People's Consent

"All the people of Iran are the owners of Iran"


People's Consent
by Ari Siletz

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 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].


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 SiletzCommentsDate
چرا مصدق آسوده نمی خوابد.
Aug 17, 2012
This blog makes me a plagarist
Aug 16, 2012
Double standards outside the boxing ring
Aug 12, 2012
more from Ari Siletz

VPK - in the land of the blind, a one-eyed man is the King

by MM on

We are watching.

The reason the Green movement (Mousavi, ....) is still viable is because of a lack of bona-fide alternative that someone in Iran can pinpoint as a leader with a vision and strong convictions.  Unfortunately, Kadivar(s) of this world are trying to re-package what they sold to Iranians as a new improved Islamic republic with a rule of majority in green wrapping

As I mentioned in David's blog

سخن های روز:اول انسان هستيم، بعد ديندار يا بي‌دين


the old west lynchings were, in a way, the rule of majority.  But, that does not make lynching right.  The purpose of a civil law is to protect the rights of all citizens, and not because of the perspective of the majority

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Well Benross

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


It looks like most people have chosen to ignore us two. I agree with you. This green Islamist crowd is irrelevant. I pay little attention to them myself. 

I may not be 100% on the same wavelength as you. But I recognize a hopless bunch when I see it. In particular I dislike the Islamic intellectual bunch. A total waste of all.


Sorry to disappoint

by benross on

I will ignore them completely. Not because I dislike them or because I'm seeking revenge. But because they don't matter. Of-course they have a network. They were supposed to run the government remember? And I am personally glad that they claim to represent the true green. Because that 'network' is no longer 'grassroot'.

In heydays of green thing, the government had to abort the broadcast of football games because of green slogans and players wearing green wristbands. This was a sign of grassroot misplaced hope for green. Now, the football match is back to the expression of impulsive frustrations and hopeless tensions. There is no more sign of solidarity and hope for a better future under green banner. Those days are gone, predictably so. The grassroot is now desperate for a real alternative.

... which is coming. This 'network' is the last hang-out of guilt ridden secular discourse. It's no longer grassroot... nor real.

Ari Siletz


by Ari Siletz on

Bottom line:


The human rights orientation to the issue is necessarily less idealistic politically or philosophically. People are jailed, tortured and executed daily in Iran and even temporary measures are welcome.


Reality is, human rights has always piggy backed on non-altruistic conflicts between the powerful. You mention the power struggle between two insider factions in Iran. Sure! Here are two examples of human rights progress that has been made in the US as a result of such power struggles:

1. Anti-slavery advocates had been saying for a century that the state of affairs was immoral. But it was not unitl the Northern states needed a justification for war with the South that these ideas found listeners and were promoted. The power struggle created a human rights opportunity that went well (at least for those who didn't die in the Civil War).

2. Racist laws were upheld by the US Supreme Court until the Cold War when the rivarly for the hearts and minds of the whole world necessitated a revision of these laws. Certainly Martin Luther King's movment  was essential, yet it was a necessary not sufficient reason fr the change. The civil rights phenomenon came as a package with both an altruistic component and a harsh politial component.


Iran's insider poltics is dirty, but it is not beneath us to piggyback changes that could lead to fewer human rights abuses.


Ari Siletz

Setareh, Mohajerani's comment

by Ari Siletz on

Mohajerani's statement taking it upon himself to restrict the Green movement to the Islamic reformist camp was badly argued. He used the extreme example of expat Iranian neo-con sympathizers as his main justification for setting limits on who's Green. But then he went ahead and limited his Green definiton far beyond the justification he had offered.  I should have asked Kadivar's opinion on Mohajerani's statement but failed the reader on this important point.                                       At any rate Mohajerani came closest to a reasonable argument when he defined Green boundaries on organizational grounds:  we can't have too many wild cards in a goal oriented organization. Well, this is an issue that needs to be discussed in terms of cooperation and coordination, not exclusion. In other words this was an organizational matter, and if Mohajerani felt it was too hard to tackle he has shown his own limitations not the limitions of the Green movement.    It would have been very informative to have a keener mind like Kadivar finesse this delicate issue who (hopefully) would not have approached the matter so simplistically.     

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Well said Hoshang

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


This gang of Islamic thinkers are stuck in 60's ideas. They are backwards and non-reformable. An "E" is the proper grade for "embarrassing". The only thing more embarrassing is taking this gang as serious. The whole theory of politics; economy, etc has advanced decades. The most humane thing to do is to put Kadivar; Soroush and his like into retirement. The honest thing to do is to put them to trial. The dumb thing is to take them seriously.

They have done so much damage already nothing in the world will redeem them.

Louie Louie

You think of "mini badr" and

by Louie Louie on

70% of population of Iran thinks of Sasy Mankan and the latest word processor.

No wonder!

Some of us are either stuck in 1400 years ago or the 60s.

Hoshang Targol

Ari jan, I appreciate your tolerance of religious thought

by Hoshang Targol on

but, why should our body politics be based on such disfunctional, outdated axioms to begin with.

Now, Espinoza also had a "religious" background and seemingly religious philosophy, but the practicall result of his ethics is very democratic, egalitarian, feasable and viable. 

Religion as a personal matter, in the private sphere, is fine and no one could object to it. What Kadivar, and other Greens  ( most Greens I should say) don't realize is that insertion of religion ( or for that matter any type of ideology) into public sphere is the begining of all problems. Unless and untill we realize this problem we're all stuck!

Setareh Sabety

A Non Reformist Green

by Setareh Sabety on

Thank you Ari. You may be right about Kadivar baiting Khamenei but my point is this: this regime has not had any legitimacy for a long time and certainly since the elections. What the elections and the uprising that ensued did was raise hope that the regime could be toppled. They lost their infallibility. But they have once again with their heavy handed ways restored the sense of hopelessness that people had before the electoral campaigns regarding their removal from power. So it is not so much legitimacy that matters but might. Also, I would not equate the Green movement with the reformists because I would like to lsy claim to it as well. Many of us are Greens without being reformists. If you limit the definition of the Green movement to the reformists then they become obsolete but give them the much more broad definition of those simply fed up with this theocratic regime and you have a huge though silenced majority. Kadivar may be a clever player in the context of qom but in the broader context of the vast Green movement, as many of us define it, he is obsolete. Their anachronistic language is no longer adequete for voicing our desire and vision for Iran.

Hoshang Targol

To all dear "reformist" enthusiasts, don't mean to burst your

by Hoshang Targol on

bubble, but all this "reform" "movement" is only a fight between Rafsanjani and Sepah. The former has Mussavi, Khatemi, Korrubi, Kadivar, et al, in his camp, the latter all the military-security forces on their side.

Islamic Republic of Hell has as much a chance of being reformed as did Hitler's Germany. A throughly corrupt, dis-functional, undemocratic, theocratic  state, bent on destoying anything and everything that it sees as a danger to itself( which effectively means anything and everything in Iran and the world). As far as Kadivar's "political-theory," if you want to elevate his non-sense to that level, his ideas are so backward, undemocratic, and ancient that if he were to present them as a student in any class it would hardly qualify for an E ( that's E for effort).

The world of ideas {especially political-theory, and philosophy[epistemology, aesthetics, and ethics]} has made great advances in the past few decades, based on Kadivar's writings it doesn't look as if he is familiar with any of them at all.

Ari Siletz

Hoshang Targol

by Ari Siletz on

Regarding Agamben et al and the Western philosophical explorations of despotism, I recommend this set of video lectures where Kadivar disusses the issue of a leader's legitmacy in fairly sophisticated terms. For example, he brings up an interesting point which I will paraphrase: the actions and decisions of a national leader are obviously more far reaching than the actions of the average individual (say, the decision to drop a nuke). But the moral code of religion is directed at the average individual. What sort of moral code would religion impose on someone with the power of life and death over millions?

Ari Siletz

Setareh, Mitra

by Ari Siletz on

Regarding obsolescence. Not sure how familiar you are with early Islamic history, but the Green movement is seriously in need of a Badr--some sort of success however nominal or symbolic to restore confidence. The first Green player to score a point against the regime will position himself for leadership--finally.  Recently Kadivar's well publicized letter berating the Assembly of Experts baited Khamenei into making a very bad career move--effectively he issued a fatwa about himself declaring himself infallible on the level of Mohammad and the Emams. From the standpoint of legitimacy this has cost the despot dearly, alienating the Qom fence sitters, losing him clerical support.      I consider this a mini Badr of sorts, which distinguished Kadivar for me as a clever player who may be able to reverse the Green movement's slide into obsolescence. 

mitra northcal

Dear Setareh, I agree with you that reformists are obsolete

by mitra northcal on

Dear Setareh,I am with you about how I feel about reformists.  Yes, we and other people seeking freedom for Iran (be it if they live in Iran or are part of Diaspora) gave Moussavi and other reformists a chance and they failed to inspire mostly. I say mostly, because Karroubi has done a bit better than others. Thanks for your comment.

Regarding Ari's interview with Kadivar, I have not read it yet but my position is that this interview  is just one interview and others are free to interview Kadivar too and ask questions that they think should be asked.

Mola Nasredeen

When they say

by Mola Nasredeen on

" We gave the reformists a last chance to bring about gradual, peaceful change from within but they failed.

Forgetting who they are. The people involved in the reform movement in Iran put their personal freedom, property and life on line for their belief. What have you done? So I ask them: Go ahead and tell us what is your plan for reforming the political situation in Iran? How are you going to change the current regime?

I know your answer already: You have nothing.

Setareh Sabety

Reformists are Obsolete

by Setareh Sabety on

I used to like Mohsen Kadivar. I think his ideas are fine and provide a good contrast with the hardliner clerics in Iran. I don't inherently hate mullahs. What really turned me off was his outright blatant lie on VOA regarding the Qods day slogans. That was not a simple slip. I am not satisfied with his explanation and I think any interview with him post that VOA appearance should include questions regarding that lie. I think Ari did a good and painstaking job but he should have asked the question on all of our lips however difficult that may have been.
But besides that I also think that ever since the elections and the repression that ensued 'reform' has become obsolete. We gave the reformists a last chance to bring about gradual, peaceful change from within. They failed to do so. It is now clear that this regime will never self-correct or allow reform. So why, pray, should we now care about them? They are now more of an obstacle than help. Mousavi and the reformist not only failed to inspire us to continue they killed our hope for real change with their hesitance and insistance on following a Khomeinist line. The blood of the martyrs of this movement for democarcy has washed away our tolerance for political Islam and made all references to the ideology of the Islamic revolution, that created the regime monsters, redundant. In order to have any viable opposition to this regime we need to cut free from the suffocating heritage of '79.


idealogical purity is a luxury on the battlefield

by bushtheliberator on

dear aynak,

    " If someone has changed ....."

You seem the only visitor willing to offer succor,and redemption to Dr.K.That impulse might be a critical benefit to success.

 Also, Turncoats can be great fighters;Dr. K. doesn't run his sword thru the Beast, but he sticks a sharp little dagger into the Beast's most vunerable points. I say, keep an eye on him, but offer him a bowl of beans, and a place to lay down.



Talk a lot, say nothing

by Rea on

That's what religions are all about. I'd say, purée.

PS. thx Ari, translation is hard work. 


Hoshang Targol

It baffles the mind that our "intellectual" cleric after all the

by Hoshang Targol on

turmoil, and trauma our society has been through, is now considering "modifying" his view on " Valie Faghieh" from absolutist to "relative!!!!"

If he had spent all these past few years in jail and had no access to any sources this might have been ( might have been justified) but what is his exucse while he's spent all this time outside of Iran, around all these academic centers in Europe and the US.

Has he ever heard of, read anything from  Giorgio Agamben, Walter Benjamin, Schmitt,... we ARE living in the 21st century, aren't we?

Kadivar's  "ideas" on politics is so ridiculesly outdated it doesn't even merit a response. With "intellectuals " like this who needs dictators?!?!?

And thanks to interviewer and photgrapher/organizer for providing this opportunity, to remind allof us ONCE AGAIN what kind of backward, conservative, indeed reactionary "intellectuals" we're dealing with.


Oktaby "majority" opinions/comments is a small sample Very small

by Anonymouse on

Everything is sacred


Mien Führer

by Fred on

Mien Führer your defense of the Islamist Rapist Republic and all those advocating any version of it is a given.  

But when you say the following you’ve got to cite the example of the “sugarcoating the truth by misinforming iranians on sanctions” done by me, or you are a liar like the rest of your Islamist  brethrens.

“Arent you the one constantly sugarcoating the truth by misinforming iranians on sanctions in order to force feed them down their throats? Or how about every single fact that does not suit your own narrow binary world view and neoconservative agenda? “  

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Re: Inheritance

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on

"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.

Why was it not possible to do this on equal basis? If this was God's decision then what was there to stop it! The Arabs and Muslims wiped out whole cities in Iran. Surely they could have enforced this will of God. The truth is that it is an excuse. God had nothing to do with it. Mohammad did not want to make his male followers angry. So he promissed them lots of stuff. Since women were not the backbone of his army he did not need them. So he did not promise them much. Simple and the truth. Not like wishy washy Islamist making up implausible excuses. Wake up and get real people.

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan


by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


Thank you for having clear and open thinking. 

Here is my solution to treatment of women: we treat men and women as equals under the law. In all legal and financial aspects. Inheritence gets divided equally from the first day. They all get to apply and hold the same jobs for the same pay based on merit only. They get to run for office and hold same positions including judges and president. Now that was not too hard to say? Why do Islamists need centuries to arrive to the obvious.

I know why. Because their primitive minds are incapable of handling it. They overload and blow fuses. They resort to delay tactics to prevent progress. Worse to reverse progress as they did in Iran.



Irritating drivel!

by Marjaneh on

For all the mushed up messy "thinking", it is impossible to have any people anywhere consenting to anything by  a  non-existant hocus pocus non-entity through a set of lunatic "messengers" and its "scholars".

It's totalitarian, no matter how much tweaking and

You're likely to get this sort of totally dangerous homicidal drivel:

"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.



Thanks Ari and Nazy for the interview. Rather you than me! ;)


„Podrán cortar todas las flores, pero no podrán detener la primavera."- Pablo Neruda


fool me once Fred


"More than anything else Iran and Iranians need unvarnished truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, for truth shall set them free. "

Arent you the one constantly sugarcoating the truth by misinforming iranians on sanctions in order to force feed them down their throats? Or how about every single fact that does not suit your own narrow binary world view and neoconservative agenda?

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan


by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


I agree with Oktaby about Shariati and Kadivar. You also have a good point about Shia being a rival to Monarchy. My response however is different. Given the rivalry I pick Monarchy in a moment. 

Reform to Islam IMHO is a waste of time. You cannot reform a toad and make a prince. If the choice really is between Shia and Monarchy lets go back to the latter. A Shah is a heck of a lot better than a Mullah. I saw Shah at his worst and he was infinitely better than Mullahs at their best. Why are we even debating this?

The MKO is always floated to scare us into going back to IRI. I hope you do not fall for that old trick. You are too smart and know better.

I rather listen to our own Mr Kadivar and ressurect the Monarchy. In fact your argument here is one of the best for Monarchy. I hope RP's people get their act together and present us with a strong option to return to the golden days before 1979.


Political infomercial

by Fred on

Given the explanation from the author of this “Q & A” I have to retract my previous overly optimistic comment about the intention of the author.  

It seems NIAC lobby type questions were fully calibrated to give this person the opportunity to talk in generalities and not having to answer for his and likeminded coworkers’ specific deeds.

It is unreasonable to claim fairness mandates a panel with other opposition present for genuine journalistic endeavor to take place.

As it is unreasonable to claim it would be unhelpful to the opposition to ask questions which might lead to damaging statements. In other word truth need not be illuminated, the author decides what the audience needs to know and out the window with journalism’s main mission.

It is also unreasonable while doing the exact thing to condemn VOA for the patently unprofessional journalism by one of its former news presenters now a “journalist”.

Not being as kind as an astute commenter with her “soft ball” description, this piece is a political infomercial and in that context it is a good one.

More than anything else Iran and Iranians need unvarnished truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, for truth shall set them free.

Darius Kadivar

Koran Set Aside What is his opinion of Khomeiny's Green Book ?

by Darius Kadivar on

Tozihol Massael Quoted by the Late Fereidoune Farrokhzad:


Longer Version:


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan


by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


I don't have a problem with God. I have a problem with Islamic God. It is inconsistent and does not show qualities that make sense for God.

Why would God send down Sharia and its savage barbaric laws? 

If you want spirituality then do not sink to the lowest.

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Princess; Ari

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


My friends: it is obvious that Quoran was not written or dictated by God. It was made up by Mohammad and people around him based on partical myths. Why are perfectly smart and  intelligent people refusing to acknowledge the obvious? 

People like Kadivar who do not admit this are putting their heads in the sand. After dedicating a lifetime to this myth they are afraid. They don't want to admit they based their lives on a lie. Lie forced on us by a conquering bunch of savegaes.

The sooner we open our eyes the sooner we wake up. I challange anyone on this side or elsewhere to give me proof that Quoran is divine.  Is there some new wisdom in it. No it is just a bunch of Christian; Jewish and Zoroastrian myths badly put together. Inconsistent and self contradictory. With threats of violance in one place while reconciliation in another. More a reflection of its own timeline than anything else.

You can make a million web sites about it. Still all will be devoide of value or wisdom.


Do you have problem with God? Then call it intelligent designer!

by comrade on

This is a good blog, not for its subject, but because of its author. It's like a movie you go to for your favorite actor even if you already know it's a mere flop.

We are a strange nation. While some of us are busy burying the unwanted, some are exhuming the rejects. 

Every Day We Get A Little Bit Closer!