homo sacer

I agree, VPK.

We are done. Consider our exchange a form of socratic maieutic.

This

discussion is coming to a close real fast. Now that you are using insults like: tea party and right wing blah blah. So this is the last post.

• 99 % of Iran is not Muslim by any stretch. Just because people are afraid to tell their real beliefs does not make them. Islam has always lied about its numbers.
• I denounce a violent cult that instructs its followers to murder. To force religion on others. That does not make me a right winger. It makes me a normal person intending to live free. I also denounce other similar beliefs: Nazi; KKK; and the like. When a "religion" demands murder of innocents it should be opposed.

آفتاب در آمد دلیل آفتاب

HG,

If you read the last paragraph of my post more patiently, you will find that I listed four options, each starting with “we can…”  There was no reference to any particular commenter, or group of commenters. I suspect that the third option is the one bothering you, but I may be wrong. The fact that you took this post personally is worrisome to me. I should work on explaining my thoughts much better, so that there is no room for any misunderstanding.

Beyond that initial misunderstanding, the rest of your comment is very revealing. I learned that, my “blog has no point at all”, that I am “clueless”, that I “just committed the same crime”, and I am “not wearing the pale[s]tinian cause on [my] sleeve.”

What other sin I am guilty of, hamsayeh?

P.S.Thank you for proving the point of this blog.

Dear VPK,

I agree with you that some, but not necessarily all, Islamists want to reincarnate Islamic era. As you know, many reformists in Iran claim that their goal is to reconcile Islam with modernity. You consider Iranian reformists Islamist. Don’t you?

Rejecting my assertion about the need for an evolutionary process in Iran, you wrote, “It took a single courageous Supreme Court decision” to end slavery and segregation. Forgive me if I point to your sloppy use of historical facts. Slavery ended in the U.S. in 1865 (passage of the 13nt amendment by the Congress). The Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968 outlawed segregation. While decisions by the Supreme Court (e.g. the Dred Scott decision) have had major influence over the race-related issues in this country, no “single courageous Supreme Court decision” has done anything close to ending slavery and segregation, at once. Furthermore, the passage of laws rejecting practices of slavery and segregation did not fall from the sky. They were the results of centuries of struggle by non-whites, and “proactive engagement” of the abolitionists.  (Do me a favor; do not ignore my reference to ‘the kid in the candy store.’)

The same applies to your reference to “gender equality and religious freedom before the 1979 disaster.” Both the Woman Suffrage law and the Family Protection Act of “before the 1979 disaster” had to be sent to Najaf, to be vetted by the shi’iate Ulama, before they could be enacted. Granted, nobody was stoned then for adultery, but honor killing did happen, which I vividly recall. With regard to religious freedom: I personally witnessed a government official urged my Baha’i friend to leave the religion question in the job application questioner unanswered (blank). (circa. 1967) To be fair, some degree of “gender equality and religious freedom” was practiced among - or pretended to by -  more educated and affluent fraction of the Iranian society (say, in the major cities), but such practices did not penetrate more traditional segments (in the poor neighborhoods of cities, or in the rural areas). Let’s not forget that the latter took over after the revolution at the expense of the former.

You ask, “What is their definition of freedom?” Well, as far as I understand, they want to be left alone to practice their religion, Islam, which in most cases contradicts your definition of freedom (in this case, I am on your side). Considering the fact that over 99% of Iran’s population is (in one way or another) Muslim, your (and my) definition of religious freedom is still a hard sell in Iran.

You ended with, “I will support laws that would no longer classify Islam as a peaceful religion. It should be classified as a violent cult instead. No more constitutional protections for its practice in the USA where I live. Treat them in according to how they behave.” You just lost me on this one. I don’t feel the need to dignify your last utterance. Didn’t you write earlier that you live in the 21st century?

On a less serious note: Have you considered joining the Tea Party? Or, any other right wing fringe group?

and the point is...

if your argument that people's comments on this site are meant to be as "commanding those in the streets of Iranian cities" does not hold and instead are expressions of their opinions, then your blog has no point at all. 

put another way, if your idea that people who vote (whether it is counted or not) in elections of a government but should not express their opinions about that government, then you're clueless.

in other words, if you think that some people's opinions on this site are just plain silly like "let's do away with islam," then you just committed the same crime and added to all this silly fun.

don't take this the wrong way, if the commenters on this site had no personal ties in iran as you do, they may not be that passionate about discussing these topics. i take that back, some people are not even iranian on this site and are very passionate about the subjects discusse on this site.  i take it that you're not wearing the paletinian cause on your sleeve.

Dear homo sacer

Response to a few points:

Regarding the Islamic Horrors. I am referring to all the horrors since its inception. From the murder of Jews to invasion of Persia to Taliban to VF to AQ to AN. To 1400 years of insanity and violence.

Regarding going back 1400: I am not the one who wants to go back 1400 years. It is the Islamists and the IRI. I want to live in the 21st century. Not in 7th century Arabia. Lets face it that is the desire of them to at least socially move to that. I agree it is not possible.

However, implementing such a grandiose plan, and turning it into
the law of the land – in place of the shari’ah – will take not only
time but a whole set of socioeconomic and cultural evolutionary steps,
that the West took centuries to absorb, after paying a very high price
for variety of experimentations with social engineering. You and I are
only enjoying the almost-finished product. In my view, it’s juvenile to
act like a kid in a candy store.

This is the same argument people gave to keep segregation and slavery in the USA. "People are not ready for mixing whites and blacks" and such. It took a single courageous Supreme Court decision and now we have a black President. If we wanted to take our time we still be arguing over white-only water fountains.

I remind you we have gender equality and religious freedom before the 1979 disaster. Before Shariati followers decided to take us back 1400 years.

“The problem is that Islamists do not want a free society.” They do want a “free society”. However, their definition of the term is quite different than the one adopted by the West.

What is their definition of freedom? To me it is pretty obvious: free to chose your religion. Free to live and let live. Not to be tortured because you are not a Muslim. Free to go out without a hijab. Free to eat your lunch in peace during Ramadan. Things like this.

“But if they continue to act as they do all bets are off.” Could you be more specific about the way you will react?

I will support laws that would no longer classify Islam as a peaceful religion. It should be classified as a voilent cult instead. No more constitutional protections for its practice in the USA where I live.Treat them in according to how they behave.

Dear VPK,

Allow me to skip the generalities in your response, and comment about those marginally more specific issues you have raised, hoping that we get somewhere in this exchange that is acceptable to both of us.

“When Islamists inflicted their horror on us they should expect a response. There is nothing disappointing about it.” I assume you are referring to the Iranian “Islamists”, not Al-Qaeda, or Taliban? However, please do not leave it to me to determine what you mean by “horror”. Are you seeing the 1979 revolution as an “inflicted” ”horror”? The summary executions? Valayat-e faghih? The war with Iraq? The cultural revolution?Imposition of shari’ah? Quasi-elections? Or, AN’s reaction to the recent post-election protests? Unless I know what “horror” you are pointing to, and what type of “response” you are prescribing, I will not be able to react, let alone joining you. As I wrote in the post, I agree with the need for “response”. This post is however, about the type of “response” I read in IC. In particular those that advocate turning back the clock, fourteen hundred years.

“Are you disappointed that sticking your hand in fire burns it?” Aren’t you aggrandizing what we are doing here, on IC? Do you really believe that if you insult those that disagree with your opinion, you are “sticking your hand in fire”?

“Why do Islamists get to behave any way they want and be excused? But then the rest of the world is supposed to be restrained.” I am sure you realize that you are exaggerating again. As far as I know, in the past 30 years, no country in the world has been scrutinized by the so-called International Community as much as the IR. And, for every banal excuse offered there have been hundreds, if not thousands, of categorical condemnations of its behavior. Just compare the number of ‘for’ and ‘against’ posts on IC. With regard to your reference to “the rest of the world”, do you call the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq – and the constant threat of Iran with a similar fate – restraint?

“We are supposed to understand and take it without a beep. If we do respond then we are accused of being intolerant or racist. Islamist on the other hand are given a free pass to act as they will. Not thanks; not going to happen.” I don’t recall asking anyone to “take it without a beep.” “Being intolerant or racist” should be condemned as evil, irrespective of whether one supports or opposes “Islamists”.

“The question is what kind of future do we want? One steeped in ignorance; superstition; Arab worship; misuse of women. Or one with forward thinking; gender equality; based on knowledge and embracing our true selves.” Well, you and I have already answered this question – by leapfrogging into that “future” we wish for our compatriots back home. As an optimist, I believe those who decided to stay in Iran – or couldn’t leave –will eventually embrace some of the virtues we value so much – if they haven’t done so, already. However, implementing such a grandiose plan, and turning it into the law of the land – in place of the shari’ah – will take not only time but a whole set of socioeconomic and cultural evolutionary steps, that the West took centuries to absorb, after paying a very high price for variety of experimentations with social engineering. You and I are only enjoying the almost-finished product. In my view, it’s juvenile to act like a kid in a candy store.

“I know my choice: I have left Islam and have absolutely no regrets.” Good for you.

“In a free society we will be able to chose for ourselves.
I like the pre Islamic Persian culture.” I would agree with each of these two sentences, independently. However, their juxtaposition baffles me. Please write back an assure me that you don’t believe that in “the Pre Islamic Persian culture”, our ancestors were “able to choose for themselves.” I am sure you know about the fate of Manicheans and Mazdakists.

“The problem is that Islamists do not want a free society.” They do want a “free society”. However, their definition of the term is quite different than the one adopted by the West.

“They want to impose their way. That is the basis of the fight which they will lose.” I agree with both.

“I am willing to give them the space to live their lives if they do the same.” You are giving yourself too much credit.

“But if they continue to act as they do all bets are off.” Could you be more specific about the way you will react?

“I am not the only one feeling this way. It is a large majority of the non Muslim people. Add to it a large group of ex-Muslims who are also done with having things imposed on them.” Is there a reliable poll somewhere, or you are guessing?

I hate to sound cynical. But, ein rah ke to meeravi be turkestaan ast. However, if you decide to take a more modest approach, you will find me on your side.

Dear NP,

If you consider your own contributions to IC as “proactive engagement”, in my view they are more than “justified.” They are necessary.

My response

Before going into details I like to respond to one thing: the response and anger. For every action there is a reaction. This is a law of the universe. When Islamists inflicted their horror on us they should expect a response. There is nothing disappointing about it. Are you disappointed that sticking your hand in fire burns it? Why do Islamists get to behave any way they want and be excused. But then the rest of the world is supposed to be restrained. We are supposed to understand and take it without a beep. If we do respond then we are accused of being intolerant or racist. Islamist on the other hand are given a free pass to act as they will. Not thanks; not going to happen.

Now to the past and future:

The past is not an option. We do not get to go back.
The present is not an option; this disaster must go.
The only option is the future.

The question is what kind of future do we want? One steeped in ignorance; superstition; Arab worship; misuse of women. Or one with forward thinking; gender equality; based on knowledge and embracing our true selves. I know my choice: I have left Islam and have absolutely no regrets.

Of course any path will include much of our past. We need to pick and chose which parts we emphesize.  In a free society we will be able to chose for ourselves.
I like the pre Islamic Persian culture.

The problem is that Islamists do not want a free society. They want to impose their way. That is the basis of the fight which they will lose. I am willing to give them the space to live their lives if they do the same. But if they continue to act as they do all bets are off. I am not the only one feeling this way. It is a large majority of the non Muslim people. Add to it a large group of ex Muslims who are also done with having things imposed on them.

interesting perspective

agree with most of your conclusions. but if you approach the world as a global village, some proactive engagement in its affairs may be justified. question is: are we realistic and constructive in how we engage, or do we lower ourselves to screaming on the fringes as renegades with little relevance?

Peace