KADIVAR
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
People's Consent
04-Aug-2010
Before his 15 Shaban sermon on the occasion of the birth of the Shiite Imam Mahdi, Nazy Kaviani and I were given the opportunity to ask questions from Dr. Mohsen Kadivar in an informal setting for the readers of Iranian.com. Nazy and I split up the interview between us with Nazy drawing a personal portrait of Dr. Kadivar while I focused on his political thinking. Here is Nazy’s interview, which includes a background biography. Below is my interview with Dr. Kadivar. Though he is fluent in English, we spoke in Farsi. This interview is given in translation, however, so that it will be accessible to more readers.
Q: From your understanding of Islam, particularly Shiism, does it logically follow that the religion mandates democracy? I mean by democracy a government that gets its legitimacy from the people.
A: Of course I cannot speak for all Islamic scholars, but from my point of view the consent of the people is the first pillar of governance. For this reason if a ruler does not have the consent of the people, consent that these days we call democracy I don’t see it as legitimate. We don’t have words like democracy or mardom saalaari in religious literature; we do have words that are close to this meaning. At the very least I believe that no one has the right to rule over people without obtaining their consent. I have compiled a theoretical basis for this: determining the people’s destiny is the right of the people, just as someone’s property belongs to that person. The Prophet has confirmed that people have dominion over their own property and that no one has the right to seize it without the permission of the owner. Well, the public domain is the property of all the citizens of that country. This is a theory similar to what John Locke arrived at, and before me it has been mentioned by Dr. Mehdi Ha’eri Yazdi who is the son of the founder of the Qom Seminary (Howzeh e Elmieh Qom), Haj sheikh Abdul- Karim Ha’eri Yazdi, a teacher of Mr. Khomeini. He has mentioned that the ruler is the agent of the owners of the public domain. This means that all the people of Iran are the owners of Iran and any one who wishes to do anything with this country has to get the permission of the owners. The owners are just these people. And the head of government, who makes decisions, is the agency representing the people. The answer to your question is yes, this is correct. My article on “Islam and Democracy, Compatible or Incompatible?” in English will be published this year. Its Persian version is available on my website.
You extend Islamic guidance directed at the individual to the political sphere. Do you view political activism as your religious duty?
My religious duty has several facets. One facet is my ethical duty. I cannot accept any principle or religious imperative outside its ethical boundaries. Activism is also a rational imperative, as I will detail later this evening in my sermon. From this perspective, yes, it is my civil right, my religious right and moral duty. My rights as a citizen and my ethical and religious duties are intermingled because I exercise them all at the same time.
What guidance does Shiism offer as to when it is appropriate to take up arms against an unjust ruler?
We have two sets of conditions in this matter. The first is the conditions you pointed out, that are the conditions of armed rebellion. The other is peaceful change. We are in the second, not the first. In the current environment, taking the matter to the first situation is problematic. However in both cases we can utilize Islamic teachings from very distinguished sources including Shiite teachings and interpretations. In the conclusion to the first volume of his book titled The Principles of Islamic Governance, the late Ayatollah Montazeri puts the question that let’s say none of our approaches were effective in brining a ruler to the straight path, can we take up arms against him in rebellion?
Most Sunni scholars -- a near unanimous majority -- forbid rebellion against a ruler. They regard rebellion against a ruler as being similar to warring against God. Just like the statements that the Islamic Republic has been making. This Sunni Ash’arite school of thought effectively endorses any existing political condition—The dissenting minority Sunni school, Mo’tazeli, is, however, close to Shiism on this issue. The Sunni Ash’arites do not permit any sort of rebellion even if the ruler is completely unjust. They say that it’s up to God to fix things; you should just go pray. We don’t have this in Shiism theoretically therefore rebellion is permitted.
But our current position is peaceful reform because our nation is not ready for more than this, and we don’t have the potential for such action. Anyway, even if we were to resort to arms we would need an organization, and we don’t have such an organization. We would be repeating the situation of 32 years ago, and they say no generation has it in itself to carry out more than one revolution. In addition the end of revolution is not predictable. The slogan of this movement is non-violence and peace. Let’s just see if we can raise the child we birthed and see where it goes.
What aspects of Islam’s gender related doctrines are essential and which aspects are open to adaptation to the times and the environment?
I have written articles on this subject (the rights of women and Intellectual Islam) which can be found on my website for reference [see note 1]. These articles are about the rights of women and about human rights in general in English, and I have written them with frankness. That is, which parts of our traditional writings are compatible with human rights and which are not—or at least by which interpretation they can be made compatible? In our religious literature we have two different kinds of rulings regarding this subject. Some in my opinion are fundamental timeless rulings that are part of the eternal message of Islam. For example you may know that in Islam piety [Taghvaa] knows no gender. Knowledge, Piety and striving in the way of Allah (Jahad) have been enumerated as being part of the highest Virtue [Fazilat]. None of these are conditioned on gender and everyone is equal. There are sometimes bounded rules--not foundational ones-- where one observes discrimination. These discriminations matched the time and place of the first people that Islam addressed. These were conditions where women had no human rights, would be buried alive, were always under the supervision of the men. Now Islam comes along and assigns the right of inheritance to someone who herself used to be part of a man’s inheritance. Since typically we read the text outside the context we do not notice all this progress. I mean when a man died in pre-Islam time, his wife would be part of his inheritance to his male progeny. Now Islam comes along and says just as a man inherits so should a woman. It stipulated a difference because it was not possible at the beginning to do this on an equal basis. I have explained in my articles that such legal issues are part of the adaptable aspects of Islam and subject to review. In fact, these reviews have already begun. For example in the matter of blood money (diyya ) there are Islamic scholars who have issued fatwas to establish equality between the genders. In the matter of court testimony, likewise there are proponents of equality. In the matter of eligibility to preside as a judge in a court of law there are fatwas in favor of equality. In all these cases I am a proponent of equality. I also believe we should enact certain protective measures in favor of women so as to eliminate discrimination against them. These measures would assign special security to women during pregnancy, and protect them against domestic abuse. As another example that has arisen in the modern world, I believe in positive reverse discrimination so that we can establish justice in its true meaning. We are obviously unable to uphold a physical equivalence between the genders; we can only uphold legal equality.
To what extent does the United States meet the conditions of democracy and where does she fail those conditions?
Well if for example you compared it with the Middle East then democracy is much more advanced in the US. On the other hand a point we should not forget is the issue of social justice. Social justice is not at an advanced state in the US. The gap between the richest and the poorest is among the widest in the world. And in this way the capitalists can easily interfere with the vote of the people, specifically through advertisement. And in other ways cartels and trusts (corporations), powerful in the US, adversely affect this country’s democracy. If we could have a society that had the same democratic values but its capitalism was not so irresponsible and reckless we would certainly have a stronger democracy. Also, the US constitution is among the first constitutions in world, and there are now constitutions in the world that are more progressive. However there is a belief in democracy that goes to the core of the American civilization in the minds of the people and the leaders of this country. This is because the US is the only country that seems to have been created by the will of these very people—of course there were immigrations. Most other countries were already established before there was a conscious will on the part of the people to create their nation. Therefore democracy in the United States ranks among the highest, and its flaw lies in the undue influence of capitalism on the democratic process.
You admire Ayatollah Montazeri and at the same time you believe that the Iranian people admire Ayatollah Khomeini. Keeping in mind that Ayatollah Khomeini was a very shrewd politician, on what basis did he distance Ayatollah Montazeri from himself to accept a successor that you consider unfit?
This is one of the enigmatic aspects of the diplomacy of the late Ayatollah Khomeini. Apparently a certain security and intelligence process was followed and some wrong information was given to him. Also towards the end of his life he was ill. And he reached a decision. The decision process is not so clear to us. In my letter [see note 2] I have clearly stated this—and this was written when Ayatollah Monatzeri was no longer alive, so that that it can’t be said there were motives behind it. Even at the time I said that God showed mercy to Ayatollah Montazeri that he did not become the Leader. Because this system has theoretical problems, meaning that the velyat faghih system--or an absolute velayat faghih system--is fundamentally flawed. It is not clear whether anyone who occupies that position can preserve himself, so to speak. Ayatollah Montazeri’s father, a very decent and pure farmer, prostrated in thankful prayer when his son was dismissed as successor. He said his son was unburdened. And really this was the case. Looking at it from another angle, no one has the right to appoint a successor for himself. Now they’re trying to argue that since the Prophet did it so can we. But we argue that Shiism believes—in the readings anyway—that for the Prophet it was a divine matter. But government is a people’s matter and a person—at least a normal individual—doesn’t have the right to impose obligations on those who come after him, such as appointing an heir. I consider this one of the mistakes of Ayatollah Khomeini, and if the atmosphere were right I would write about both his strengths and his flaws.
The difficulty is that we—at least our youth—see things in black and white. Ayatollah Khomeini was neither the saint as some think of him in Iran and neither a slaughterer as some regard him outside the country. In his report card there are services and there are faults and we should put these side by side so that we can see them together. Meanwhile the events that are happening right now show that the theory to which he subscribed had difficulties, and the perfection that they attribute to him also has its difficulties. Well these are two major difficulties, which leave room for much discussion. Of course he had many positive attributes for which I have not had the opportunity--in this environment--to perform due diligence. However, enshallah, certainly I will discuss these matters. It will, of course, be hard to defend a man in a situation where some people refuse to appear in interviews without hanging his picture on the wall behind them—inside the country. And some people won’t even listen to you until you insult him—outside the country. He would have to be man of significance such that Mr. Mousavi feels obliged to have the picture over his head at all times in interviews, and others cannot bear to hear you out unless first you prove you are against him. My criticism of Khomeini’s theory was published several years ago in English [see note 3].
NOTES
1. For Dr. Kadivar’s views on the rights of women in modern Islam including a discussion of the hejab issue see here.
2. Here’s Dr. Kadivar’s letter accusing The Assembly of Experts of negligence of duty regarding their supervisory role over the vali faghih. Fasl e chahaarom goes directly to doubts about the decision to appoint Khamenei.
3: For an English summary of this critique of absolute velayat faghih see here.
4: This is a Farsi text by Dr. Kadivar juxtaposing absolute monarchy with absolute velayat faghih:
| Recently by Ari Siletz | Comments | Date |
|---|---|---|
چرا مصدق آسوده نمی خوابد. | 8 | Aug 17, 2012 |
| This blog makes me a plagarist | 2 | Aug 16, 2012 |
| Double standards outside the boxing ring | 6 | Aug 12, 2012 |
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
Haji Islamist liar 4
by Fred on Mon Aug 09, 2010 12:53 PM PDTHaji sack of Islamist liar you in part say:
“Right now you have your hands full. You are being exposed as what you really are. I could have done it myself, because your full identity and everything about you the low life have been known to me for a long time. But, this would be beneath me. So, I'll be short.”
You should reveal it. I give you full permission to do it. In fact I urge you to do it. If you don’t you are all those things that your colleagues say you are and I reflect. Do it Islamist liar!
You are a sack of Islamist liar, if not when you say “Yeah, the guy on VOA really did a great job, repeating the neo-con/Israel nonsense. He is the guy who enthusiastically supported the Iraq war, supports Afghan war, and has been clear about it. Yup! He was great!”
Put up his credentials verses yours and let people decide whose job was paid for NIOC and who earned it.
Let people decide who is a world renowned verses the one, namely you, who claims to be one.
You are just a sack of Islamist liar who after a lifetime of charlatan Ali Shariati following are totally clueless to what a joke you have become and why people who know you call you all those names.
Marjaneh khaanoum
by Mammad on Mon Aug 09, 2010 10:28 AM PDTTo make it short:
1. No, eventually, the present political system should be replaced by a democratic secular republic.
2. I do not agree with Mohsen Kadivar. While I respect him for his courage and knowledge, he does not represent the thinking of people like me.That should be obvious to you, based on what he says and what I say.
Mammad
BenRoss
by Mammad on Mon Aug 09, 2010 10:23 AM PDTThank you, but I was not even talking about you, but about the persons to whom I had responded.
As I told you in another thread a while ago, instead of getting angry, enlighten us with your thinking.
Mammad
AIPAC Mafioso
by Mammad on Mon Aug 09, 2010 10:20 AM PDTRight now you have your hands full. You are being exposed as what you really are. I could have done it myself, because your full identity and everything about you the low life have been known to me for a long time. But, this would be beneath me. So, I'll be short.
1. No, it was you who lied. Saying "Iran's weaponized nuclear program" and "Iran's illegal nuclear program" is vastly different from saying "Iran is on a path to nuclear weapon capability."
2. I have a wonderful job at my university, paying me extremely well. But, I am not paid to propagate war, destruction, hatred, and bigotry, the way you do.
3. I - a man with a life full of deceit - post articles with my full name and address. Compare that with your misreable life: What about you and your bogus name (although your full identity has been known to me for a long time)?
4. Whatever I believe in, apparently I do something right, because my thinking gets wide exposure, reaching millions. In fact, that is what kills you. That is what angers you. That is what eats you inside out.
5. Yeah, the guy on VOA really did a great job, repeating the neo-con/Israel nonsense. He is the guy who enthusiastically supported the Iraq war, supports Afghan war, and has been clear about it. Yup! He was great!
Now, begin barking again. Wait, you must be worried to death for being exposed.
Haj Mammad
Ari Siletz
by AMIR1973 on Sun Aug 08, 2010 08:32 PM PDTYour comments suggest you stay informed on the details of Iran's evolving political scenario.
The USSR and Communist China were and are replete with struggles between various ruling factions and figures (Stalin vs leftist Trotsky vs the centrists Kamenev & Zinoviev vs rightist Bukharin) and then Khrushchev vs Malenkov; later it was Khrushchev vs the "hardliners" Brezhnev & Kosygin. Khrushchev was even ousted by Brezhnev. In China, it was the Gang of Four and the "hardliners" vs Deng Xiaoping and the "moderates", and on and on. This is similar to what we we have been witnessing in the IRI, and it existed in the 1980's too to some extent (when it was the "Islamic right" which included Khamenei and others versus the "Islamic left" which included Mousavi and the IRI's future so-called "reformists"). In the USSR and China there were/are one acceptable political orientation (Leninism and Maoism, respectively), and in the IRI there is one acceptable political orientation, Khomeinism. None of this should be mistaken for an "evolving political scenario" in a fundamental sense or a genuine democratic "evolution"--any more than it did in the USSR or China. Rather, the transition to democracy has come with Regime Change and/or collapse, e.g. in Poland, Argentina, South Africa, Germany, Japan, Italy, etc. Regards.
Mammad, you did not respond to my post the first time
by AMIR1973 on Sun Aug 08, 2010 08:16 PM PDTSo I'll try one more time:
First of all, someone said the reformists have been in power since 1981. Nonsense. Anyone who knows anything about Iran of after revolution knows that the ideas for reform were born in the 1990s.
Was Mousavi "prime minister" of the IRI from 1981-1989? The nucleus of the current "reformists" are the "Islamic left" of the 1980s (e.g. Mousavi, Mousavi-Khoeiniha, Nabavi, etc); hostage takers (e.g. Ebtekar, Abdi); folks promoted by Mousavi in his "cabinet" (e.g. Mohtashemipour, Khatami); individuals who played a key role in founding the IRI's terrorist intelligence apparatus (e.g. Saeed Hajarian); and its "Islamic Cultural Revolution", i.e. purging of universities, etc (e.g. Mostafa Moin, Kadivar, Soroush). Before he died, Khalkhali (aka the Hanging Judge) was also considered one of the "reformists". Every single one of these individuals have participated in the IRI's dirty deeds from its earliest days and are still devoted to Khomeini (i.e. the Number One killer of Iranian men, women, and children).
After "Emam" died in 1989 and Khamenei became the Leader, this faction of the IRI was out of power. In the 1990s, they arose as the IRI's "reformist" faction. There's a term for such a phenomenon: it's call rebranding. It means selling old wine in new bottles. Regards.
mammad
by Ari Siletz on Sun Aug 08, 2010 07:48 PM PDTThanks for taking the time to express an informed outlook.
Mammad Aga
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Sun Aug 08, 2010 02:02 PM PDTJust to be very clear: I do have a problem with anyone being called names. That includes you. I do not call you names and you know it. I also rather Fred did not call you names. Happy now?
You seem alright with Haji so I figure that is not precived as an insult but I have been careful not to even say that. "Mammad Aga" is also not an insult nor meant to be. Some people like the "xmaster" on the other hand have no problem calling me "KKK"; "bigot" and so on. But that is not your fault and I just bring it up as an example not to blame you.
Regarding Shariati: we bring him up because of his legacy. He was very charismatic but full of BS. He used his power of persuasion to mislead many youth of the nation. That is why we regard him in infamy. Who cares if he is dead? Don't Shia disparage Shemr and Yazid? Therefore we are not doing anything that is not already practiced by Iranians.
By the way: Freds arguments are often quite good. I don't agree with many of his positions. But he does make very good arguments. Why don't you refute them.
Mammad,
by No Fear on Sun Aug 08, 2010 01:07 PM PDTMany on this site agree with the evolution route in oppose to the revolution. And i agree with you that the majority of Iranians inside Iran are not revolutionaries , therefore, the revolution route can not come to fruitation on its own, without extensive help from foreign governments. Which in that case, any attempt to topple the regime ,would be detected and dealt with accordingly.
But i don't believe those who you cheer for are capable of pushing " reform " agenda forward.
While Khatami's relative press freedom allowed for a hand full of newspapers to be critical of the conservative rightwing views in that time, today we have hundreds of newspapers, weblogs, groups, etc that are critisizing our government harshly and pushing the status quo limits everyday. It seems to me that the current rightwing administration is far more tolerant towards critisism than any previous administration in IR history.
I can assure you that if this administration really wanted to shut down all these papers, they can do it with ease if they really want to. On the contrary, quite the opposite has happened. Never before in IR history we have witnessed such relative openness , debates on national TV, talks about referendum, critisizing governmental policies, providing a podium for opposition to express its views etc etc etc .
With the support of IRGC , the administration could have prevented such freedoms if they really wanted to. ( A few papers have been shut down in courts of laws for not being able to support their acusations or due to financial difficulties ).
The truth is that every concept that a leftwing reformist wishes for, a rightwing taboo breaker has made it a reality.
While i respect your views and what you stand for, i can not understand your support for an incompetent team which had the support of %85 voters ( A strong majority ) a total of 20 million votes, and the only thing they can show for 8 years of running the government is to allow publication of papers which supported their ideas. Their foreign policy was a complete disaster and they did not do any better in regards to the economy either.
While your team era is over, your ideas are alive ( which is the goal of every true iranian ). However, your movement suffers from lack of testicular fortitude and capable leaders. Your credibility is also under question for aligning yourselves with some of the most corrupt politicians in Iran recent history. For all these reasons, you have lost half of your supporters from 20 million votes ( Khatami ) to 10 million votes ( Mousavi ).
To claim that after your disasterous results in running the governemnt for two terms, you are still entitled to have 20 millions votes and anything less than that must be an election fraud, only points to your revolutionary mindset which does not tolerate any opposing views to its own and can not accept the results.
To push reform in Iran, true taboo breaking leaders are needed.
Do you want me to show you one?
Mammad, thanks for your response
by Marjaneh on Sun Aug 08, 2010 11:35 AM PDT1. It was this sentence alone:
"Only a totally blind and deaf person cannot see such facts and realities."
It has connotations of discrimination against blind and deaf people. For all you know, I and/or other posters/readers might be deaf and/or blind, both of which conditions wouldn't render me or anyone else, incapable of grasping particular facts.
2. Thanks, yes I do remember you typing that before. ;)
Your last paragraph:
"The difference between people like me and some of you is not in what we
want - a democratic secular republic - rather in the path that we
believe Iran needs to take to get there. Reform, as I defined it, is
not an end by itself, rather a tool of getting to what I believe in.
The alternative is either a bloody revolution, or a civil war. Make
your choice. Be my guest."
My problem is that no matter how much tweaking, an Islamic theocracy will remain one. If "reform" would change its foundations, it would at least take quite a few decades. In the meantime...
Also, if Kadivar's drivel is an example of a reformist, may all the aliens help us! Clarity, seriously isn't exactly his forte, is it.
I am against violence, except that a Pragmatic Pacifist has a right to self-defense....
„Podrán cortar todas las flores, pero no podrán detener la primavera."- Pablo Neruda
Haji Islamist liar
by Fred on Sun Aug 08, 2010 11:42 AM PDTYou’re used to wall-sniffing sycophants who agree with all the nonsense you spew. Lobbying for the Islamist Rapists might get you NIOC paid for position and save you from working with your mortgage selling Islamist guru, but it also comes with people like me challenging your lies ever step of the way. As the world renowned scientist did on VOA to that poor slob renowned wannabe in borrowed ill fitting suit and matching tie.
You said president Obama had not said what the link I provided that he had said. Instead of acting like a normal human being for once in your deceit packed life, you go into your nonsense which is good for the said wall-sniffer.
At this late stage of your life having chosen failed ideology one after another, isn’t it time to let go of charlatan Ali Sharaiati and join the normal people?
Ps. Amir1973 in his usual way did a thorough job of debunking your Islamist “reformist” way nonsense, but being a charlatan Ali Shariati follower, you guessed it, you got no shame.
Mammad
by benross on Sun Aug 08, 2010 11:27 AM PDTYou are right. I didn't read your garbage. I only read the small part that IC sends me in an email. Actually I didn't read the interview of this blog. Because I don't give a damn what the reactionary people think. I also informed the readers about my stance. In this case, the link provided by Fred was very informative and I thanked him. If you want to know what is going on about nuclear proliferation policy, that clears things fairly well.
Marhoom jaan
by Mammad on Sun Aug 08, 2010 10:46 AM PDTNote how none of these guys actually responded to my long comment. None has anything to say. None can refute anything about what I said about revolution as opposed to evolution. None has anything to say about what has happened over the past 30 years. None has any solution. All they offer is hollow, baseless, hatred-filled slogans.
The AIPAC Mafioso, known as Prophet Fred, has to even spin his own lies in order to "respond." Note how he did not say a word about my response to his "path to nuclear weapon capability." Note how he cannot respond to any of the "nuclear weapon capability" of all the nations that I mentioned. Note how he has absolutely nothing to say about what Amano said, or what it takes to have a nuclear bomb, or Iran's contaminated LEU.
When Prophet Fred runs out of everything, he resorts to Dr. Shariati, a man who passed away 33 years ago! That shows the depth of bankruptcy of his "arguments."He thinks that by bringing Shariati in, he hurts me. In fact, since he has never read a page of Dr. Shariati's work, he does not know that a lot of Dr. Shariati's work was exactly about people like Prophet Fred, people who try to fool others by their lies, by hatred-filled bigotted "writings," by being agents of others.
Then, he talks about the VOA interview with the "real world renown scientists!" Yeah, right! And this, from a man who has absolutely zero achievement in his life, other than being a Prophet!
I never supported or support any sanctions, unless it can be shown that it will not hurt ordinary people. In practice, there is no such sanction.
And, I do not care about these guys think. They are entitled to their opinion, but also am I. They can call me Haji, Islamist, clawn, IRI supporter, etc. Of course, the other Prophet, the one from Khorasan, has no problems with such labels given to me, but criticizes me!! These people think that they can scare me with their nonsense, or get to me. That by itself is another nonsense! I am here to stay. If this is the best they have in their 'arsenal," they have gotten nothing!
Mammad
Thanks for the link Fred
by benross on Sun Aug 08, 2010 09:41 AM PDTI rather go to the source than watching this clown juggler.
//www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/06arms.html
green light (to mammad)
by marhoum Kharmagas on Sun Aug 08, 2010 09:39 AM PDTMammad jaan, despite your green light (your support for some sort of sanction against Iran), neither the AIPAC sycophants nor the AIPACi himself let go off you! Even the Chained Prophet from your velayat is still unhappy? .... joking aside, thanks for your informative comment right below.
Mammad,
by AMIR1973 on Sun Aug 08, 2010 09:30 AM PDTFirst of all, someone said the reformists have been in power since 1981. Nonsense. Anyone who knows anything about Iran of after revolution knows that the ideas for reform were born in the 1990s.
Was Mousavi "prime minister" of the IRI from 1981-1989? The nucleus of the current "reformists" are the "Islamic left" of the 1980s (e.g. Mousavi, Mousavi-Khoeiniha, Nabavi, etc); hostage takers (e.g. Ebtekar, Abdi); folks promoted by Mousavi in his "cabinet" (e.g. Mohtashemipour, Khatami); individuals who played a key role in founding the IRI's terrorist intelligence apparatus (e.g. Saeed Hajarian); and its "Islamic Cultural Revolution", i.e. purging of universities, etc (e.g. Mostafa Moin, Kadivar, Soroush). Before he died, Khalkhali (aka the Hanging Judge) was also considered one of the "reformists". Every single one of these individuals have participated in the IRI's dirty deeds from its earliest days and are still devoted to Khomeini (i.e. the Number One killer of Iranian men, women, and children).
After "Emam" died in 1989 and Khamenei became the Leader, this faction of the IRI was out of power. In the 1990s, they arose as the IRI's "reformist" faction. There's a term for such a phenomenon: it's call rebranding. It means seeling old wine in new bottles. Regards.
Haji Islamist liar 2
by Fred on Sun Aug 08, 2010 09:28 AM PDT“what Obama supposedly said” Haji sack of Islamist liar that is a direct quote from New York Times with link provided to double check it.
As a sack of Islamist liar you simply do not have any shame. Then again as a charlatan Ali Shariati follower and a lifelong Islamist you are immune to the whole concept.
Now spin your nonsense like you do on the other site and get called on it all the time.
BTW did you watch VOA, a real world renowned scientist let a wannabe have it about the exact nonsense you say here. Khodeti Haji!
Yeah right!
by Mammad on Sun Aug 08, 2010 09:13 AM PDTYeah, right!
First of all, what Obama supposedly said (because that is a quote) is vastly different from your lies. As they say in Iran, baraaye tanvir-e afkaar-e omoomi:
A path to nuclear weapon capability is vastly different from what your lies always claim. To make a bomb, not only a nation must have a uranium enrichment program that can enrich it to 90 percent or higher - which the IRI cannot do - but also can make a miniturized nuclear warhead out of the bomb, have a delivery system, have high explosives to trigger a nuclear device, etc., etc. How many componenmts does Iran have? Even its primitive enrichment program has run into trouble.
And, what is not mentioned is that Iran's produced low-enriched uranium is contaminated, rendering it useless for both fuel, and if enriched to 90 percent, for a bomb. Only France has got the technology to remove the contamination. This is what a former deputy director of the IAEA for Safeguards told me last year.
Yukio Amano, the IAEA Director recently said, "We do not accuse Iran of having a nuclear weapon program. We want to clarify certain aspects of the nuclear program" ("gharib beh mazmoon").
Secondly, saying that a nation that has uranium enrichment program is on a "path" to a deliverable nuclear bomb is like saying anyone who goes to college and studies science is on a path to greatness, or a Nobel Prize! Yeah right! As the following article
//original.antiwar.com/sahimi/2010/05/04/iran...
makes it abundantly clear, Iran has been on such a path for 3 decades, but has not been able to go anywhere.
By such "standards," Japan is far ahead of Iran in a "nuclear weapon program." All members of the Eurodif consortium that produces enriched uranium are far ahead. Brazil is far ahead. South Africa is already there. Argentina is far ahead. All members of the second European consortium that makes enriched uranium are far ahead. South Korea, Taiwan, and Egypt - all US allies and all caught by the IAEA experimenting with making of a nuclear bomb, but got a pass - are far ahead.
No one says that these nations have a "nuclear weapon program."
Haj Mammad
P.S.: my apologies for hiding my identity in my last response to you when I forgot to put Haj in front of my name.
Mammad Aga
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Sun Aug 08, 2010 08:48 AM PDTWe don't need your insults to Fred. The days when we needed Shariati and Co to tell us what to think are gone. We have learned to think for ourselves. I know what is that Fred and you stand for. I suspect that so do most other readers.
By resorting to insults right after suggesting a reasoned discussion you are not scoring points. Seriously I have my differences with Fred. But he makes more reasoned and logical arguments than you. Plus to his great credit Fred does not follow Shariati.
Marjaneh
by Mammad on Sun Aug 08, 2010 08:44 AM PDT1. I do not see why I should retract anything. First, tell me which of the undisputed facts you dispute - what has happened over the past 30 years or since last year, which is what I referring to.Then, tell me why it is or was offensive. Clearly, if I find anything offensive in what I said, I retract it.
2. As for your rights, I have always said that I believe in and support a democratic secular republic in which religion is separated from governance. Clearly, such a republic, if it ever comes to power, will respect the rights of the all of its citizens, including women and ethnic and religious minorities.
The difference between people like me and some of you is not in what we want - a democratic secular republic - rather in the path that we believe Iran needs to take to get there. Reform, as I defined it, is not an end by itself, rather a tool of getting to what I believe in. The alternative is either a bloody revolution, or a civil war. Make your choice. Be my guest.
Mammad
Haji Islamist liar
by Fred on Sun Aug 08, 2010 08:39 AM PDTSack of Islamist liar, here is a random search on what President Obama is convinced of your Islamist Rapists’ nuke program.
You are just an Islamist sack of liar which for a charlatal Ali Shariati follower is a normal state of being.
Mr. Obama said he was now convinced that “the current course they’re on would provide them with nuclear weapons capabilities,” though he gave no timeline.
" //www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/06arms.html
AIPAC Mafioso
by Mammad on Sun Aug 08, 2010 08:27 AM PDTFrom now on whenever you post a "blog," I will point out your lies in the comment section. To begin with though, you always use the "illegal nuclear program" and "weaponized nuclear program." Both are lies. Neither the IAEA, nor the UN, nor the US (even under the Bush, let alone Obama) has ever made such claims. That is a lie that your handlers have told you to propagate.
Mammad
Marjaneh Jan
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Sun Aug 08, 2010 05:14 AM PDTPlease do not hold your breath on Mammad. He represents the 60s way of Islamist thinking. This is similar to Kadivar and Shariati. They will not admit their little Islamic utopia is a real hell. They are going to play games with logic and bend the truth to shove it nonsense down our throats. The be4st cure for them is time. Like other dinasours they will be extinct.
To have rights we do not need gradual reform. Reza Shah showed that Iran was quite ready for removal of Hijab decades ago. All it takes is brave people to stand up to these throwbacks and we will have true equal rights. Let the Islamists scream that they are offended.
thex...
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Sun Aug 08, 2010 05:04 AM PDTYou need to learn politeness and manners. Until that time you don't deserve getting your name mentioned properly either. Calling me a bigot in particular shows you know nothing of me. First you assumed I was pro death penalty. I said I was not. Now you make this new mistake.
You do provide some mild amusement this Sunday morning so I will take the time to reply. Now to address you flawed logic.
I said and stick to saying that following Islam 100% makes you violent. Here is one example:
According to Islam a Muslim must murder anyone who turns away from Islam. There are many out there who have turned from Islam. That is real violence. Most Muslims do not go out of their way to track down and murder these people. That is because they do not follow Islam 100%.
There are other parts to Islam. Like prayer and rules on how to wash yourself. Following those does not have much to do with violence. They are however superstitions.
I said if you took out: violence; superstition and lies there will be nothing left. Still say it.
Regarding Christianity. I am no big fan of it. But it was founded on love and "turn the other cheek". Islam was founded on the power of the sword. So it gave Christianity a leg up. The violence in Christianity was a form of corruption that reform took out. The violence in Islam is inherent and cannot be taken out by reform.
In addition Islam is not in a vacuum. The Islamic scholars are well aware of reforms in Christianity. Why have they chosen to go the other way? Because they know as well as I do that reform will gut out Islam. Without threat of violence Muslims will leave Islam in droves as they gain knowledge. This is happening with Iranian diaspora as people without much fanfare leave Islam and save themselves the misery it brought.
As for the solution it is simple and I just said it: without fear of persecution Muslims will leave Islam on their own. We need to do nothing other than prevent the rabid ones from doing violence. Enforce the civil laws against violence. Give people choice of freedom of religion and the rest will happy by itself. Watch what happens in free world.
Regarding calling me a bigot. Here is a definition for "bigot" from the dictionary. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. It sounds to me like a good definition of a Muslim. Ironic that in defense of Islam you are accusing me of what Muslims generally do.
The only thing I am intolerant of is intolerance.
AMIR1973 and Mammad
by Marjaneh on Sun Aug 08, 2010 03:57 AM PDTMammad
Please, retract this sentence of yours, for very obvious reasons:
"Only a totally blind and deaf person cannot see such facts and realities."
I've got a question. Under your envisaged "reformed" Islamic Theocracy/Mullahtocracy what - if any - are my rights, especially as a woman?
And if I have any rights, especially unalienable natural rights as stipulated by the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, where is the separation of legislative powers to enforce and uphold my rights?
AMIR1973, thank you for taking the time to explain. ;)
(I've gone against my better judgment and am posting on this thread again. Argh!)
„Podrán cortar todas las flores, pero no podrán detener la primavera."- Pablo Neruda
Haji Islamist
by Fred on Sun Aug 08, 2010 03:28 AM PDTIn defense of the “reformist” branch of Islamist Rapists, after a long essay of his usual nonsense Hiji Islamist says:
“Let see whether any of you can respond to me in the same way that I wrote these lines - calm, reasoned (regardless of whether you agree with the reason), and based on historical facts.”
Ok fair enough, but shouldn’t you be practicing what you claim when few comments below you’ve said:
“The AIPAC Mafioso - known as Fred in this site - wants the truth. First of all, you cannot handle the truth! Secondly, why don't you start from your own blog in each of which there are several lies that are consistently repeated, as if "baa halvaa halvaa goftan dahaan shirin misheh!"
Calm and reasoned, islamist way perhaps but a sack of Islamist liar for not providing any evidence as demanded. Khodeti Haji!
Here are some answers
by Mammad on Sat Aug 07, 2010 10:07 PM PDTFirst of all, my apologies to those of you who asked me questions politely, or commented politely on what I said, for being late. I had not returned to this until now.
As I said, some of you act like "jen va besmellah!" As soon as you hear "reformist," you jump. But, the fact is, according to social/political science, a society either revolts against tyranny - which rules Iran right now - or tries to change it over time by an evolutionary process, which is nothing but reform. There is no other way. I challenge those of you who reacted to what I said to show a credible third way, not of your own invention, but by some recognized thinker.
So, you can be either for revolution or evolution. Either one is fine with me. I am just expressing my opinion. But, if you are for revolution, you must spell out its details.
(1) Why do you think that the country is in a revolutionary state, without which there can be no revolution?
(2) If the country is in a revolutionary state, then why after over 13 months since June 2009 the Revolution has not occured? In fact, things are calmer now than last year.
(3) Who is the leader of this revolution? A revolution needs a leader - whereas that is not necessarily true about evolution.
Now, regarding evolution, i.e., reform:
First of all, someone said the reformists have been in power since 1981. Nonsense. Anyone who knows anything about Iran of after revolution knows that the ideas for reform were born in the 1990s. I suggest to those of you with such thinking to come out of your ivory tower and go to other websites to read Iran's history. IC is not even representative of a typical good Iranian website (with all due respect for JJ). Go to PBS/Frontline/Tehran Bureau site and read the articles on what has happened over the past 30 years with tons of references.
Secondly, when one talks about reform, one does not mean the tried-and-failed tactics. Yes, the attempts for reforms of Khatami failed to a large extent - although it also had many achievements (see below). But there were two reasons for the failure:
(i) Khatami of that era was not the man to lead the reform. When he withdrew last year from election, he told his angry young supporters that, "I know that I get the votes. But, I am the man of Friday (the day of voting), Mir Hossein is the man of Saturday" - meaning that he is the one who can resist the hardliners after the election (although even Khatami himself has changed dramatically over the past year). Time has proven him correct.
(ii) In 1997-2004 people were not as ready as they are today. They voted for Khatami and the reformists overwhelmingly in 1997 and 2000, but stayed away in the next few years. When the reformists staged a sit-in in 2004 to protest their elimination from the election for the 7th Majles, no one cared. The same people showed up last year in overwhelming numbers after the election fraud. That is what evolution/reform is all about. Why? Because evolution brought the society closer to what it takes to make deep and lasting changes.
So, when I say evolution and reform, I do not mean the same old, the same old. Rather, new ways. First and foremost, the democratic movement - i.e., the Green movement - should spread to all the strata of the society. You guys underestimate the strength of the hardliners, and also think that 85% of the people are in overwhelming support of the movement. Nonsense. 85% of the people are dissatisfied for ONE REASON OR ANOTHER. But, that is different from saying 85% are willing to do anything to get rid of the hardliners. You guys act as if the most important issue for the 85% is political/social freedom. Nonsense again. It is only so for a fraction of the middle class, upper middle class, and some upper class. That is what social/political science teaches us. Iran is not "taafteh jodaa baafteh" to be excluded from such general rules.
But, we do not need political/social science to know this. I ask, aside from Tehran and a couple of other large cities, why were there not large-scale demonstrations in the rest of Iran last year?
On the other hand, if you believe, as many of you seem to, that the vast majority of Iranians are dirt poor as a result of the IRI rule, then, what percentage are middle and upper class, and what fraction of them focus on political/social freedom? I actually believe that the middle class now is much broader than say, in the last years of the Shah.
Let me give you an example. The lower class, and especially the day laborers, were the last segment of the society that joined the 1979 Revolution. Why? Because they were too busy trying to make ends meet. Same is true now.
Ask youself: why have we not seen large-scale wildcat strikes? Why the oil industry has not gone on strike? Also ask yourself: At what stage of the 1979 revolution, such strikes began? Right after the riots in Qom in January 1978, or in the Fall of 1978 when the Revolution was in full swing?
So, as Mir Hossein said, the first step is to make all strata of the society aware that their concerns - whatever they are - are the concerns of the movement. If they are concerned about jobs, so also is the movement, because we believe that the hardliners are totally incompetent when it comes to economy. If their concern is affordable housing, it is also a concern of the movement, because we believe that "zamin khaaraan" helped by the hardliners are responsible for this. And, of course, if political/social freedom is the issue, it is also the issue for the movement.
It is then, AND ONLY THEN - when the nation is fully aware of this - i.e., when the vast majority recognizes that its aspirations, whatever they are, are represented by the Green Movement - that the movement can take the next steps, such as strikes, civil disobedience, etc. That is what I call evolution/reform, as opposed to revolution.
Let me give you my opinion about how long this would take. In my opinion, up to two years, not 5 or 10. The nation will be where it should be in at most 2 years.
Someone asked me to count the successes of the reformists. There are many. The very fact that we are where we are owes it to a very large extent to the reform movement. But, let me give you two striking examples:
Between 8000 to 12000 political prisoners were executed in the 1980s, but "aab az abb tekaan nakhord." No protest, nothing. Today, the hardlners cannot even execute 10 people without paying an extrewmely heavy price for it. Why? Because the relatively free press of 1997-2000 revealed tons and tons about those crimes.
Why something like Chain Murders that began in 1988 and ended in 1998 cannot happen, and has not? Again, because of all those courageous journalists who took advantage of the relatively free press of 1997-2000 and revealed the depth of the catastrophe.
Only a totally blind and deaf person cannot see such facts and realities.
Let see whether any of you can respond to me in the same way that I wrote these lines - calm, reasoned (regardless of whether you agree with the reason), and based on historical facts.
Mammad
VPP
by thexmaster on Sat Aug 07, 2010 06:55 PM PDTIf VPP is not you, then there was no reason for you to reply to my first post. Since you did reply, you know it was directed at you and acknowledged it by making the misspelling your first and very important issue. Now, we'll just have to wait and see if you'll reply to this one.
So, you're saying that following Islam 100% will make you violent. But if you follow it partially, you will not be violent meaning there must be peaceful aspects to Islam afterall though theres that threshhold that will lead to violence. I'm just dissecting here what you learned in your logic and reasoning 101 course. Since you acknowledge that you can be a peaceful muslim by not following it 100%, then it's possible it can lead down the same the path of Christianity and be reformed through widespread partial belief. You say its a waste of time, but Christianity has 700 years on Islam. If your solution isn't gradual reform, then you must be advocating something more radical...
I use "verbal abuse" to communicate better with rabid bigots and liars who use generalizations and emotion to push their agenda. If I were truly an Islamist, I wouldn't have spent my time verbally abusing the IRI supporters here. I'm offended by your hateful ignorance, yet amused by your perception of superiority in logic. Looking forward to seeing what else you learned in your logic course.
Thanks dear Ari for your good effort
by Shazde Asdola Mirza on Fri Aug 06, 2010 04:59 PM PDTEvery voice counts! Every action counts!
Ali Lakani
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Fri Aug 06, 2010 03:01 PM PDT