Misc

in the field of logic...

the only true form of logic is deduction which is the only form of logic used in the field of mathematics.  induction is the most dominant form of logic used in the whole spectrum of professions (with the exception of pure mathematics).  appealing to authority is reciting someone else's conclusion without stating his permises.  example: e=mc**2 because einstein said so.  this form of logic is also used in scientific research in form of referencing.  there are other forms of logic as in generalization (logic by example): i know many russians who are christians, therefore all russians are christians.  and many others.

therefore, if you're appealing to the knowledge of soroush to make an assertion, then you should reveal that knowledge so that we know what you're talking about.  and your logic that there are statements in qoran on treatment of women ensures that women are equal to men does not convince me.  do you have any observation that in an islamic society women are equal to men?  if the answer is yes, please elaborate.  if the answer is no, and you're still sticking to qoran for your source of truth, does that mean no society has ever practiced true form of islam?  and is that what you're suggesting for iran?

David you brough up so many pints..pick one...

1- What is Secularism?

2- What is Religion?

3- What is government?

4-  What is a law?

5- What is secularism going to provide to people

6- What is religion going to serve people with?

7- What is a government's responsibility for people?

8- What is a law intended to do for people?

Dear Farah,

If you look at any thinker's life, you'll see the similarities. There is no point of "evolution complete". It's a trend. I see he has evolved and I frankly wouldn't follow his trend if I didn't see an upward one.

If we put our basis to exclude anybody who is not 100% conformal to our standards we will end up with a very small group of people who are timid and pretentious. This is dictatorship.

Our strauggle arises when we want to see our thinker to be our leader too. In that regard we want him to be absolutely perfect and lenient towards what the majority of people want. But by definition a thinker is  just an opposite thing. 

Midwesty

From your comments so far, it seems that you may not have correct understanding of seculrism. Your lack of understanding is obvious from the wrong question that you are asking: "If you abandon religions where you draw the line on code of conducts and ethics?" 

A secular Iran does not abandon religion and for the matter Islam or its Shia Version of it or any religions. In fact all religions will be free to practice and their rights will be protected. The only difference is that the government does not enforce an ideology or religion on the people .

So when you are asking "where you draw the line on code of conducts and ethics", the question back to you is who do you mean by "you" ?

"you"=Iranians?

 Each person each draw their own code of conducts and ethics individually, within family or through their mosques, churches, schools, etc. and act upon it as long as s/he does not force it on others or hurt others.

"you"= Government?

The government minds its own business and does not enforce religious code of conducts but maintain a secular status based on the constitution which is based on Internationally recognized Human Rights.

The issue with Soursh, and alike is that in his mind, there is an underlying believe that someone!: Soroush or Mojtahed or some Islamic guardian Council  ...(through the government) must "draw the line on code of conducts and ethics" for The People ! and of course its own Islamic own version of it ! and then feed it to people as "democracy Dini" : Plurarism Dini" etc etc...

What we are saying to Soroush and other so called Muslim intellectuals like him is to keep government out of religion and religion out of government , unless despite their claims they don't believe in: 

 [Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error.. ] Qur'an 2:256:

* * * 

From Preamble :

Separation of Religion and State:

We the people of Iran mutually respect our different religions and personal beliefs. Our government of the people will remain separate from any religious institutions and influences and shall not promote or oppose any specific religions or personal beliefs.

Human Rights:

We the people of Iran respect human rights and our government of the people shall assure that the human rights of all Iranians are respected and defended and it shall not violate our human rights under any pretext. Our government of the people shall comply with the basic principals of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.  

Secular republic of Iran observes no official religions for the country. Secular in nature, everyone in Iran is treated the same, regardless of their religion or lack of it. All religions within the limits of the law and without limiting or violating the guaranteed individual and human rights within the constitution are free to perform their religious rights, and to act according to their own canon in matters of personal affairs. The individual and human rights as guaranteed by the constitution shall always prevail and take precedence over religious and ideological preferences and beliefs.

                  Visit: www.iransecular.org

In Islam...

Authority lies within people. If that's the authority then I am appealing to the authority. Ali didn't make coupe de tat when he was stripped from his rights. He waited 25 years until they came and begged him to accept it.

In Koran we have repeated statements that, there is no force in accepting even God's words. The Hijab was recommended only to the Mohammad's wives. The inheritance was based on the that society's structure where women could inherit from both of her families at the same time so since they would overpass men in age they would normally end up inherent from both their family side so then the would have half the share of the men, there were no mandatory taxation laws(absolute capitalism) and the list goes on and on...That's why you need to read all these if you don't know them... then reject them if you will...

Thank you Mr Midwesty

I conjure with you on a number of points. Let me begin with Islam and the dilemma that I believe it will continue to pose for a foreseeable future. The difference between Islam and the other two Abrahamic religions is, in my limited knowledge,  that Islam is in its core definition is a political/public faith as well as a private one - more political/public than private. Since its inception Islam has been opposed and later followed by the local tribal leaders and later it became a political weapon in the hands of opposing factions. One may argue along the same line for Judaism but, correct me if I am wrong, Judaism unlike Islam had no hegemonic aspirations. As for Christianity, I don't see it as an inherently political faith. But back to Islam i cannot imagine a day in any distant future that we see Muslims practice their faith without claiming a voice in their local or national politics. Therefore,  truthfully, I cannot see if the issue of Islam and politics can ever be separated or cured BUT it can be "managed." And this is where the question Soroush and his experimental theories should be assessed.

In my view, I cannot accept that Soroush had no idea of Khomeini's doctrine right from the outset. This alone makes him associated by consent if not complicit in all the abuses and wrong doings that took place after the establishment of the Islamic regime. His position is not dissimilar to that of Heideggar and the Nazi regime. If I were to follow any Islamic scholar's take on Islam and politics I would rather follow and give a chance to the doctrine of the late Dr Mahdi Haeri Yazdi (of Oxford and Harvard fame) who while his associations with the Khomeini clan were much more intimate than Sorosuh's (his father the Grand Ayatollah Haeri was Khoemini's teacher and marj'a) but only ten days into the Islamic take over, resigned his post in protest to the un-Islamic trials and executions of the former regime's officials. In his book, Hekmat va Hokoumat, Haeri in a dialectic style proves the falsity of Velayate Faqih and declared it in contradiction with the tenets of Islam. Sadly he is no more but his ideas are. My question is: Given Sorush's background why do we need to listen to him? Would you re-employ an employee whose background is, to say the least, murky?  

Farah

midwesty

i'm not interested in your certificates and i did not call you names.  i referred to your logic: appealing to authority.  you did not explain soroush's views before and after his enlightenment.  you are suggesting that we read his books first.  if he was able to convince you of his ideology through his writing, surely you can explain it.  no?

hamsadeh jan,

Among others I also brought my Tae Kwon Do certificate and suit. Wanna see?

No buddy, I am not the the tip-nosy-big-glass-first-row-sitter-sniffy-geek that just been taken out of the bubble wrap.

if that what you meant...;O)

There were two types of characters in Islam: Mohammd (PBUH) and Ali (PUBH) types.

The Mohammd type were the ones if you smacked them they would turn the other cheek, Ali types were the one who not only would smack you back, they would hit you in the balls also...So you never know what type you get until you try... 

Chakereem!

Dear Farah

A good leader rises from the heart of people. Intellectuals and thinkers give the direction, shed the light on what most people can't see and sometimes pay dearly costs for their controversial thoughts, since they are sometimes well ahead of the rest of us.

I can not speak for Dr. Soroush, but what it is built in me tells me that we can not abandon Islam since there so many followers, following it. Any plan you have, it should conform with it at most part if you want to succeed. It is obvious that Islam does not prescribe any violation of human rights, restriction in freedom of faith in major branches of religions, freedom of speech, women's right, and dynamic (don't read liberal) ideas.

The devil is in the detail, where all political systems struggle. Democracy is the key but bring me an absolute democratic society that is prosperous, advanced and problem free. Also what has worked for others might not work for us.

Is US political system completely secular? The US laws are derived from the bible. On every US coin there engraved, "In God We Trust". There are senators and state reps who completely run on religious platform.

Does Dr. Soroush believe in separation of church and state, yes, but to what extend? If you abandon religions where you draw the line on code of conducts and ethics? Science? It fluctuates, it doesn't flow down to all the layers of the society, it is not reliable and sometimes open to different interpretations.

As you noticed, we have ADHD problem. This subject started from Velayate Faghih and now we are talking about state and church relationship.

Be more specific about your questions. I'll be glad to help.

Fallacy of burden of proof

آندسته که اثبات حقانیت دلبندیهای خود را به عهدۀ طرف مقابل میگذارند، یا مثلا میگویند برو کتابهای طرف را بخوان تا فهمت بره بالا و استاد را درک کنی از همان  سفسطه ای استفاده میکنند که حضرات سوار بر گردۀ مردم ایران استاد آن هستند.

از ملانصرالدین پرسیدند که وسط زمین کجاست؟ یک کم اطراف رو نگاه کرد دید خرش یک گوشه ایستاده. گفت وسط زمین همانجاست که میخ طویله خرم را کوباندم! قبول نداری برو متر کن.

Mr Midwesty

I am a new entrant on this thread and while following the comments, noted your, rather coded, comments on Soroush. From what I can recall you have been a fair and erudite commenter and I don't think you need to add weight to your arguments by counting the number of years you have been following Soroush or compare the number the shirts packed in your bags to the number of his books you brought to the US. Yes I have read some of his books too and this is why I consider him as a costly experience that has failed. You regard him as a king maker not a king. I agree. But wasn't the last king he made (Khatami) another fantastic failure? Why are prepared to give him another chance? Perhaps you believe that in the absence of no alternative we should stick to what we have. I wish you were around arguing the same thing in 1979.

Farah

Re: Not to mention

not to mention that he did not explain soroush's view before and after his metamorphosis.  if he's convinced by the suitcases of books that he's read from soroush, then he should be able to explain him and not tell others "go and read his books.  you'll be convinced too."  that's called appealing to authority without even stating what the authority is saying.

What do you expect of someone who admits not reading something but opposes it? This way of thinking belongs to natual followers. They don't care what the content or ideas are. They go for the "appeal of authority". That is the essence of VF. No independent thought. Just find someone with a big name and follow them.

This mentality cannot even conceive of independent thinking. That is why they always search for a master. Fortunately many of us are past that.

Unfortunately many still follow this path. This is what led us into IRR. This is what created MKO and this is what we must pass beyond.

not to mention

not to mention that he did not explain soroush's view before and after his metamorphosis.  if he's convinced by the suitcases of books that he's read from soroush, then he should be able to explain him and not tell others "go and read his books.  you'll be convinced too."  that's called appealing to authority without even stating what the authority is saying.

You may be right VPK

But, I feel that, unlike the unlucky folks in Iran who get visits from IRI goons, we have to call these Islamists on their claims of grandeur.

Talking to Midwesty

Is a waste of time since he by his own admission did not even read the Constitution.

Why bother arguing with someone who has no interest in hearing the other side. By his own admission!

Separation of religion & State - YES or NO? that's all.

Midwesty,

There is no need to go through lengthy explanations from all your books.  Just tell us if the three staunch followers of Khomeini believe in separation of religion and government, now.  That is all.  If they do, then you have my apology.  If not, then they are preaching voodoo untested politics.

Anonymouse Oh Ok ? ;0)

Right !

No I'm just stating d correct version of fool me once or twice!

Nothing political just stating the correct routine, like whose on first or what's on second routine of Abbott and Costello. 

Everything is sacred.

Anonymouse Baleh ?

What Are You talking about ?

Are You suggesting I supported an Invasion of Iraq ?

DK jaan you dont know the fool me once or twice routine either?!

Bush (W) didn't know it either and said fool me once, shame what ... fool me twice ... bottom line can't fool us again!

So here's the correct version: Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me! 

Everything is sacred.

Maybe Midwesty Should explain Soroush to reconvince Her ...

BBC Hard Talk Narges Kalhor daughter of Mehdi Kalhor ( the fellow who wanted to ban Marjan Satrapi's Persepolis) and who fled Iran:

//www.bbc.co.uk/persian/tv/2008/12/000000_ptv_hardtalk.shtml

Fool Us Once ... Fool Us Twice ... NOT a THIRD TIME !

The Persepolis Generation in the Making ! :

Persepolis- Eye of the Tiger:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlIAmCfHzbg

POW IN THE EYE OF THE OCTOPUS !

LOL

and you...want me to explain the ...

things they have written in several books in couple of lines?

Easy way out...the Iranian way...Always...

If not Islamic rule, then, what are we talking about?

From this video:  religious pluralism?  he still thinks that khomeini was a good VF! 

From my video postings, at a different time, it is clear that the 3-stooges  still want religion to dominate the political landscape.

If I am mistaken, please enlighten us.

Where did I say that?

I also extend it to the "three stooges"..where did they say that?

.

.

Then, on what basis do you claim that Islamic rule will work????

.

No true Iranian since the 7C

No true Iranian since the 7C has ever advocated the ruling of Caliph. Our history is full of their heroism. From Yaghoob Leyth to Abu Muslim and so forth...What people are you thinking? Why your view about today's Iran is so simplistic? Oh Boy!!!!

.

.

OK Midwesty - forget about modern, as you wish & look at 7th C.

I repeat,

Do you think that we can go back to Caliph rule days?  Look at your Caliphs and Imams of the 7th century on-wards, and then tell us on what basis you think that the Islamic ideologies/governments are going to work this time around.  And, do not tell us because Kadivar, Soroush or Mohajeraani said so.

You claimed something...

and now want me to explain it? Did I say modern? By the way what is modern...Please define it for me in the context of political system?

All these countries that you mentioned that they have "modern system" have a very distinct and unique political system.

What is modern?