Truth behind the propaganda

What's behind Iran’s stance towards Israel?


Truth behind the propaganda
by Farhad Kashani

Much has been said about the Israeli-Arab conflict. Sometimes, it seems that the truth has been lost between all the propaganda doses from all sides.  

After the 1979 revolution, Iran became the single biggest opponent of Israel in the region, bigger opponents than the Palestinians themselves. It has been said that Iranians look at the empty half of the glass only, however, in this article, I put down some of the more common reasoning the IRI mentions, to justify its animosity towards Israel.

In the beginning, I have to say, although I believe Israel has accomplished much for its citizens, but I have not been a fan of Israel for a long time. Although Israel has the right to exist like any other nation, but much of its current territory is built on occupied Palestinian land. Israel has also occupied Syrian and Lebanese lands. Israeli actions in the Palestinian territory are unjustified, brutal and inhumane. The world needs to come together to stop Israeli actions in Palestinian territories. All that being said, King Abdullah of S. Arabia introduced a great peace offer to Israel in 2002, where as in return for Israeli withdrawal from occupied Arab lands, all Arab countries will recognize Israel and establish normal relations with it and live in peace with it. I think if Israel doesn’t accept this offer, it has only itself to blame.  

In this article though, I like to examine Iran’s stance towards Israel. Our country and people have sacrificed a lot, and I mean a lot, for IRI’s blind anti Israeli sentiments. Many countries, groups, parties and organizations..oppose Israeli actions, but none of them put a burden on their people as much as we have paid. We have become isolated, hated, we regressed, we paid human and material price,  we have been threatened to be attacked, and we have been looked down upon by most of the world (with the exception of some fascist Islamist and lefty loonies), because of this stance. There is a different between opposing something, and “blindly”, opposing something. Some of the most outspoken Israeli critics are Israel’s friends, such as Turkey. So why is IRI acting like as it is? Below is some of the most common rhetoric used by the regime:

 * IRI is anti Israeli because it has occupied Arab lands: Not true. Iran has not taken a unified stance towards occupied Arab lands. As we speak, there are other Arab territories occupied by non-Arab countries that you hear nothing about from the incredibly powerful IRI propaganda machine. Examples are 2 Moroccan cities occupied by Spain, and and city of Eskanadaroon in Syria (Iran’s closest ally!) occupied by Turkey. These issues have been a major source of tension between Morocco – Spain and Turkey – Syria, but you never hear the IRI talk about them.

 * IRI is anti Israeli because it has occupied an Islamic country’s territory: Also not true. Iran has not taken a unified stance towards that also. There are other non-Arab Islamic lands occupied by non-Muslims as we speak, but you never hear the IRI mention a single word about them. Examples are Chechnya by Russia, Kashmir by India, Somalia by Ethiopia, Sin Kiang province by China. Muslims living in those areas, claim that their lands have been occupied by non-Muslims, but the IRI never spits out a single sentence regarding those cases.

 * IRI is anti Israeli because it is concerned about the human rights violations by Israel: I think we all know the answer to that. How can a government which has the absolute minimum, if any, regard for its own citizens’ life, dignity and rights, care about Palestinian rights? Iran’s record in human rights is pretty much agreed upon by most of the world to be one of the worst, if not the worst. All one needs to do is look at any Human Rights organization report to see where Iran stands on different Human Rights respect categories.

 * IRI is anti Israeli because Israel hates us: Most Iranians know that’s not the case. Before the IRI start its blind anti Israeli campaign, Israel never harmed Iranian interests nor it worked against our country. As a matter of fact, even after the 1979 revolution, Israel attacked the Osirak nuclear power in Iraq, which helped Iran. That doesn’t’ mean as Iranians and as neutral observers, we should overlook Israeli crimes, but, again, how far are we going on being Israel’s critics?

 * IRI is anti Israeli because Israel was illegally established after WWII: Not true. Many countries were established only after WWII which were not historically established as countries, examples are, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Persian Gulf countries, Pakistan, Bangladesh, more than half of African countries, …and the list goes on. So should those countries be as Khomeini said, “eliminated by all Muslims picking up a bucket of water and spilling it on Israel” also? In addition, IRI makes the arguments that Palestinian Muslims were the only inhabitants of that area, which is like everything else they say, untrue. Jews used to live there also, along with Christians and Muslims, for thousands of years. Offourse the Muslims were the majority and that demographic should not change by force. But, if you make that argument, then we, as Iranians, need to leave Iran and give the country back to the Ilamites. After all, we’ve been living in Iran for 2500 years only (at least our Aryan population has,.. Turks, Arabs, Mongols, Indians, and others came later,), and the Ilamites have been living there long before the Aryans came.

Those are most of the claims made by the IRI to justify its blind anti Israeli rethoric. So what is or are the real reasons behind this animosity that the IRI started against Israel? Well, for one, IRI complains about Europe not allowing investigation into the Holocaust, but itself does not allow any discussion over the Israeli conflict that does reflect Khomeini’s fundamentalist vision. As result, we will not get the truth from IRI.  

So what’s the real reason? Iranians have realized that the IRI actions are results of two things:

1. Iran takes this stance towards Israel because it has occupied “religious: Islamic sites, not just any Palestinian, or Syrian, or Lebanese land, and since the IRI has sacrificed our country to portray itself as the only true Islamic government in the world, at minimum just to energize its base and spread its propaganda, it has taken a fury stance against the occupation of Quds. Again, most people oppose Israeli occupation of Quds, but no one acts recklessly, unjustifiably, inhumanely and irresponsibly the way the IRI does.

2. Since Israel is U.S closest ally in the region, for the IRI to, again, at minimum to energize its base in Iran, it has looked upon this issue as a proxy war with the United States. After all, you can’t bash and trash a country 24/7, and not take any action to show the world you are, in reality also, oppose to it. For some less educated and traditional Iranians, Provocation and thugness is a way of life . The IRI made that way of life, a government policy, and it used the blind anti Americanism as its main tool to justify its existence and policies. Some of the reasons go back to the fact that since the IRI consists of disfranchised, neglected, uneducated and traditional-minded segment of our society that were looked down upon by the most sophisticated, westernized, and most importantly, Americanized, Iranians during the Shah regime, they have been attacking that same Americanization that reflected in their oppressors. After all, Khomeini said, the revolution was a “cultural revolution” more than anything, and he was absolutely right. Also, many dictatorships use anti Americanism to gather support among their faithful in order to gain power. Examples are Mugabe, Castro, Kim Jon Ill, and others. Its needless to say, America has become the world’s punching bag.

In conclusion, we need to realize the true intentions of this regime in everything it says and does. Without it, we can never understand it, thus, we can never be able to better confront it. And if we don’t confront it, whatever is left from our country, will be gone. 


Recently by Farhad KashaniCommentsDate
Iranians have it far worse than Palestinians
Sep 30, 2009
Mesbah Yazdi
Sep 04, 2009
Neo Cons or Neo Comms: Who got it right on Iran?
Aug 27, 2009
more from Farhad Kashani

LOL... Hypocrite islamists...

by Anonymous abc (not verified) on

That is different from allowing multinational corporations to send the "missionaries" to do their dirty jobs for them, all in the name of God.

We have already had the ugliest form of missionaries in iran for the past 1400 years. Who were Omar and Ali and his endless sons and daughters leading to seyyed khomeini and khalkhali and seyyed khamenei? Arab missionaries who sold nothing but miraculous snake oil. Iran has been a hostage of Arab ideology and religion for 1400 years. There is nothing iranian about islam except for what islamists want to make stick.

The worst kind of islamists are the ones who pose as something other than islamists to plan for another disastrous future for iran when IRI falls. The secular islamist and leftist islamist are just new tricks to derail any future development of a nation which got nothing out of any islamic deal except for misery. When even islamists cannot tolerate living in iran, they line up behind likes of that idiot khatami to patch the islamic republic and lengthen its miserable life. They often pull dead charlatans like shariati and criminals like bazargan out of their hats and present them as new recipes for future of iran.

Islamists have no country and no morality. They just want islam to do its dirty job as it has always done and keep iran from gaining its historical pre-islamic glory, as we are witnessing that islamists were/are the first ones to run away and reside in the countries that they bad-mouth routinely.

Islamists have no country at all as khomeini said and implied many many times. All they know is fanaticism with the backward islamic cult of 1400 years ago. They are the biggest enemies of and missionaries to iran with the mission to enslave what is left of iran in the prison of islamic cult and medieval non-sense.


Re: Mammad

by jamshid on

Contrary to your view, having the right to practice AND to preach your religion is neither "out of propportion" nor with "undue significance". Nor has it anything to do with the UN charters nor the declarations of human rights.

However, most significantly, it is one of the pillars of secularism. A secular government, by definition, does not impose any religion, nor does it have a preferrence for a religion. Therefore in such society, people would be allowed to practice AND to interpret, criticize as well as preach their religion.

You consider this issue, in your own words, "absurd and inappropriate". This stems from either your lack of knowledge on secularism, or if not that, then your lack of respect for it.

I am sure you have heard of the concept of "sharte laazem va kaafi" (necessary and sufficient condition). 

In order to be a secular, it is necessary to believe in the people's right to practice their religion. However, this is not "sufficient" by itself alone. Far from it. In order to be a true secularist, you need to also believe in people's right to criticize, interpret and preach any religion, including Sunni Islam, Suffi Islam, other versions of Islam including yours, and also Zoroastrism, Bahaism, Christianity, Budhism and any other religion.

You do not support this view, therefore, you are not a secularist.

You are using the excuse of the threat of "Coroporate Christian Missionaries" to justify and legitimize your belief in the surpression of secularism and imposition of your version of Islam in Iran.

You are also insulting and underestimating Iranians' intellecutal capacity and their ability to decide right or wrong for themselves. Additionally, you are imposing Khomeini's idea that the people are just children who are not able to think for themselves, and therefore are in need of a custodian/guardian.

You are NOT a secularist Mammad. Period.

One more interesting note. You wrote:

"... allowing multinational corporations to send the "missionaries" to do their dirty jobs for them. Yeah, the great nation of Iran is just dying to hear from these "missionaries." The scale of exaggeration, and making something (i.e., the right to criticize and preach religions) out of nothing, is beyond absurd..."

Whose scale of exageration? Who is making something out of nothing? Who is being absurd? You or me?

Lastly, Mammad, please, for whatever that is holly to you, STOP this "yaa hosseinaa" behavior and playing the role of a victim when you write your comments.



by AnonymousHaha on

Thank you for your explanation. However, I completly disagree with it. I believe that such  positions and exceptions with respect to religious practice and speech would eventually snowball into other things people don't like and will ultimatly lead us to the same position Iranian are in today. 

You may think its not a big deal but I and others think otherwise.

I guess we can agree to disagree.




by Mammad on

The problem with you and people like you is that you blow things way out of propportion, give them undue significance, draw the inappropriate and wrong conclusion, and then call me this or that.

Since when the freedom to preach your religion, by going to other nations, has found such great significance? Where is this "principle" even mentioned? Is it in the universal declaration of human rights? Is it in the UN Charter? Where is it? In a slow sunday morning you came up with an absurd and inappropriate question. I responded anyway, but all of a sudden this absurd question took life of its own!

The most important rights are the freedom to practice your religion, whatever it is, and the freedom to criticise, provided that it is not abused. I made it clear that I support both. In fact, the latter already includes the basic rights for preaching in the proper context because, obviously, if you criticise something, you must also be able to offer an alternative. Of course, you may not be able to see this, because you and people like you are used to criticising only, but not offering alternatives.

That is different from allowing multinational corporations to send the "missionaries" to do their dirty jobs for them, all in the name of God. That is what I was talking about, and made it as clear as I could. You want to use this to once again label me, as you have done so many times in the past, be my guest.

Yeah, if Christian missionaries cannot go to Iran, that means that we have held the entire great nation of Iran hostage. Yeah, the great nation of Iran is just dieing to hear from these "missionaries." The scale of exaggeration, and making something out of nothing, is beyond absurd. 

I do not want to use impolite words to describe this "opinion," but it is certainly beyond absurd, strange, incomprehensible, and whatever polite but strong word that one can find to describe this.

What a waste of time, spending most of my Sunday arguing about an absurd question, a non-issue. It is, of course, my own fault because even though I know such arguments do not go anywhere, particularly with you and FK, I still spend the time that I do not have to respond. 

Yeah, I am whoever you always thought I was. You are just wasting your time with people like me.

It is not out of the blue that I think you, and people like you, just like to criticise people like me, sunstantive or not. The goal seems to be forcing people like me quit commenting in this site, by wearing people like me down. If that is the case, it will not happen.



Re: Mammad

by jamshid on

In respsone to my question, whether a citizen of Iran should have the right to preach his religion, you said no, he/she should not have that right.

To justify your answer, you wrote that you don't believe in this right because it could be exploited by foreign entities.

You cannot hold an entire nation hostage to foreign threats. There has always been a "foreign" threat in our history. The Romans, Arabs, Mongols, Otomans, Russians, British, etc.

According to your view, a nation, any nation, must always remain in a state of siege with limited chance to evolve due to the existence of foreign threats.

If people with your views were in charge in Europe centuries ago, then there would never be a Renaisance. Instead there would be a state controled tyranny to "protect" the people from foreign threats.

That is why I disagree with your view and find it tyrannical. You believe in tyranny, and you justify it by stating that the populace should be "protected" from foreign threats.

Additionally, for the record, you are not a secular republican. Republican maybe, but secular no, not at all. Your claim of being a secularist is refuted by your own views.

Secularism is against the state imposing a religion, or a preferred religion, on the people. Secularism is also against mixing politics with religion.

However, based on your own writing in this thread, you believe that the people of Iran should not be allowed to preach a religion (other than Islam).

In order for your wish to be realized in any meaningful way, there must be some kind of laws against preaching of other religions. These laws must then be enforced by the state. People who go ahead and preach their religion anyway, should be punished, or at least stopped somehow.

This is not secularism. In fact it is the opposite. I don't claim that you are being dishonest with me or others. But I do think that you are being dishonest, foremost, to your own self. You sincerely want to adopt modern concepts, but at the same time, you want to cling to your antiquated and traditional views.

You are not a secularist. Period.

Today, Iran is being run by people who, in many ways if not all, think like you. They feel panick and find themselves on the defensive against the human nature of wanting to evolve and to change. (jabre tabiate ensaan)



by Mammad on

Regarding discrediting myself: I let people decide this. I express my views with clarity and utmost honesty. I do not hide anything. You disagree with them? That is fine with me. But, I do not believe that the views of people like you are those of the majority, although like anything else I could be wrong. But, even if that is true, so what? There is always a majority and a minority. But, that is not the problem for some people in this site.

I believe that some people are quite upset that people like me comment in this site. That has ruined their fantasy of a homogeneous population of like-minded people, patting each other on the back, congratulating others for having "excellent" and "right" views or responses - code words for havingh views similar to their own! Despite all the grand claims that such people make about loving democracy, they are the worst autocrats in their own nano-scale world.




by Mammad on

If I had said what you say I had, you would have been completely correct. But, I had not.

I was referring specifically to Christian evangelical groups that have tried, in the name of missionary work, to exploit people around the world. This has a long history, going back several centuries, and continuing todate in the U.S.




by Mammad on

First of all, you mix two issues: 

(1) No, I do not want the Iranian government and political system to be ruled by my Islamic views. I already said that I am for a secular republic, and this republic is the classical, traditional way of any secular republic.

(2) Yes, I would like to see a leftist government in Iran. But, this leftist government is in the mold social democratic parties in Western Europe. Although there should be nothing wrong for desiring even a communist system, but that is not my view.. In my view a leftist of the type I describe is a progressive:

One who is exploitation; against accumulation of great wealth when there are so many needy people (As Emam Ali said, "no great wealth is accumulated, unless some injustice is done."), discrimination based on gender, ethnicity, or religion; for universal health care; for free or at least affordable education; for affordable housing for all, and for a non-military, non-interventionist foreign policy. What is wrong with advocating these?

The two issues are separate. By mixing them together you may confuse the two, and then attribute the confusion to me.  

I said that, yes, I believe that every Iranian must be able to practice his/her religion, whatever that is. To the third question, criticism of any religion or school of thought, I expressed my views: It is fine, so long as the freedom is not exploited, which, even in the extremely minor environment like this site is exploited to the hilt. Amil Imani, who is a bigot in my view, attacks every Muslim simply because they are Muslim, the way Nazis attacked all Jews, only because they were Jews. That is no longer freedom of expression; that is exploiting it to propagate hatred.

Regarding the second question: You did not remind me about Christianity. In 2003 I had already published an article about the subject. That is my view, and that is at root of my answer to the question. You can agree or disagree with it. Both are fine with me. I do not insist that you subscribe to my views. You think that they make me inconsistent? I do not see it that way, but I recognize that I might be wrong.

Finally, you misunderstood my comment about honesty: The question is, which "Mammad" people like you prefer:

One who is honest and expresses his views exactly the way he thinks, knowing that people like you may not like it and attack it, or

be dishonest, pretend, and say things that he knows people like you like to hear?



Farhad Kashani

Zion, thanks azeez. The

by Farhad Kashani on

Zion, thanks azeez. The problem with Q is he doesn't realize he's not fooling anybody.


Mammadeh Aziz You are Changing Subjects Again.

by AnonymousHaha on

I do not mean to disrespect you when I call you Professor. You are
telling us that you write articles all the time. If you wrote an
article to the effect that you are for a "Secular Republic"
in Iran but at the same time you don't not want freedom of religion
and freedom of expression (they are very related together) for this
"Secular Republic" you would be  thrown out of the
movie theater without a refund.

I really don't know where you are going with all this stuff about
the Christian Right. I was the one who brought up the subject to
explain to you that you do not get a free pass by declaring yourself
to be an Islamic Leftist. You can not expect your Islamic Leftist
political views to be immune from criticism because you are a Muslim.
Once you declare your self an Islamist (leftist, rightist or
whatever) you can not shout or cry foul when someone challenges your
political views which are intertwined with Islamic views. All I said
is that the idiotic Christian right is subject to the same attacks as
you are. You both have the same agenda politically. One has a
Christian Fundamentalist agenda for All Americans and the other (you)
have an Islamic Leftist agenda for ALL Iranians. Both are wrong and
you, in your flawed and honest declarations below, exposed these
views. The main flaw is that you have a certain view of Islamic
principles and you want that view to govern the Iranian government
and nation. No different than the "Islamic Rightist" as you
labeled them. Your views will lead us to the same place we are today.
You have nothing to say except that you are now a victim because you
are honest. OK. I have been dishonest here Mammad. 

I am not "exposing you" as Mammad the Muslim. I could
care less about Mammad the Muslim. I have an issue with Mammad the
Islamist Leftist and the political views of such a movement. It has
nothing to do with exposing your religion Islam. If I unknowingly met
you some where as a fellow hamvatan in the US, we would probably get
along just fine. If you told me that you are an Islamist Leftist, I
would tell you exactly what I said below. I even said that I would
fight to the death for you to have a right to practice Islam the way
you want to. However, you must accept the fact that bringing religion
into politics (any religion) will open the doors for the
politicization of that religion and subject it to attacks. 

You say:

"In particular, people like you have a problem with
my honesty. I suppose if I had said yes to all the inappropriate
questions of Jamshid, I would have been "good." It would
have been comforting to people like you. But, because I usually think
deeper than many about such issues, and also give my response with
utter honestly, I am immediately attacked."

Again, you have not attempted once to honestly answer any of my
points about 2 & 3. You changed the subject to "MNC".
You made yourself a victim of anti Islamists. We suddenly became the
mean anti Islamists who hate Muslims and Mammad is a Muslim. Mammad!
Nothing could be further from the truth! This is an ugly diversionary
tactic as far as I am concerned. 

What exactly do you mean by saying such a thing? Should we be
happy that you would basically like to keep the status quo with
respect to peoples freedom in the IRI today? Is this your "deeper"
thinking after 30 years?  Don't you get the ramifications of what you said below yet?



Mammad: The majority of

by asdf (not verified) on

Mammad: The majority of Christian leaders in the US and in Europe were against the war in Iraq. It is very disingenious of you to present Charcters like Dobson or Falwell as the leaders of all Christians in the US.

The more you write, the more you discredit yourself.





by Mammad on

You absolutely, positively do not need to tell me that my arguments are flawed - I am completely serious about this. As a practicing Muslim, I know I am flawed and, hence, many of things that I say or do are also. We Muslims do not believe that we are perfect. Only God is. I also do not think of myself as a victim. I am proud of my political philosophy, and I take all the attacks with a grain of salt.

Although other people can see my flaws for themselves, but I am happy that you have taken it upon yourself to expose me. It is always good to focus.

Regarding three of your relatively substantive comments worth responding to for the sake of everbody else who cares to read this:

(1) With all due respect - and the emphasis is on respect - you are looking at the issue of "preaching to others your religion" in a very superficial and shallow way. I'll tell you why I think so. Do not accept any of what I am going to say from me. Check them yourself.

(a) Investigate what are the most important sources of contributions to Christian missionary organizations, such as Pat Robertson's 700 Club, and the late Jerry Falwell's Liberty University. These guys, and others like them, have set up "empires." Who gives them the most? Multinational corporations (MNC).

(b) But why should MNC give to these people? Because they preach exactly what the MNC want. Read about them to learn about their positions, to see what they say, and compare them with the goals of MNC. You will find that they are identical.

(c) These "men of God" even become spokesmen for such MNC. Pat Robertson has suggested that Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro should be assassinated. Why? What do these guys do that should be assassinated? Is it not because these men, as flawed as they may be, have cut deep into the profits of the MNC?

(d) The same "men of God" were some of the most ardent supporters of invasion of Iraq. By preaching to their ill-informed people, they provided the backbone of public support for the illegal and criminal invasion of Iraq. Why? Even powerful people, such as Alen Greespan and General John Abizaid, have said that invasion of Iraq was about oil (and security for Israel which they obviously do not mention). Go figure!

(e) The same "men of God" have consistently demonized Muslims. Franklin Graham, one of these "men of God" and the son of the elder Graham, one of the most influential evangelical leaders, has consistently said some of the most terrible things about Islam and Muslims. After the invasion of Iraq, his missionary flooded Iraq with missionaries in order to convert Iraqis. Of course, the conversion is not for making them "closer to God," rather to advance the agenda of MNC, their corporate sponsors.

You simply do not know, or do not care to know, such deep issues that are being debated extensively. All you can do is waving "freedom of speech" in front of my face, as if I am opposed to it.

No sir/madam: The issue is much deeper than you know or understand.

(2) No, I did not disappear ftrom the debate about Czechoslovakia (a) and South Africa (b).

(a) What you said about Czechoslovakia had nothing to do with what I said. My point was this: From 1967-1968 the Czech people could, on their own and without any outside help, liberlize their communist system, and gave rise to "Prague Spring" and what Alexander Dubcek called "socialism with a human face."

Then, the Soviets felt threatened and together with the forces of Warsaw Pact invaded Czechoslovakia. Why does that invalidate what the Czech people had done? They did their part. They succeeded in what they had set out to do, namely, liberizing their political system. The fact that their nation was invaded not only does not invalidate their efforts, but also is, in fact, the confirmation of the validity of what they had achieved. They had succeeded to the extent that the Soviet empire felt threatened. Could the Czech people prevent the invasion of their country by the Warsaw Pact forces? No, unless they were willing to fight, which they did not want to do.

(b) What you say about South Africa is not supported by most of the articles and studies written about it. You are just trying to reconfigure the history to conform with your views of how to make changes in Iran. That is fine, but do not expect other people to go along with your view, which is not supported by facts on ground.

Even South Arficans do not say what you claim. Two years ago I was there for a political conference (I was there as a translator for an important civil society figure). Many people that I talked to had the same view as I did, namely, the apartheid system collapsed because the Whites recognized that by giving up political power they would still have tremendous power through their economic power, whereas if they had kept fighting the blacks, not only would they have lost the political power eventually, but also the economic power. This is not to say that sanctions did not have any effect. But, it had a secondary or tertiary effect.

(3) Yes, people like you do have a problem with me - a muslim and leftist. Even at the most elementary level, you have a problem talking to me in a respectful manner. You want to "expose" me (an abuse of the word expose), and even though I know that by referring to me as professor you intend to mock me - and I told you that this is inappropriate - you still do it.

In particular, people like you have a problem with my honesty. I suppose if I had said yes to all the inappropriate questions of Jamshid, I would have been "good." It would have been comforting to people like you. But, because I usually think deeper than many about such issues, and also give my response with utter honestly, I am immediately attacked.

Some people in this site like to convert it to one in which everybody agrees with everybody. They all pat each other on the back, congratulating them for having excellent views and thoughts that agree with their own. Then, they call this freedom of expression.

Well, in my flawed world, populated by flawed people like me, we do not call that freedom of expression. Flawed people like me also want to have it only one way, the true way. They may not get it, but they surely try and strive. 

Have a nice day sir/madam.



Zion, thanks for your concern

by Q on

as usual, I see no facts and no value in your writing. Shouldn't you really continue propagandizing with dishonest excuses like "Israel has never perpetuated a massacre?"

I doubt if even the Iranians who attack me accept this.


Jamshid and Farhad

by Zion on

As I`m sure you have already noticed, Q is not really balanced and psychologically stable. I wouldn`t be too harsh on him if I were you. Try to realize his situation and be more kind and gentle towards him.


You are right Kashani

by Q on

I am trying to debunk your argument, because it is false.

Your trying to change to subject to "political prisoners" is not going to excuse you for making false statements.

The 300,000 number is a lie, you have no evidence for it and you keep repeating it as if your word is fact. This is "dishonesty".

As I have said before (and no one has understood), Wikipedia is only as good as it's own sources. They are themselves listed on Wikipedia.

The numbers I have cited is actually from respected scholard Eliz Sansarian, from her 2000 book "Religious Minorities in Iran"

You want to make every excuse in the world to continue to fabricate a picture based on false numbers, "personal trips" and anything else your biased brain can come up with. So, the question is who are you trying to fool?

AnonymousHaha : While I admire your tone and logic much better than Kashani or Jamshid, I don't understand why you continue to have any kind of a "problem" with Mammad who has admitted to wanting a secular government. Is simply being a Muslim a problem now?


You can not have it both ways Professor

by AnonymousHaha on

1) You can not call your self Islamist Leftist and request that
your Islamist Leftist beliefs be respected as "private"
since they are also the foundations of your politics and political
beliefs. These beliefs (political Islam) infringe on our rights and
freedoms today by the "Islamic Rightist" as you claim. To
us there is not difference between Islamic Left and Islamic right.
"Islamic" is the operative word. The kookoo "Christian
Right" gets criticized here in America all the time. What makes
you, an "Islamic Leftist", so special to request privacy in
such matters? Islam forms your political beliefs and you expect to be
immune from questions on these matters? This is the same expectation
that our Vali faqih has. How interesting. 

2) You say "precisely because I believe in a secular
republic - which means that religion is a strictly private matter -
such questions are inappropriate. Private means private means
private. There are so many other things that are private, which we
never inquire about. But, despite to all of your claims about
religion being private affair, you, Jamshid and others keep asking
questions that, in my opinion, are private matters. Who is
inconsistent here? Me? I find that amazing."

Again, in your "secular republic" you do not want to
allow the average Iranian to "Preach his religion among other
people."You want to take away a principle that is a "fundamental
right" (free speech)  to every human in order to protect
your "private affair" with Allah. So Iranians should lose
their fundamental rights based on your (or any other type of
Islamist's) interpretations.  

3)  As to "With all due respect, you seem to be just
lurking somewhere just to find something objectionable in
what I say, to jump in and criticize."

No. You are wrong. First, I do not need to respond to everything
that you say and Secondly, I am not "lurking just to find
something objectionable".  I also do not ask for your
respect. I don't need it and I do not want it. I am just "lurking"
here to expose the extreme flaws in your thought process. Its not
just "something objectionable". Don't try to minimize what
you said below. Taking away a fundamental right is a serious flaw
Mammad. This is a subjet that you totally avoided in your response
to me Professor. 

4) As to your answer to question number 3, you say that its not a
"simple question". I am sure that for an Islamist this
would not be a "simple question". But its goes back to the
principles of your answer to question number 2. They are both deeply
related and for any person who believes in a "Secular Republic",
as you claim to believe in, the answer would be very simple. However,
for you the answer is not "simple" because people will have
total freedom to criticize your brand of Islam (or any other
religious belief). This is a no no for you. Again, this is why your
"private beliefs" are suspect and questioned; because some
how, your private beliefs infringe on our private and public beliefs.
This is the case today in the IRI. If people like you were in charge,
instead of the "Islamic Rightist" who you do not like, Iran
would still be the same as it is today (with all due respect to you).

5) You are not being criticized as a practicing Muslim. Stop
trying to look like a victim here. I would fight an die for your
right to be able to be a practicing Muslim.  You are being
criticized as an Islamist Leftist. Something you take pride in. These
are two different principles that you have chosen to "aloodeh"
together if you know what I mean.

Shariati, Bazargan and the rest of the gang you so highly think of
had one major flaw and that was mixing politics with religion. You
are preaching the same thing. Secular should be "Secular"
without any preconditions (such as no number 2 for Iranians or that
number 3 is “not so simple”). The minute you take away number 2
or qualify it by something, you destroy "secular". This is
something the founders of the country you live in figured out 300
years ago; and an educated person such as your self, Bazrgan,
Shariati is(were) trying to make a model that suits the Islamic
system. I am "lurking" here to tell you that no such model can ever exists that we could call as just and equitable in a
"secular" Iran.

Just to make it clear for everyone here, your major flaws go back to our earlier discussions regarding "change from within" in the IRI where your requested all these different conditions for change to happen. You listed Czechoslovakia and South Africa as prime examples of  countries that changed from within. When I reminded you that Czecchoslovakia was invaded by 3 Eastern Block nations during the 'Change from within" that you alluded to or that South Africa was exposed to international sanctions (something you do not wish for the IRI), you just disappeared.

Please look at your flaws and maybe in the future Iran will have a better chance of being a nation that contributes to make the world a better place instead of the ahshghal that we have now. 


I wonder if Jamshid had

by Anonymousm (not verified) on

I wonder if Jamshid had called Q, "Crossed-eyed", he would not have been censored???


I personally do not

by Anonymous1187 (not verified) on

I personally do not understand how you can criticize the US by saying it does not "give a hoot" about human rights when we have the best human rights record in the world and whose citizens enjoy more freedoms than anywhere else. If you should be criticizing anything it should be the atrocious human rights record of Iran. Executing children, stoning deaths, etc. You can keep criticizing Americans all you want with your distorted views, and I will keep enjoying my freedoms and way of life in America. The US is not perfect, nor is any other country but it is far closer than any other country in the world. God has blessed America and it is a privilege to live in such country where we can enjoy such freedom.



by Mammad on

First of all, I did not say no to the third question. I said, this is not a simple question to have a simple answer. Provided that freedom of expression is not abused, one should, of course, be able to criticize any religion or any school of thought for that matter. The question is, when is criticism legitimate, and when is it an abuse. That is what needs to be discussed.

Secondly, I responded to the question, but it is also my right to dislike them. Disagree with it, but it is also my right to have the opinion. Am I supposed to explain every nookes and crannies of my thoughts? Do you subject everyone to such "high" standards, or is it me?

Thirdly, precisely because I believe in a secular republic - which means that religion is a strictly private matter - such questions are inappropriate. Private means private means private. There are so many other things that are private, which we never inquire about. But, despite to all of your claims about religion being private affair, you, Jamshid and others keep asking questions that, in my opinion, are private matters. Who is inconsistent here? Me? I find that amazing.

As a practicing Muslim, I am criticised on this site more than anybody else. I am personally attacked more than anyone else. Yet, I always try to respond with as much respect as I can possibly can write. That is the Muslim that I am, and I am absolutely proud of it. 

With all due respect, you seem to be just lurking somewhere just to find something objectionable in what I say, to jump in and criticize. Even the title of your comment is meant to be mocking. Yet, I am held up to the "highest" standards by you and people like you, simply because I am who I am - a practicing muslim, a leftist in the political spectrum, and an honest and consistent at that.

I publish articles all the time in other sites. I do not need the abuse. But I persist in commenting here, simply because I believe there is so much misinformation and disinformation in this site. Fair criticism, or important questions, are fine. I respond to all of them, to the best of my ability, and with utmost honesty. But, this should be more than pure criticism, most of which is utterly unfair. 



Professor Mammad

by AnonymousHaha on

I honestly think that your Islamist Leftist belief system has
blinded you from reality.

After allegedly agreeing with me that there should be a separation
of church and state by stating the following:

"I have said many times in this site that I am for a secular

In response to Jamshid's 3 simple questions, you reveal your
intellectual backwardness as a result of your Islamist Leftist
thinking by your answers to the following question:

Do you believe a citizen of Iran should have the right to:

1. Practice the religion of his choice (Christianity,
Bahaism, Budhism, Agnostism, etc)


2. Preach his religion among other people.


3. Criticize any religion, including Islam, in the framework
of argumentation (as opposed to an intent to belittle or


How could we  have a "secular republic" if the
answers to 2 & 3 are No? Again, you are asking us to fall for the
same trap as 30 years ago. For someone (like yourself) to live in
America and witness the consequences of a society saying YES to
questions 2 & 3 from its birth and than preaching the opposite
for Iran is just astounding. 

By saying No you are killing freedom of  speech and though
again. In the name of anti colonialism you want to protect the state (and presumably the people)
by creating laws that prohibit people from questioning their religion
or criticizing one form of religion over another. So I assume there
will be only one way of practicing Shia Islam in your "Secular
republic" without the possibility of reforming Shiism or any
other ism because of outside forces. This is really bright in this
day and age coming from an educated person who is a Professor in an
American University. 

What are you afraid of as a Muslim? People in this country bash
Christianity, Judaism  and all other religions on a regular
basis.  Don't you remember pictures of Virgin Marry painted with
human extrament a few years ago? What happened? Nothing! Its freedom
of speech. Marketplace of ideas. The people with the best ideas win.
Don't you want that for Iranians? Why do you want to decide what is
the best idea for Iranians (when it comes to religious beliefs) by
prohibiting other ideas? Are your ideas with respect to god and
religion better than mine? Better than Jamshid? Better than Mr.
Rashidian or Mr Imani? Let the people decide for once! Are you afraid
of women wearing sexy revealing close again in your "Secular

Don't you still find America to be a religious society? People do
whatever they want when it comes to their religious beliefs. The
state has survived, people have stayed religious and life goes on...

Just today there was news that 9 people in Iran are to be stoned
to death for adultery. As long as you have such practices you will
have people like Mr. Imani. As a muslim you MUST LEARN to leave with
it.  Instead of concentrating on Islam bashers (who I don't find
racist as you do) why don't you concentrate on the reasons why people
attack Islam?

you say to Jamshid:

"But, now that I have answered your questions, I must
also say that I do not appreciate such questions. If you believe that
religion is a private matter, then you should also stop asking such

Why professor? Why say such a thing when your though process says
NO to 2 & 3? Its the essence of why people like me, Jamshid and FK
are debating with you and are against your ideas. It goes to the heart of the matter and you
want to avoid it. Sounds to me like you still have alot of soul searching to do if you really believe NO to 2 & 3 for Iranians.



by Mammad on

I am sorry, but in my view you are prejudiced against Islam. I have seen nothing that could make me think otherwise. I may very well be wrong, but so long as I think so, there is no point in arguing this. Aside from the issue of the depth of your knowledge, in this column you have never read any criticism of Islam that you have not liked.

You pick on everybody, including me, as soon as you read something that you do not like, but I have never read any criticism of you targetted against a bigot like Amil Imani who targets EVERY single Muslim, or unfair and unfounded criticisms that people like Jahanshah Rashidian have.

Are fanatic Muslims the only people who label people? In this column there are virulently anti-Islam fanatics, such as Imani, who attack ALL Muslims, not just a group of them. Hatred feeds hatred. So long as people who read this site do not stand up against such bigots, we will see the likes of Imani. His latest "article" was so terrible that was taken off the site quickly. Where was your sharp tongue criticizing it?

The answer to your firtst question is yes. The answer to you second question is no, because that has been used over the centuries to exploit people. That is how colonial powers took Latin America and Africa. The answer to your third question is not a simple yes or no. That needs an extensive discussion.

But, now that I have answered your questions, I must also say that I do not appreciate such questions. If you believe that religion is a private matter, then you should also stop asking such questions.

I am against monarchy, but I have had open an mind about, for example, what Reza Shah or his son did. I have said many times in this column that Reza Shah did many good things for Iran, and that the Shah also did some good things, though not anywhere close to his father's.

There is a difference between, for example, a non-religious person and an anti-religion person. Similarly, there is a difference between someone who opposes monarchy based on certain reasonable principles (such as monarchy being undemocratic), and someone who is blindly anti-monarchy, no matter what.

The fact that you yourself say that your notes on Dr. Shariati's books are not academic and complete is yet another reason for not getting into this type of argument.



Mammad, I am not prejudice

by jamshid on

Mammad, I am not prejudice against Islam. Criticizing Mohammad's (the prophet's) personal life and behavior, or verses from Koran is not the same than being prejeduce.

I have criticized several issues regarding Islam and its prophet with several moderate Moslems and they did neither attack me nor considered me "anti-Islam".

However, fanatic Moslems always react stronger and have a desire to label or even punish the critic.

Do you believe a citizen of Iran should have the right to:

1. Practice the religion of his choice (Christianity, Bahaism, Budhism, Agnostism, etc)

2. Preach his religion among other people.

3. Criticize any religion, including Islam, in the framework of argumentation (as opposed to an intent to belittle or attack)

Or do you believe that these rights should not be granted. If so why?

Also, your logic is flawed. As an example, I could say that you are not qualified to discuss the work of an extreme right wing theorician, because you strongly oppose that front (or using your words, you are prejudice agaisnt it).

Similarly, you won't be qualified to discuss the work of a Monarchist.

My notes on Dr. Shariati's eslam shenaasi and tarikhe adyaan is not a complete work, nor an academic one. Those were two very thick books! Perhaps if one day I have time, I will complete it.

Farhad Kashani

Jamshid jaan, their

by Farhad Kashani on

Jamshid jaan, their argument is way beyond absurd.


Last year, Ayatollah Haeshim Shahroodi, the regime’s top legal butcher, claimed that there are no political prisoners in Iran, because there is no definition for “political prisoner” in Iran. Now, how moronic, mafia like, devilish and stupid that statement is, is really besides the point. The IRI has used this type of analogy as a tool for survival. Q is using the same tactic. He’s saying there is no “official public opinion poll in Iran that shows whether people want the IRI to stay in power or not, therefore, how can we claim people don’t want the IRI”?

Obviously, he very well knows the answer to that, but he wants to claim, the only source for measuring Iranian public opinion, is a poll that is allowed by the IRI to be conducted. The world know something like that will never happen in a regime that is one of the biggest opressors of human rights in the world. And we have cited numerous other tools to measure public opinion.


Q is using the same tactic when it comes to the “numbers of Jews in Iran” argument. When you read, it actually sounds really childish more than anything.

When the IRI arrests a political prisoners, like the students, the first thing they charge him with is “moral” accusation. They claim he “drinks alcohol, smokes drugs and is gay”. Because if you can kill someone’s character, then his argument is automatically rejected. Now offcourse that works in the mind of people like Q and other IRI supporters only. But nonetheless. So ,Q says, since a source he cites (A source that, by the way, he questioned its credibility before) that Jews were only 100,000 not 300,000, therefore, we are dishonest people and therefore our argument is not valid, and in conclusion, the IRI is a victim of our “dishonesty”.

The fact that my years worth of reading, traveling, research and most importantly witnessing first hands IRI’s atrocities and mafia like techniques, led me to sources that estimated Jews population in Iran at 300,000 before the revolution is obviously not the point here, the point that me and you and other guys were trying to make is the state of religious minorities in Iran, including Jew Iranian. Q, by coming up with his own number, wants to discredit our point, not the #, but the point of the argument.


Q, just answer this, who are you trying to fool?


You don't think there are public opinion polls in Iran?

by truth-seeker (not verified) on

Please, all of you, study these polls, it will help you make more informed arguments.



Wikipedia and elections in Iran

by Mammad on

Wikipedia is not a scientific or even completely credible source of anything, precisely because anybody with any sort of tendency, thinking, etc., can edit it. Even Wikipedia people themselves say that people should check other sources. My own experience with Wikipedia is that, it often is a good starting point to learn about something, but not the most credible source.

It is also not true that all elections in the IRI have been totally bad. The elections for the first Majles were almost completely democratic. The elections for the second terms of city councils, carried out during the Khatami era (which, ironically, the reformists lost), were the most democratic elections Iran has ever witnessed, since practically anybody who wanted to be a candidate was. The elections for the 6th Majles, won by the reformists, were to some reasonable level, democratic. We have also had other elections in Iran that have been neither democratic nor fair, but highly competitive, such as the elections for the 5th Majles and the elections in 1997 that Khatami won.





by Mammad on

I absolutely positively do not mean any disrespect, but based on, (1) your writings in this column, and (2) your extreme prejudice against anything Islamic and in particular any Islamic thinker (in a political context), I neither believe you are qualified to be a credible critic of Dr. Shariati, nor do I believe that such an exchange will be useful to anyone who may care to read the exchange.

In order to understand what Dr. Shariati said and meant, one must, (1) have good knowledge of not only Islam, but also the Islam that was being presented to Iranian masses of Dr. Shariati era; (2) judge Dr. Shariati's writings not based on the present state of affairs, but in the context of his era, and (3) have a good understanding of the role of Marxism in revolutionary movements of his era. One main goal of Dr. Shariati was to present an alternative to revolutionary Marxism, in terms of revolutionary interpretation of Islamic teachings, as well as getting rid of the prominent role played by rouhaniyat.

Given that Dr. Shariati lived only 44 years, but produced about 30,000 pages of writings, it is clear that he made mistakes. Many Islamic thinkers whom I respect, such as Mohandes Mahdi Bazargan and Taghi Rahmani, have criticised some of Dr. Shariati's writings. The criticism may even be valid.

But, Dr. Shariati left an enduring legacy, namely, (1) demonstrating that most of the Rouhaniyat were in collusion with the ruling elite, and (2) that Muslim masses did not have to take up Marxism as their language of revolution.

Although Dr. Shariati has been criticised by many, but this is the first time I read that someone calls him "safsateh baaz," which also tells me that the proposed exchange will not be useful. Your initial point of argument is too extreme to me to have a discussion about.

But, since you say that you have made notes on his writings, especially about those two books, I suggest that you write them up as a well-written article, post it here, which would then give people like me to read it and comment on it. That could be useful. I am not challenging you to do it; it is only a suggestion. 



My cross-eyed friend (that's you Jamshid),

by Q on

I anticipate obfuscation, diversion, personal attacks and other irrelevencies from you. Really, you will do anything, anything at all, not to have to face the fact that you have lost all your points, but do not have the integrity to admit it.

This was my prediction, and you delivered dutifully, much better than my aged dog.

I sometimes tire of serious arguments in this site, and welcome the lighter side of this site which you so perfectly represent.
Yes, of course, I have noticed. This usually happens to you when your ass gets handed to you in an argument. So, it was not a surprise.

I never said "illegal", I said the IRI is "illegitimate". Weren't you the one that were lecturing someone else on what the difference between illegal and illegitimate is?
Yes, my cross-eyed genius. I said I didn't have a problem with anyone calling it "illegitmate" since it's a personal description. So, therefore when you attack me while I'm describing for Kashani why IRI is not "illegal", a reasonable human would assume you are either against this claim (hence saying it is legal) or you are retarded.
I guess you're saying it's the latter, not the former. Thanks for the clarification.

mardikeye ahmagh, safsateh baazi ta key? kodoom democracy? Iran was not a democratic country when it voted in 1979, not before, not during and not after the vote.
badbakhteh koon goshad, ahmaghe bisavad, tu timarestani? a) what I said applies to the "voting process", I didn't say it's a "precondition" for having a vote. I just said, no democracy can operate without it. b) a legitimate vote always predates any democracy. You have to have one before you can establish it.

Your "we were fooled" argument is not valid for exactly the same reasons that I outlined and you have not even touched. Now, you and Kashani are saying something different. You are saying the vote was not valid. If you have evidence of this, I would like to see it. Otherwise it's 98% of Iran versus the word of two cross-eyed donkeys.

If the best you can do it bullshit and inuendo, you have no business even talking to me.

What "balghoor" are you making here? You just make numbers at it pleases you, and you call this an argument?

The 65% is a conservative estimate as the amount of turnout for the 2005 Presidential elections. The official number was 70% from the Guardian Council but 62% from the interior ministry. Most analysts agree that it was in the 60-70 range, with over 30 million people voting.

So, take the lower or the upper or the middle (like I did), whatever. Still the same point stands. I also gave you two conditions: one was continued high participation in the IRI elections, the second was the fact that Iranians have not decided to rise up against their government.

I won't admit to any numbers, be it 300,000 jews or otherwise, since I don't know what the number is and I am not interested to know. I asked you to prove it is wrong. And you came up with the negative logic argument.

Yes, the number is about 80,000. Admit it or not, it does not change reality. If you were not "interested" you should have kept your big mouth shut instead of saying "prove it wasn't 300,000".

Both "my" negative logic argument (not mine at all, ask Socrates) and the evidence I gave you are correct, you have nothing to say against it, except bullshit.

If proving a negative is illogical, then why did you attempt to prove it anyway?
For the last time, (incrase the font size so you'll know) IT'S ILLOGICAL TO DEMAND A NEGATIVE PROOF, that is put the burden of proof on the negative in order to prove a positive.

You don't show mercy to even your own self. You discredit and attack your own logic with your conflictive action. haan Q? I don't mind at all!
I feel so sorry for you that you don't even understand what you're saying. Just like the 6 year old that you keep bringing up that we all know is really yourself. Such a waste...

When I caught you red handed with your hypocrisy, you tried in vain to patch up your goof,
Goof? I have criticized Wikipedia, but also wikipedia users. Just copying and pasting it is stupid. Wikipedia is only as good as its sources, that's what I have said. Usually it's a general knowledge source and a more scholarly source is better, but you didn't have such a source, so it was not a question in this thread. Since you only understand black and white, yes/no, all/nothing, you naturally cannot understand this nuanced position, so I forgive you. You can stop embarrassing yourself now.

Brushing your hyprocrisy under the rug Q? NO! I don't want to discount your Wikipedia hyprocrisy! Let's talk about it some more and analyze the roots of your hyprocrisy and "oghdeh", shall we Q?

Whatever you twisted timarestani. Count it or don't count it, you have no logical position either way that's how stupid your "arguments" are.

I never accused you of saying such a thing. You can't read, can you Q? Cross eyed? Memory lapse? Inability to maintain a cohenrent train of thought?

You are crosseyed. You said "my ilk" which includes me. I should have known that you don't speak English and are just using words without understanding their meaning.

I already explained this last time, but you didn't see it! (Crosseyed?) I said if it wasn't directed at me, why did you bring it up? You said it because you meant me. If you deny it now, it's because your have no shame, no honor, just like I said.

And in some countires the qualifications are so restrict that it renders the whole election process a sham. You know what country I am talking about.
Yea, I know. In the US we were down to only 2 candidates. At least in Iran, they had 8!

THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT Q. You liberally compare the US judges to Iran's Supreme Idiot when it is convenient for you
This is the whole idiocy of your position, I'm talking about the method of appointment, not the position. I could really use no other example since no other country has Iran's constitution. b>... get a life! with this rediculous bullshit. You have made up rules about what similarities I can use?

"The Iranian people voted for that constitution..."
Sure they did Q. However, today they pee on it.

Only a six year old thinks that peeing invalidates a constitution. I accept that some people (like you) may not be proud of that vote. But they don't deny it happened, and no one held a gun to their head. If you want to continue calling yourself a "fool", that's your own business, but you have no right to call anyone else that.

PS. To Rosie: This is a note to say I told you so. You are wasting your time with people who are too ideological for this world.


Dr. Shariati

by jamshid on

Dr. Shariati was a safsateh baaz, not an intellectual. I challenge you Mammad with any of Dr. Shariati's work.

Would you take my challenge? Shall we start by my favorite books of Dr. Shariati, "taarikhe adyaan" and "eslaam shenaasi"? I still have my notes written in the margin of those books regarding his use of fallacy and safsateh in order to justify the unjustifiable.

Don't get me wrong Mammad. When I was a teen ager I admired Dr. Shariati. In my mind, he was elevated as high as "one of the greatest inellectuals of Iran and even the world."

Alas, I was just a kid. When I re-read his books many years later, I couldn't believe how could I had possibly been duped by the likes of him?



by Anonym7 (not verified) on

AnonymousHaHA says: "Now these same retards are in the path of further distruction because of their nuclear aspirations.."

I don't agree with many of the policies of the "retards" but to their credit so far they have not allowed the Bushtards to destroy Iran (like Iraq).
As for the nuclear issue, I wish Iranian engineers and technicians total success in building whatever they are building.
BTW I agree with you that distraction from nuclear issue is good (note the difference between destruction and distraction).


Anonymous haha: Good for you

by Mammad on

Thank you for your response. I am guilty as charged.

Good for you and your active mind. My dead brain still shows signs of life when it sees how active your brain, and more importantly your tongue, are. Your comments are a shining example of your brain's activity.