Iranian nationalism

Fred
by Fred
18-Sep-2010
 



“It is not [a signs of] nationalism when Cyrus is praised, he has done a good deed which needs to be acknowledged. And we are proud that he is Iranian.”

The above statement is from Ahmadinejd. Even when out of sheer desperation and/or necessity Islamists  try to act nationalistic, it comes across as phony as a two dollar bill.  Rather than being proud of their national heritage, it is something they apologize and make excuses to justify for showing any feelings for it.
It seems to be Like water and oil not mixing, there is no getting away from the fact that Islamist and nationalism do not mix. Even when  a clueless like Mehdi Bazargan tried to  be both, Islamist and nationalist, at the same time, they tend to err on the side of Islamist than nationalist.
My question is could one ever be both, an Islamist and nationalist at the same time and stay true to both opposing dogmas?

Share/Save/Bookmark

Recently by FredCommentsDate
ادا اطوار اسلامی
5
Dec 05, 2012
مسجد همجنسگرایان
1
Dec 05, 2012
Iranians are legitimate target
10
Dec 04, 2012
more from Fred
 
Reality-Bites

Bazargan clear minded? That's a good one!

by Reality-Bites on

by Mammad on

 ...1. Bazargan confused? Few, if any, politician over the last century, have been as clear-minded as Bazargan. He consistently criticized the most powerful men of his time - first the Shah and then Ayatollah Khomeini, the latter at the height of his popularity right after the revolution, even when he himself was the PM. These are all well documented and have not been earased from people's historical memories, despite the best efforts of people like this guy. Bazargan and his comrades drafted a completely democratic constitution without any special role or rights for the clerics (and he even got the Ayatollah's signature on it), and only 9 months after the Revolution, when he recognized that he could no longer work within the system, he resigned, and became a critic of the Ayatollah until he passed away in 1995.As Bazargan famously put it, "We want Islam for our Aakharat, but the Ayatollah wants it for this world." Confused? If he was confused, then who was not?....

 ======================================================

Anyone who had knowledge of Khomeini’s views and a modicum of common sense could see that he was a narrow-minded, reactionary and intolerant religious zealot, decades before the Revolution of 1979. This was clear when Khomeini publicly and repeatedly spoke out against Shah’s reforms of 1963, regardless of what one thinks of Shah.

For example Khomeini denounced Shah’s proposal to give improve women's rights and land reforms to end the domination of big feudal landowners in Iran. Just as illuminating were Khomeini’s speeches and dictats during the Revolution that should’ve alerted any sensible person that this religious relic wanted HIS Islamic Republic and would not tolerate any dissent to the contrary. And there were many in Iran at the time that (not least Bakhtiyar) who continually warned about Khomeini’s true motives and plans.

So, if Bazargan was so "clear minded", how is it that he was so blind to the true nature of Khomeini until 9 months AFTER the Islamic Republic took power? More importantly, why would anyone with any sense whatsoever think they could've worked with/for and entrusted the future of the country to this backward Akhund, given his views and history, in the first place?


Fred

Sack of Islamist liar

by Fred on

Your Islamist version of history is different than what has actually happened. As an Islamist you are entitled to your version of history, but that does not change what has happened.
The question posed was about Islamists  and had nothing to do with those who practice Islam.
You Islamists love to confuse the two, nothing doing. Islamism is a wacky political movement while Islam is a religion.
BTW, you left out being an Islamist liar, which you just proved once again by accusing me of being anti-Islam which is a death fatwa. 

ps. obviously it was meant to be a three dollar bill, my mistake.  

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=as%20phony%20as%20a%20three%20dollar%20bill


reader1

Mammad: You make sense

by reader1 on

Fred needs help to free himself for this obsessive and irrational hatred  of Moslems.

A non-practicing moslem and non-nationalist reader - known to Fred as a confused Hajji!


Roozbeh_Gilani

Fred, wrong when you say: "Islamist and nationalism do not mix"

by Roozbeh_Gilani on

Nationalism as the last resort of any desparate tin pot dictator , mixes well with any crap added to it. It is a bit like having your cake and eating it too. Following Hitler's "national Socialism", dont be surprised to hear something like "National velayate faghihism", from mahmood bi mokh's "school of political science".


Real McCoy

Thanks Mammad

by Real McCoy on

Very true.


Mammad

You are the one who want to confuse people!

by Mammad on

This posting is a perfect example of the author long-established "distinguished" track record of trying to confuse people and distort history, in order to advocate his well-known hatred of Muslims and Islam. Aside from the fact that I always give my Iranian students crisp $2 bills every Norooz as their eidi, consider the following:

1. Bazargan confused? Few, if any, politician over the last century, have been as clear-minded as Bazargan. He consistently criticized the most powerful men of his time - first the Shah and then Ayatollah Khomeini, the latter at the height of his popularity right after the revolution, even when he himself was the PM. These are all well documented and have not been earased from people's historical memories, despite the best efforts of people like this guy. Bazargan and his comrades drafted a completely democratic constitution without any special role or rights for the clerics (and he even got the Ayatollah's signature on it), and only 9 months after the Revolution, when he recognized that he could no longer work within the system, he resigned, and became a critic of the Ayatollah until he passed away in 1995.As Bazargan famously put it, "We want Islam for our Aakharat, but the Ayatollah wants it for this world." Confused? If he was confused, then who was not?

2. Forouhar and his wife? They were practicing Muslims and very pious. In fact, that was precisely why they were murdered. Saeed Emami and his murderous team, together with their masters, were afraid of people such as Forouhar, because they were true practicing Muslims (not like what we have in the power hierarchy now), but like Bazargan were also nationalists and, therefore, extremely popular. Accoprding to Shirin Ebadi and Nasser Zarafshan, the two attorneys of the Forouhar family who had read the complete file on the gang, that is what had been discussed among the gang. But, this guy is trying to confuse the reader by claiming otherwise. Why? Because in this guy's opinion, the only good Muslims are dead Muslims.

3. Can one be a true muslim and nationalist too? How many do you want me to name? From Yadollah, Ezatollah, and Fereydoon Sahabi, to the great Ayatollah Mahmoud Taleghani, to Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh's clerical supporters - Ayatollahs Milani, Zanjani, and Taleghani - to Dr. Habibollah Payman, .......I can keep counting for the foreseeable future.

This is what one gets when an imbecile man with an agenda of propagating hatred against Muslims and Islam can post "blogs."And, of course, the usual suspects who want surgical strike on Iran and propose assassination jump in and do their usual act of "bah bah, chah chah."

Haj Mammad, the Islamist, nuke lover Dr. stangelove, follower of Charlatan Shariati, NIOC Chair .... (did I leave any of my labels out?), and a proud practicing Muslim nationalist


mahmoudg

well done Fred

by mahmoudg on

Your writing types are certainly a breath of fresh air, that always rings truth.  Have no love lost for Bazargan (although him and the same gentleman whose picture i have adopted as my avatar), used to speak with each other many times before and after the revolution about matters of state and in particular, Hoveyda's fate), in my mind was a traitor.  Just because one realizes ones mistakes, does not and should not absolve him/her of shouldering the responsibility.  Bazargan took to the grave what he had unleashed on Iran, and he was too troubled or fearful to standup to these Rapist, denounce them and apologize to the Iranian Nation for unleashing the devil on Iran.  He took this to his grave and history will not be kind to him.


Fred

Simorgh5555

by Fred on

To label Bazargan  as a liberal nationalist is a disservice to him.
Albeit a moderate, Mehdi Bazargan was a lifelong Islamist whose confusion about mixing nationalism with Islamism dogged him to his last breath on board an airplane taking him to a  medical facility outside Iran.
Forouhars (Parvaneh & Daryoush) on the other hand had not an Islamist bone in their bodies and paid for their belief by being butchered by the Islamist Rapists.


Simorgh5555

Excellent Fred

by Simorgh5555 on

Bazargan was confused for sure. Many liberal nationalists like him such as Dariush Furuhar ended up paying with their lives because of the Frankenstein monster the created. The Iranian Left - with a few exceptions who are decent and honourable - are always a sorry lot.


پندارنیک

Cyrus VS Emamzadeh Davood

by پندارنیک on

 

 

"[C]ould one ever be both, an Islamist and nationalist at the same time and stay true to both opposing dogmas?"

I think a Shia is the closest to an Iranian nationalist. Nationalism does not necessarily mean going to the root of nation, but keeping a nation together.


Sargord Pirouz

"Fred" writing type C

by Sargord Pirouz on

Huh?

"Fred," two dollar bills are legal tender in the US. Have you never seen one? (Evidence of a non-American writer.)

And yes, praise for Cyrus can be interpreted as supranational; that is to say an embracement for all of humanity. 

"Fred" writing type C," at its worst. Blog post uploaded during what is generally considered non-American waking hours.