good and the ugly under the Islamic regime, I had the misfortune of going to the Hilton in New York City and attending Ahmadinejad's speech to the “wonderful Iranians living in the US.” He had just been elected as president. Anyone with the slightest inkling of how the officials of this regime behave could see right through him. One could hear the ramblings of a street-smart fellow, a preacher engaged in demagoguery rather than a statesman ready to lead his country's administration. When I got up and asked Mr. Larijani, now speaker of Majlis and then head of Iran's nuclear program, why not a single street or an alley bore the name of the man who dedicated his life to defending his nation against the British and the U S, he reluctantly said “Mossadeq is in our hearts,” and in the next breath uttered the name of Ayatollah Kashani.

Iranians know how history unfolded: Kashani, a cleric who would become Khomeini's idol, turned his back on Mossadeq and, by all accounts, collaborated with the coup organizers. In fact, he was one of the first to congratulate the corrupt government that emerged from Mossadegh's overthrow. A highway in Tehran is named after him. There is a street in the name of Bobby Sands, who was a member of the Irish Republican Army and even E.G. Browne, the famous British Orientalist who sympathized with the Iranian constitutionalists, But not a single little alley in all of Iran bears the name of Mohammed Mossadeq. The Shah and, subsequently, Khomeini and the Islamic Republic were always scared of his long shadow cast by his legacy in the form of his continued popularity among many Iranians.

Thus, when Ahmadinejad speaks of "60 years of US crimes in Iran” and the coup against the nationalist regime, he sounds less than authentic. He and his regime have never uttered the name of the man responsible for the oil nationalization, whose government was in fact toppled for that reason. Ahmadinejad keeps using old-style rhetoric to enflame people's sentiments against the US and to rally them behind his failed economic and social programs. His pre-election campaign rhetoric, “a man of the people” is now just an empty slogan. His administration has included some of the most corrupt and criminal people since the inception of the Islamic regime.

As Ahmadinejad knows full well, during the Clinton Administration, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright did apologize to the Khatami government for the US role in the coup. I believe that apology was sufficient and should have been accepted. But we all know that the regime in Tehran has lived by and uses such rhetoric and crisis making to shout that everything is the fault of the US or their British counterparts. There are historical instances where both countries interfered in Iran's affairs. Especially under Republican administrations, the U.S. has done major damage to US- Iran relations. Yet no one can deny that in Iran, the most fundamental rights have been violated by the Islamic regime rather than the Americans or the British. Iranian journalists, students, and women activists are indiscriminately harassed and incarcerated by the Islamic authorities, not by foreign governments. The same holds true for the recent shutting down of Shirin Ebadi's office.

We must therefore take responsibility for our own actions and deeds and not blame “foreign agents” for all the malaise in our society. This begins with the recognition that if it were not for the involvement of Iranians, the 1953 coup would never have succeeded.

If there is anyone who must apologize to the Iranians people it's the current regime in Tehran, having inflicted unprecedented harm to the nation for thirty years now. Today, it is trying to erase evidence of what is perhaps its most heinous crime, the execution of thousands of prisoners without trial, by destroying Khavaran Cemetery, the mass burial site of these hapless victims.

President Obama has offered the olive branch without preconditions, and I do think he means it— even if the regime in Tehran m ay want to believe otherwise.

The people of the United States elected a new president, and have demanded change. Once the Iranians choose a new president in June, the regime should put aside the old slogan of “Marg bar America” (Death to America) and turn a new page as well. I believe both peoples deserve a change of attitudes, and need it more than ever. It is time for Iranians and Americans to welcome a new relationship between the US and Iran based upon mutual respect, friendship, economic benefit and cultural exchange. The tit for tat must stop. The past is only lessons in history. It is time for a fresh start in the long and murky US-Iran relationship.

Share/Save/Bookmark

Recently by Fariba AminiCommentsDate
Forgotten Captive
61
Nov 27, 2012
The Bride and the Dowry
3
Nov 27, 2012
Enemy Number One?
64
Sep 07, 2012
more from Fariba Amini
 
default

Just forgot

by Abbas the patriot (not verified) on

Whenever you had the heart, internal forces/support and bravery to topple the regime in Iran and represent the Iranian nation ... then write this article again.

My dear fellow countrymen you are in deep ignorance. Your imagination is very strong but your sense of reality gets a F.


Kaveh Nouraee

The Apologies Should Begin

by Kaveh Nouraee on

with every member of the IRI and their supporters.

Additional apologies should be tendered by the fathers of the aforementioned, for failing to pull out or use a condom.

For example, look at Antarinejad's ugly mug. 300 million sperm and THAT'S the one that made it?!?!?!?!?


default

Minus Proof

by PK (not verified) on

"lead by example!"

Indeed you have led by example.


default

I liked this one so I shall post it again

by Amir Khosrow Sheibany (not verified) on

1. Remove the names of ALL political, religious, and military figures, past and present, from ALL streets, squares, public buildings and offices.

2. Iran must apologize to America for insulting the American nation and their democracy for the last thirty years.

3. America must apologize to Iran and to the whole world for being so incompetent in their foreign policy since WWII and creating instability across the World Atlas.

4. Jebhe-Melli must apologize to the Iranian nation for betraying them by colluding with the most backward faction of the Iranian political movements.

5. Monarchists must apologize to the nation for being the most useless political movement of the last hundred years but must be proud for not prostituting themselves by jumping in the same bed with the mullahs as the Tudeh party and Jebhe Melli did.

6. The Iranian clergy and their entire associates must pray forgiveness for betraying the most sacred of Islamic principles, meaning "forbidding sherk", destroying the good name of the faith of Mohammad, destruction of Iran's economy and stealing from the Beitolmaal and most importantly murdering people in the name of Allah.

7. AhmadiNejad should win the Noble prize for biology for proving the limitations on the theory of evolution by Charles Darwin. No apologies needed by Ahmadinejad to other primates


Niloufar Parsi

provide proof yourself

by Niloufar Parsi on

lead by example!


Niloufar Parsi

steve

by Niloufar Parsi on

god is one of the greatest lies ever.


Niloufar Parsi

dear AI

by Niloufar Parsi on

'more Iranians liberated today, post Islamic revolution, because they now understand the dark side of religion mixed with politics.'

absolutely! that is one of the few upsides of the IRI. who better to destroy the false claims of religion to rule than the mullahs!

people got what they were asking for, and i dont think they would ask for it again!


Kaveh Nouraee

BK

by Kaveh Nouraee on

You make an excellent point.

I'm not so sure that the average Iranian within Iran is as concerned with having more apologies from foreign powers than food on the table. I'm not saying you're wrong, or that I'm right. I'm just thinking that the average Iranian back home doesn't place as much of a priority upon it.

Maybe it's wishful thinking on my part .

I think that this is grandstanding from both the IRI and their apologists outside of Iran, who are motivated to justify their nonsense by God knows what.

Shakespeare couldn't write anything more tragic than this.


default

Feel like putting my head in my heads and yell

by BK (not verified) on

The Islamic Republic is flushing Iran down the toilet of history and yet there are people who are more concerned about a thoroughly pointless and useless apology from the US.

It's as if the average Iranian, living a miserable life and struggling to put food on the table for his/her family, is more concerned about collecting apologies from foreign powers.

It would be laughable if it weren't so tragic.


Artificial Intelligence

Dear NP

by Artificial Intelligence on

Yes I understand you and your reasoning Thank you.  I don't want to re argue the issue with you again and lets consider this one done. My only point is that your answer leads us to my first question which is getting rid of the Cast system for Feudalism as a consequence of Islam (as you argue) was not such a great liberating thing for Iranians. I am not blaming Islam as a religion, I am blaming the system that was created for Iranian Muslims post Islam. I just don't see it as liberating. In fact I see more Iranians liberated today, post Islamic revolution, because they now understand the dark side of religion mixed with politics. ironically, as I understand it, a lower percentage of Iranians today are religious than 30 years ago.


Steve

the truth will set us free

by Steve on

It's unfortunate that when each of us is seeking truth that we don't all end up in the same place. Also unfortunate is that with so many of us not arriving at the truth, that more of us don't ask ourselves, 
"do I REALLY BELIEVE that what I BELIEVE is REALLY REAL"? 

Different world views, various forms of good vs evil, everything in the world crumbling around us, fighting each other... this all leads to one end, The End. Between now and then, my path will be to love one another, to love my enemy, and seek truth.

What is truth? There is only one truth, that being God's truth. Not my truth, nor your truth for you and I can hardly get it right.

But let's at least attempt to get it right! Seek the truth from a loving God, and his truth will set us free.  (John 8:32) Truth = Love.


default

Provide Proof

by PK (not verified) on

I've read a few of your posts on here and elsewhere on Iranian.com.
I can appreciate that you want to discuss history (history of Iran in particular), and you may or have an opinion. Many people do as well.
But, you really should provide solid and bona fide links to your specific claims about the "history of Iran", such as Caste and Feudalism system jibes. That is missing.
Otherwise, you will not, and, apparently, do not have any credibility, outside your own fantasy world.


Niloufar Parsi

AI

by Niloufar Parsi on

the caste system and feudalism can coexist because one (caste) is a system of social hierarchy based on a false notion of race or class or breeding (and linked to a religion for its justification), and the other (feudalism) is an agrarian mode of production that divides society into a small class of nobles and landowners with all the power, and a mass of peasants with little or no power. in between there are several layers of artisans, merchants, clergy, military etc that are differentiated more so in urban centres.

the caste system can for example divide peasants into further strata, and bring hereditary ties to a position or job into the equation so that a peasant's children will always be peasants and not clergymen or warriors for example. this was the case in iran before islam.

you can also have a caste system operating in the capitalist system like in india today. it does not mix well of course and causes slow growth, which is one of the main reasons india is trying to get rid of it.

similarly, islam can coexist with (and be used by the powers that be to justify) feudalism or capitalism. religions are not irreversibly attached to specific modes of production and can modify themselves. so hinduism will not necessarily die when india finally rids itself of its caste system.

i hope that makes sense.  or am i causing more confusion?!


Niloufar Parsi

Abbas jan

by Niloufar Parsi on

and what can you pretend to be?

and it sounds like they hurt u a lot... sorry to hear that. but it won't stop me from discussing iranian history with others. hope you won't mind. but it really is not up to you.


Niloufar Parsi

sickofreformallh: logic?

by Niloufar Parsi on

thanks for that. it was so positive and helpful. now i totally understand what logic, comprehension, ethics and principles are. you are a gem sickofreformallh. and that's a great name you got there too...


default

NP: Your logic and reading comprehension are absurd!

by sickofreformallh (not verified) on

NP: You cannot follow a simple paragraph and respond logically. All of your responses are non-sequitur. Your ethics and principles are appalling too. You justify every evil that the mullahs have done by saying that they are Iranian too. As if their nationality will obsolve them from their crime.

In your reality-averse universe, You've concoted a reality of your own and you manage it by revising history.

You also have not cited one source or linked to any reference to substantiate any of your claims and you ignore substantiated facts and evidence.

Is this how you're going to serve Iran?? God help Iranians if Iranians have to rely on inept people like you.


default

You don't know what I'm talking about NP ?!

by Abbas Khomeini-Zadeh (not verified) on

After you ranting on about Islam liberating Iran?? You must be higher than high! kheili karet kardan yadet rafeteh. halet chetoreh azizam?

Don't get defensive and go on the offensive!

Nobody can tell if you are a moslem or aren't on here. Relax! You can even pretend to be agnostic, an atheist, a jew, a christian, a hindu or a zoroastrian. Get a job at molla emabassy or an arab one, like you say they are the same. they'd like a woman with female parts with non romantic 'reminiscence' . You should exactly know the answers to the questions you have asked khahar joon, you've been there last norouz and going back for more, great!


default

Abbas jan: halet khoobeh dadash?

by NiloufarParsi (not verified) on

what are you talking about?! you sound high...

i wasn't implying anything. am not even a muslim. it is not about who deserves what. i was just giving my impression of what has happened. i could be wrong.

perhaps you can correct me? perhaps you can tell me why so many are going to namaz jom'e every friday? wy they so love roze khooni? why so many women wear the chaador? why so many iranians fast during ramadan? why they say 'ya allah' when they walk into a room, or 'besmellah' when they get in a car, or kiss the qoran when they leave the house to go on a trip, or why they say 'ya ali' or 'ali yaret' when they don't have to, or why they say 'astakhforrelah' when they are shocked, or why they say 'cheshmet nazanan', why they look at you like you are mad when you say you don't believe in god, why so many superstitions....?

and they did it before the revolution abbas jan. it is not new. it is not just because of arabs. arabs and persians are very similar in this way, but they all just hate to admit it.

it's all because of the mollas?

or is it because of you? people just like you?

and yes i was in iran last norooz. will be back again this year too. and it's always a joy mixed with sorrow. what could have been. and what is instead. nobody likes it the way it is. but it is not going to change if we simply deny its nature or blame some foreigner or the molla. mollas are iranian too.


default

Nil Jan You are Rite!

by Abbas Khomeini-Zadeh (not verified) on

Where do you live, some english speaking world?

I agree with you, Iranian deserve Islam like you imply. Islam exists in Iran because Iranians deserve it. After all, they were cut down to their real worth after Arab Moslems showed them the true religion of peace centuries ago. Mollas think they are doing better after 30 years of killings, more peaceful; this time they are Iranians, JUST like YOU. Been to Iran lately or do you only visit when invited by sister with a twist of mary?

You are another deserving piece, don't get me wrong. I like all you write, your writing deserves another piece in the archives of Mollahs, and Iran.


Artificial Intelligence

Fair Enough NP

by Artificial Intelligence on

I hear you and I understand what you are saying except the following:

"islam did liberate iranians from the caste system. and it did not
replace it with feudalism. feudalism and castism (is that a word?!) can
easily coexist. actually arabs did not bring much other than the idea
of islam to iran."

I don't understand what you are trying to say above. How could they coexist? Do you mean that Islam could coexist with feudalism and  "castism"?  If Islam did not cause the feudal system, what caused it? If it something that happened on its own as a consequence than I'll buy that. I just don't have the answer. Do you?

If you are saying that Islam had liberating ideas or less rigid than the cast system and that it was a concept that the people could readily accept and not resist  because of the existing cast system; OK there is validity. But Islam was also forced by the sword in many places as well.

Thanks for your answers. 

PS

If you read the entire story in the particular thread behind my name you would see that I am not Anti Muslim and my questions had nothing to do with Islam as a religion or Muslims. I am strictly talking about Islam and politics and the political/social systems that arose after Islam.  

 


Niloufar Parsi

Dear AI

by Niloufar Parsi on

pls don't get me wrong, but let me see if i remember right: if am not mistaken, AI used to stand for anti-islamist, but you changed it to artificial intelligence, right? i think you would find it hard to accept that islam could ever lead to any progressive change. but in this case, i would ask you to reconsider.

islam did liberate iranians from the caste system. and it did not replace it with feudalism. feudalism and castism (is that a word?!) can easily coexist. actually arabs did not bring much other than the idea of islam to iran. they had no system other than the tribal ones except in places like today's yemen and some urban trade centres, and yemen too was in parts under persian rule. 

it was the persians who gave peninsular arabs a governance model under the islamic empire at least on the eastern end of it. egypt was another case with its own system to the west.

the period immediately after the rise of islam was a very dynamic one with a few centuries of what many call its golden age. islam has been a central part of iranian culture ever since, and those who deny it here are doing just that: living in a state of denial. not that i am a supporter. far from it! khayam is my dude! but iran is what it is and it has an islamic regime for a reason! :)

as for persian's thoughts on zoroastrianism, i did not mean to suggest that zoroastrianism invented the caste system, but it was there for whatever reason in iran, and it was the main reason people embraced islam so willingly. remember persia had the strongest military force in the world and the arabs had nothing but their faith. yet they succeeded, and it is  generally accepted that this was because they were seen as liberators.


Jaleho

story maker Kinzer became historian GOD!!

by Jaleho on

I totally agree with Kuroush who is nauseated with the Iranians here who all of a sudden found Kinzer's western narrative of the 1953, imbued with his best-seller-book "stories" interjected with historical fact...as the bible of the 1953 coup! That despite the fact that years prior to that, Iranians themselves have written much better narratives, at least many different versions which reflects the myriad of different factions that existed back then; added to the fact that the National Archives has withheld most documents regarding the 1953 coup, even though 50 years after the events it is supposed to have release it all. Many of them are claimed "destroyed" thus not made available by CIA.


Everyone who has read Kinzer's book or who has read few pages about 1953 coup, or whose father has told his own version of the events, comes out here as a historian and writes garbage instead of history.


Considering that Iran has been the chess board for colonial powers for years, many Iranians also have a bit of an exaggerated "Dai jon Napoleon syndrome," which makes the events of 1953 even more complicated than it is. That is, just like Iranian.com, whoever disagrees with another person's opinion can brand the characters as "agents of US or Britain, or Russia." Considering that the Coup has in fact been imposed on Iranians by foreign agents, these accusations are much more serious and confusing than the accusation of IRI agent on Iranian.com!!


This is even made more complicated by the fact that the many followers of Mossadegh have made a demi-God out of the truly national hero of Iran, while many documents of the past, mainly by foreigners who intended on weakening Jebhe Melli, Mosedeq, and its allies would make opposite propaganda, calling Mosadeq himself "crazy," "sentimental fool," and accusing many others "British agents. Then, different scholars (and I mean real scholars like Abrahamian or Shahbazi caliber, not the petty scholar wanna-bees who appear in Iranian.com and write articles) get part of the propaganda that fits their very own narrative, rejecting the rest!


This make a reader go WOW, upon coming to so many contradictions regarding the events! Ayattolah Kashani who was exiled by Brits and goes at least as far back as Mossedegh on anti-colonial fights, who was the most prominent part of the Jebheh melli in connection to Bazar and average people, the one who supposedly forced Shah to re-install Mosaddeq following 30 tir and was elected as speaker of majlis by Mossadegh, is said to have been sold to Brits for $10,000!! Maki of Hezb Tudeh who was another power base of Mosadeq, organizing the Abadan demostrations which empowered Mosadegh is similary branded jasoos. Same with Baghai who was the strongest member opposing RazmAra, who got the "Sedan's house document" which was used at the Hague as evidence of British clandestine affairs in Iran, was later shortly put in prison accused of the terror of Afshartous (which Kurush mentions as head of police), Hosein Fatemi was accused of being a homosexual who used to get bribes, Fadyan Islam who killed RazAra supposedly would get their instructions from the Brits, Khalil Maleki supposedly weakened the Tudeh part of Mossadeq base by joing Baghai's zahmatkeshan,  Mossadegh himself was accused of "having Jewish background" and accused of single-handedly making the coup possible by being fooled by the American agent Henderson.....


 Hidden in all of this is the fact that Jebhe Melli was never a uniform party from the start and as its name indicates, it was composed of different factions, each with its own ideology, and the fact that CIA-MI6 actually had the clandestine affair in Iran making the coup.


The revisionism that Kurush refers to is indeed nauseating, but worse than that it is the secular Jebhe Melli groups who have their very own narrative and documents from Iran, but all of a sudden you hear Kinzer become their supporting god, just because Kinzer's narrative of how "defeat of seculars led to Khomeini" which sounds sexy and best-seller-material in the US, also is in tune with those Jebhe Melli’s in the west now who announce Mossadegh God and the present regime evil !!


Kinzer's "star and crescent" book about Turkey is exactly in the same vein misleading! You read that one as the real history of Turkey, you'll conclude that "military coup" although bad, but is very good in Turkey because it keeps nationaliss over the crazy religious groups. Thus all of the military coup personals there are the cutest thing since creation! And of course the later events in Turkey prove Kinzer to be a complete clown.


Similarly, no one can understand Iran's 1978 revolution, 1951-53 nationalization movement, without a proper understanding of Iran's Constitutional Revolution of 1905--- the participation of singularly Iranian elements and their class interest of  urban workers and peasantry ---the religious (olama and Tollab) and in particular their Baazar connections---the intellectual and educated--- and the ashayer leaders--- and the more modern comprador and foreign educated minority.


Also, the coup of 1953 is to be studied together with its pre-cursor of 1921 British coup which defeated Constitutional Revolution by bringing Reza Shah, the removal of Reza Shah by the same powers after WWII and bringing Shah to power, removal of Mossadegh in 1953 by the same power, and the re-instating Shah to power.
Only if one studies the REAL history of colonial intentions in Iran starting by Oil concessions given to D'arcy in 1901, followed by Iranian awakening reflected in Constitutional Revolution of 1905 can one follow the real flow of the subsequent event like the 1921 coup, and 1953 coup and the 1978 revolution. And, only then one can get the REAL lessons to prevent future events like the 1953 coup!
 
I wonder the same Jebhe Melli sympathizers who are now making fun of Iran demanding an apology from the US recognize the historical similarities between Iran's 1978 revolution, its aspirations, and the methods foreign powers have used to defeat FORMER anti-colonial movements in Iran:


--1951-1953 movement of oil nationalization which threatened the British control over that important source of energy, and the current efforts of Iran regarding Iran’s nuclear energy and the western insistence that the nuclear energy and its global control should remain in the hand of few western powers; the same is true for oil-pipelines and the control of its path as was in the past for oil itself,


--The heavy sanctions that the British imposed on Iran back then leading to economic disaster during Mossadegh and weakening him in preparation to the 1953 coup,


---frezzing of Iran's Sterling assest......

---does the near $100 million that US has allocated to propaganda in Iran, different radio station… ring a bell?
 Just wonder if anyone would care to think a bit deeper in historical lessons!!

 

PS. I posted this in Arash's 1953-1978 article  (couple of articles after this one), and it refers to Kuroush comment there. I guess it belongs here even more.


default

Here are my suggestions:

by botshekan. (not verified) on

1. Remove the names of ALL political, religious, and military figures, past and present, from ALL streets, sqaures, public buildings and offices.

2. Iran must apologize to America for insulting the American nation and their democracy for the last thirty years.

3. America must apologize to Iran and to the whole world for being so incompetent in their foreign policy since WWII and creating instability across the World Atlas.

4. Jebhe-Melli must apologize to the Iranian nation for betraying them by colluding with the most backward faction of the Iranian political movements.

5. Monarchists must apologize to the nation for being the most useless political movement of the last hundred years but must be proud for not prostituting themselves by jumping in the same bed with the mullahs as the Tudeh party and Jebhe Melli did.

6. The Iranian clergy and their entire associates must pray forgivenss for betraying the most sacred of Islamic principles, meaning "forbidding sherk", destroying the good name of the faith of Mohammad, destruction of Iran's economy and stealing from the Beitolmaal and most importantly murdering people in the name of Allah.

Vassalam!


default

way out of line!

by ferdos36 (not verified) on

This discussion has gotten out of its orignial content. We are getting into arguments that are not relevant to the subject matter.

Madeleine Albright wrote in her memoirs: " In 1953, the Eisenhower administration orchestrated a coup that ousted Iran's elected Prime Minister and returned the Shah, Reza Pahlavi to power." And she goes on to say that it resulted in an oppressive dictatorship. She also says, we tried to talk to Khatami with no pre-conditions but the IRI under Khamenei decided not to deal with us.

Here is what I propose:
A campaign to name a street in Tehran after Mohammad Mossadeq.
A campaign to ask President Obama for an apoglogy.

I think Obama may consider such a request but I doubt very much that the IRI will ever come to terms with such a request.


Artificial Intelligence

Dear NP

by Artificial Intelligence on

I understand the difference between Cast System and Feudalism. I was not clear enough and I apologize. Assuming that there was a cast system in Persia, prior to Islam, it was replaced with Feudalism were the people who worked the land were virtual slaves and lived at the mercy of the landlords. Is this much better than the alleged cast system prior to Islam? You speak as if the people were some how liberated and asked for this liberation. I just don't see this. 

Persian alleged cast system was not similar to the Indian system and did not come from the Zoroastrian religion unless you can show us otherwise.  I don't see how the "untouchables" in a religion relate to cast system. Even Judaism and Islam has untouchables but you do not see anyone claiming that Islam is a cast system?

Also, most of the world was no longer feudal by the 1950's- perhaps by 500 years already. Don't you think that Iran was a little late in trying to get rid of its feudal system and don't you think the clergy and Islam were to blame for this?

 

 

 


default

Kadivar, you can't handle the truth!

by Anonym7 (not verified) on

Kadivar says "Then Embarass Me with FACTS !"

Kadivar, as I said before you are among very few respectable monarchists, and someone's editing of comments today, helped you keep that status! However, that doesn't change the fact that you can't handle the truth! Why do you want facts?


default

There was no caste system

by 20/20 (not verified) on

There was no caste system in pre-Islamic Iran

http://zoreled.org/historyzorislamiciran.aspx

http://www.vohuman.org/Article/Islamic%20era%20his...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/sto...

http://w-z-o.org/wzo/Contact-Us.html
http://www.ztfe.com/cgi-local/MainPage.cgi?section...


We have no evidence of the time and origin of Zarathushtra. He has been dated as far back as 2000 BCE, living among the nomadic proto-Iranians, and as late as 500 BCE, living in the court of the Achaemenid kings. We can only trace him based on the influence of his ideas on early Iranian tribes and their ideology, and also based on the age of his compositions, the Gathas. These compositions, in the form of 16 poems, are universally accepted to be the oldest parts of the Zoroastrian cannon of laws, the Avsta, and almost all scholars attribute them to Zarathushtra himself. The language is a very rustic version of a northeastern old Iranian language, pointing us to a date of roughly 1300 BCE. The ideas of the poems are clearly against the worship of several gods and the belief in natural forces, and they include a very deep philosophical thought, emphasizing the originality of mind, the role of the individual decision and thought, and common movement towards righteousness.

Zarathushtra's social reform was met with resistance even during his life time, by the adherents to the traditional pantheon and social structure. They are refered to in later parts of the Avesta as Daeva-Yasna, "Adherents to the Daevs", a clear indication of Zarathushtra's declaration of war against the forces of evil. Apparently, one of these opposition members is even responsible for the death of Zarathushtra. However, it seems that after embracement of the Zoroastrian ideas by political forces who found Zarathushtra's uniting theories better suited to power than dispersed social structure of polytheism, the former opposition parties, among them the Mogh/Magus tribe of Medians, were entrusted with the safe keeping of the new religion. This religious classes, a presence in all Indo-Iranian social structures, became the defenders of the new faith, albeit making major changes to it, including a re-introduction of deities, this time in the form of lower deities and assistants to the supreme deity, Ahura Mazdah, "The Lord Reason". The hybrid Zoroastrian religion was eventually adopted by many Iranian dynasties, including the later Achaemenids, probably Arsacid, and certainly by the Sasanians who themselves came from a Persian religious class. This, however, did not mean a total abandonment of the old ideological and social system, especially those insisting on a revitalisation of the class-less, communal society that existed prior to Zarathushtra. These social movements raised throughout the Iranian history, well into the Islamic times, and are characterized best by Manichean, Mazdaki, and Khoram-din movements.

In short, the Zoroastrian reform in the social terms seems to have been an accompaniment of the social changes that were happening as a result of the Aryan settlement in Iran and the pressure of their neighbours to the west, powerful civilisations of Mesopotamia. In face of scarce agricultural land, constant military threat, and the need to organise and form coherent political systems, another need for a uniting idea was evident. So, Zoroastrianism, a belief system that is certainly uniting and also emphesises the duty of classes to obey their superiors, could be an indispensable tool in the hands of the new political rulers. The same process can be traced in India, where while not abandoning the polytheistic system, a caste system was formed that held each member of the society responsible for assigned duties. In Iran, since the integration of local inhabitants to the Aryan society seems to have happened in a longer period of time, and since this social system was well formed prior to the Aryan contact with the locals, the formation of a caste system did not become an issue. Instead, the situation, especially the existence of laws in the civilised societies of the plateau and different climactic and land endowments, pressured the Iranians to form a new and coherent socio-political system that would enable them to become a political power and replace their predecessors. So, the foundations of the Median and Achaemenid power were laid in the pre-historical formation of Aryan, and indeed "Iranian" (i.e. Aryan and non Aryan), social system.

http://www.iranologie.com/history/history2.html

http://www.iranologie.com/history/history.html


MiNeum71

To the Members of This Community

by MiNeum71 on

This is an open discussion forum, and I guess most of the members are interested in exchange of opinions.

There is really no reason for personal libels. 

It´s really ok not being someone´s opinion, but a mutual respect towards each other can be expected.

 


Darius Kadivar

Anonym7

by Darius Kadivar on

Then Embarass Me with FACTS !

Mansour Bahrami also came from a VERY VERY Poor Family and yet he is Not Namak Nashnas like Most of You here:

http://www.amazon.fr/Court-miracles-Mansour-Bahrami/dp/2749107652

He However is Greatful to the Shah's era at least for what it allowed him to achieve who he is today:

Mansour Bahrami and Farah Pahlavi:

http://iranian.com/main/blog/darius-kadivar/mansour-bahrami-and-farah-pahlavi

Not Childish excuses. You will Always find someone more rich, Privaledged than You.

This Revolution Went Terribley Wrong and is bringing Our Country ( to which YOU Belong AS MUCH as His Majesty as You Say , No More NO LESS) On the Verge of Moral Decadance where not Even Religion Can Save it from the Evil it has generated in its wombe.

This is the Land of Cyrus the Great but also Khayyam, Rumi, Sa'adi and Molavi.

What Happened to Us ? Where Are Our Humanistic Values gone to be associated to savage child killers and woman Stoners ?

WAKE UP !

I don't Ask you to Support RP but to Support CIVIL SOCIETY and a Chance for Democracy and Human Rights to grow in our country.

All these pretexts to attack the opposition has only served the IRI and its Henchmen.

I REFUSE to Surrender MY PATRIOTISM to A Bunch of Mullahs who are HARDLY ROLE MODELS TO ANYONE NOT EVEN THEMSELVES:

 

Bakhtiar on Freedom of Speach ( and critics of LA TV's) :

And Last Public Appearance in Germany shortly Before Assassination by IRI agents

IRAN HARGYUEZ NAKHAHAD MORD!

My Opinion TOO !

DK


Niloufar Parsi

dear AI

by Niloufar Parsi on

I dont know what persian literature's analysis was, but it sounds like you are confusing feudalism with the caste system in yours.

most of the world was feudal until the rise of capitalism, but the caste system was a different thing. you were born into a job and you died in one too, and there was no possibility of social mobility.

england too was feudal but it had no caste system. even now iranian zoroastrians who handle the dead (as in mortuary workers) are treated like untouchables by other zoroastrians. and yes, islam did get rid of the caste system, and its attraction in india was precisely related to the same.

the shah's 'white revolution' was a typical agrarian reform programme of the 20th century seen as a necessity in most countries that wanted to catch up with capitalism. the shah was as much interested in reducing the power of landowners as he was in anything else, and he succeeded in that. but if you are inferring that the revolution was primarily a backlash by the landed aristocracy then you are missing the fact that it was more the bazaaris and traditional merchants who were behind the revolution rather than landowners.