Current Events

Abarmard

The best part of Mr. Abdolkarimi's debate was when he said, both sides ( secular intellectuals and conservative clerics) should sit down and talk and choose the best solutions for the country's problems and choose a path that serves the public and every-one's interest. He mentioned different countries and their systems. I think he was just explaining how they work and their results. He wasn't necessarily saying that any of those systems are perfect for Iran or defending any of those countries or their systems.

I don't know much about him. For now, I think he sincerely wants to put the country on the right path for justice, democracy and freedom for all. 

Which part of his opinions don't you agree with?

player->tools->option->performance->choose connection speed ...

Ouhh! that's much more complicated than going to the toilet to get the debate.

No Fear

You can see the second part (and other programs) from this site. If your conncetion is not working, then:

(Make sure you'll change it back when done)

ALSO: Must use Internet Explorer browser ONLY

//iransima.ir/FilmDescription.jsp?IDCode=2921...

How about Mullahs debating the critical issues like in Hozeh ...

... inside a BOSHKEH?

Where can i find .... the entire debate?

H E R E

Where can i find ....

The entire debate?

Dariush and No Fear

I saw both parts of that debate and although Bijan makes some interesting observations, he fails to grasp the real issue of debate. I did not agree with him as much as I would have liked to.

This was a very good and interesting debate. This to me shows that Iran is producing thoughts and ideas.

Have you noticed that

Malignant tumors take generally no more than few years to screw people up, while with Khamenei it is about ten years that this f...k'n cancer ain't doing its job correctly?

There is no justice in this world, isn't it?

Abdolkarimi Transcript

I agree the intellectualism was not started naturally in Iran and it was imported.
But, these type of discussions fail to describe our history and if we dont accept that, we will face a lot problems in our political and social lives.
Was Islam a natural occurance for Iran and even Arabs?
It's correct that Iran didn't start Islam but it had the potential for accepting it.
We have to understand intellecutalism and there is not enough efforts in our society to undertand it especially in government.
Intellectualism showed itself in French revolution which was a violent one.
All french intellectuals are against religion.
One of them says i hope i can hang the last king with the last's priest's intestins.
Over there, there is a kind of hatred for power of church. Intellectualism is to deny religion and considering religion to be like a drug.
That type of intellecutalism was entered into Iran.
In England, you had the glorious English revolution.
They thought rights are with people and people's will have to prevail but they didn't stand in front of church.
the king became a protestant and they didn't kill him.
In America you have democracy. there is democray there and the church is formally accepted but the truth is that church is just one voice and
in addition to  that one voice you have other voices.
questioin. Why between all the four examples that i talked about only the French one was entered into Iran?
Because we had a common problem. why in france intellecutals where equal to being against religion?
Because over there the church had their hands in political power. to criticize the political powers they had to criticize the religion.
This same thing was in our history too.
From the Safivie times the religous powers were in the sides of political powers.
The power had two bases: one in monarchy and one in church.
If the mixture of power and religion in the safives and ghajars had not occured then, may be, intellecutalism and puluralim thinking had taken  a
different route in Iran.
And may be we would not be facing a big gap between church and intellectualism today.
Our religous people have not understood that the world has changed a lot. the source of power of religion and the source of modern powers are different.
I dont agree that in the golestan and turkemanchai treaties it wasn't our fault at all and it was all russia's conspiracy.
And the clergy in their fatwa of jihad (lack thereof) didn't set the stage for the influence of forigners.
You can't compare the 4th, 5th, and 6th century which was the climax of our civilization with the safavieh and ghajar dynasties.
Until we criticize ourselves we cant advance.
There is a difference between what we say about our current system and what others are saying about us (in response to the statement that Islamic
revolution is about Spirituality and not what the westerners want)
In all the history before the modern times i have not seen a difference between an Islam for the weak or an islam for the powerful. (again in response)
I dont believe what the religous people believe that we have a religous history and a secular history.
There is only one history and its sacred. The history has to be based on existance. We always say our history and their history.
One problem that we have which needs to be discussed seriously is that we mix the customary history and the sacred history.
We mix modern history and existantial history.
When you are talking about religion and Revelation you are talking about existantialism.
in no way you could show them in parts of the customary history.
I am sitting here and the fact that an angel is speaking to me or the devil is talking to me is an interpretation.
The customary history can only say that Abdolkarimi is sitting here.
You can not with the help of sacred concepts interpret historical concepts.
When there is a mixup of myth and history then we have all the problems with our history that you see.
Our society has a lot of problems and we are becoming weaker every day.
In a society where there is a gap between political power and intellectualism people will not have a good fate.
Political power without intellectualism will reach populism.
An intellictual that works outside the power will be isolated and his ideas can not take shape.
In my openion we have to reconsider our intellectual and our traditional histories.
We have to consider them a cultural fight and not a political or idealogical battle and there is no solution using physical violence.
I hope we can overcome the fight between intellectuals and traditionalists so that our people can have good days ahead of them.

Abdolkarimi did not interrupt

The YouTube video was edited a lot.

فیلم صمد آقا

خامنه ای فیلم صمد به مدرسه میرود را حتماَ دیده که مثال مار را زد

Dariush A,

I missed that debate but i found it on you tube, partially.

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQNMZEhbPWo

Very interesting remarks at 3:35 , 5:25 , 8:10 !

I hope under Ahmadinejad's term we see more of these debates among clerics and university academics. I am sure one way or another they would be posted online.

نظری داشتم در این مورد

ولی‌ جاش در این جلسه غیر تخصصی نیست

Faramarz , Faramarz

You got it, that’s who IRI like them bunch of Mute (or Mule). I love it when the blind man misses the bowl of soup but can aim the candle right at his cigar. The only thing is missing the Aamame on the blind man. 

Khamenei is referring to

Khamenei is referring to the debate between the University professor Bijan Abdolkarimi and the cleric on Iranian TV.   He must have been embarrassed by the cleric's lack of knowledge. So instead of finding someone more knowledgeable for the debate, he makes it illegal to debate. Kind of like Israelis who has made it illegal to debate Holocaust. 

Bijan Abdolkarimi was very good, however, he wouldn't give a chance to his opponent to talk. 

DR X

The greens were excluded because their faction lost the election. But most importantly, the are excluded from the government of Ahmadinejad because of their connections with Rafsanjani & Co.

Try looking at our politics with three major faction at play. Khamenie group, Rafsanjani group ( reformist included ) and Sepah with Ahmadinejad as their representative.

I am noticing a different tone with Khamenie addressing the " excluded " faction from a few months ago and i am following these developements. It seems now Khamenie is trying to curb Ahmadinejad's advancement in our politic.

A Conversation between a Blind Hermit and a Mute

This should be a model for future debates and conversations!

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=cw2IIU0a9qw

Repeat Offenders

Are not the Young of 2010 making the same mistake as the Young of 1979 did?? Sitting & listening to an extremely old man as their “leader?” Should not a leader be young, energetic, and have the leadership qualities?? Khomeini was “79 years” old when he came to Iran. What kind of Young did we have then to follow him as a leader?? Khamenie is now so old that he can not control his lips movements & needs to sit on a chair whenever he wants to rehearse his son’s written speeches. Do the Young really want go through a recycling process??  

No fear

If it is the Green who is supposedly the target here, Then why is it, really, that they are being excluded? Why just criticize such a concept and not actually taking steps to remedy the situation?

All talk and no game there?

At the next stage

Free thinking is not about debating your ideas with others. It's about thinking and reviewing them in your own private until they are matured. Then you can write them down and they're all yours.  

Interesting ...

Here is another example of Khamenie opposing what Ahmadinejad encourages. That is debate on national TV.  Just recently Ahmadinejad announced if anyone has a problem with Esfandyar Rahim Mashaie , they should debate him openly.

But perhaps the most interesting part of Khamenie speech was at the begining when he critisize the " exclusion " of certain people from politics. The only people who are currently excluded from our politics are the green leaders and those involved with them.

Who else is he hinting about?

The only thing which needs

The only thing which needs to be behind closed doors is religion.

Can anyone enlighten me as to why all Islamo-fascist leaders 1) Ugly 2) Murderers 3) Involved in petty crime 4) Amputated or crippled in their right arm? 

I am of course referring to Abu-Hamza who is imprisoned in the UK. He must be so lonely in Belmarsh prison so maybe fellow amputee and terrorist Seyed Ali Geda will be a perfect companion.

They can wage a jihadist war and have it aired on Al Jazeera from the confines of their prison cell. Meanwhile, Seyed Ali Geda will light his opium pipe whilst Abu Hamza will regail him withhis experienes as a Soho peep show bouncer.

every time he opens his mouth

sorry garbage can, he digs himself deeper until such time that he and his cohorts will be swept away.  preferrably by Israeli bombs.

LMAO

This guy is making laws as he speaks. The sad fact is what he says will be implemented better, faster and more precise than what has already been resoluted the Majles in 32 years!!!(even though that Majles is all made up of the same caliber of people).

in conclusion, the IR is doing what is expected of it and is moving to a direction that has been predicted and it will result to burning Masjeds or Islamic colleges or mass killing of "Akhunds". Not that I am advocating it but I can see why it could happen since no one is allowed clearly to talk or even think freely.

MR KHAMENEIEE, FREEDOM IS NOT A PRIVILAGE WHICH YOU CAN GIVE AND TAKE, IT IS A RIGHT THAT IS NOT FOR YOU TO MAKE FUN OF NOR PLAY WITH NOR GIVE AND TAKE.

FREEDOM IS A RIGHT AND SINCE YOU ARE AN ISLAMIC SCHOLAR THEN I CONCLUDE THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FREE THINKING IN ISLAM.  

گفتن حق زیر لحاف

 آزاد اندیشی در ملأ عام مال خر است،   آزاد اندیشی پشت در های بسته و زیر لحاف رو عشق است، .