Letters

June 2005
June 5 | June 6 | June 8

Filled with conspiracy theories

On Farhat Quam Maquami's "The American president":

Farhat Quam Maquami, Salaam Aleykum,

I do not support Rafsanjani, I do not support the un-Islamic acts of the Islamic Republic. However, your article was filled with conspiracy theories, and you presented the "rumors" of the streets of Tehran as fact without any substantial proof.

Yes, the brother of Rafsanjani ran State TV (sedah va seemah), and his son runs the Tehran Metro. However, these rumors that he has billions in accounts in Canada, US and Australia are fabricated rumors made up in the streets of Iran. Yes, he ruined Iran's economy, put forward corrupt and inflationary policies in government in order to "fix" the economy. You can talk about those things, because they are fact.

But if you want to talk about the "Islam of Ali and Hussein (a.s)", then you must not cross the line of ghaybat. You are slandering a man based on things you have no witnesses that have actually seen these things. You can only speak based on the rumors you've heard in Iran and elsewhere. I mean, why would monarchist satellite stations be funded by Rafsanjani? Maybe you also believe the rumor that Googoosh was funded by Rafsanjani?

Again, the man has done plenty of things in public that have destroyed Iran's economy. Why stick to the things you have no proof or witnesses for? The stuff he did openly is plenty.

Khodah Negahdar,

The end may be very close

On Farhat Quam Maquami's "The American president":

Thanks for asking me to elaborate on the missing part in your article about Rafsanjani's role in the hostage crisis.

Its so convoluted its hard to find a few short sentences to describe it all - but basically one should start by identifying 4 books that provide great detail about who participated in what was called the "october surprise" of 1980's presidential elections: All Fall Down (Gary Sick, Carter's National Security Team), October Surprise (also by Gary Sick), Trick or treason (Robert Parry, a Journalist for Frontline) and October Surprise (Barbara Honegger, part of Reagan White House Political Staff).

Rafsanjani which transitioned from being a key Khomeini Insider /Policy Maker to Speaker of the Parliament to President during the Hostage crisis is credited with masterminding negotiations with Initially Carter and then switching to Reagan's camp - promising to hold the hostages to humiliate carter and guarantee Reagan the presidency. He held private meetings with virtually everyone that would travel to Iran (McFarlane, etc.) but did not leave the country.. and in effect devised the 'brilliant' back room strategy of switching sides from carter to reagan's camp in exchange for security guarantees and arms (i.e. that the US would not topple the Mullahs). The americans (in this case Reagan and subsequently the Mullahs) have delivered on the bargain to date and he has done the same. He has maintained a private, quiet channel to the White House ever since.

The negotiations culminated in a private meeting in Paris on October 19th with vice president elect Bush, with Karrubi representing Rafsanjani's team. Rafsanjani at one point received an autographed bible from Reagan with a private thank you message.

His steady rise to power during these tumultuous times speaks volumes - carefully sidetracking Bani Sadr, Qotbzadeh, everyone to assume full political control of Iran's every lever of power. Reagan was comfortable with the relationship because he used it to a) finance the contras in central america, b) make money for his friends through lucrative arms deals selling arms to both sides Iran and Iraq (major companies such as SCI in Alabama (big republican donors) are credited with copying electronic parts for fighter jets from Boeing and other makers designs and shipping parts to Iran indirectly during the '80s with big cash windfalls), c) oust communism from Iran forever (remember during rafsanjani's presidency more communists were identified and killed in Iran than any other time... in fact the mirage of freedom during the revolution helped pull them out of the woodwork to the surface and identify them), and d) channeled private aid to the rebels in Afghanistan (remember both the Taliban and Northern alliance were assisted with money and arms by Iran to fend off Russia). The soviets as we all know collapsed in large part because of their central asian adventures.

Rafsanjani served US interests very well. Of coarse the price was paid by Iran as a nation - almost a million dead or maimed in the war, loss of freedom with complete tyranny of the theocrats and the rise of Islamic Fascism to now haunt the US back (aka 9/11..."every mullah from Morocco to Malaysia dreams of Rafsanjani's money and power and is planning an Islamic revolution"), complete economic, technological, sociological set back for Iran, ....

One day like Mussolini he will be captured and hung in the streets for everyone to watch. The day my friend may be coming very close - especially if he is elected then he will become a center stage target again - and that might inspire the Iranian masses ... but this time the force for change must come by direct Iranian action. The americans have promised him noninterference in Iranian affairs...its another Castro/Cuba situation, they will contain the Mullahs and Iran but will not break their promise. I have only now, recently, realized that Iranians in the US do not and can never have more influence than the Cuban-americans (even with Bush's brother as governor of Florida) and if they can't push the US government to topple little Castro, how can we expect the US to intervene in Iran?

In the end the push has to come from within, from us Iranians ourselves... &

Where did you get your ignorant facts?

On David Etebari's "Completing the pyramid":

David Etebari,

You have absolutely no clue about the political system of the Islamic Republic. You showed no proof or fact about anything you claimed about the system.

The Supreme Leader is NOT the intermediary between God and the People. Who ever claimed that? Some of the supporters of the Supreme Leader have "claimed" that the Supreme Leader is the representative of the Hidden Imam (Imam Zaman, a.s.), but no one has claimed such blasphemy that you present here.

And even that claim that he is the representative of the Hidden Imam was never propogaded by Imam Khomeini or Ayatollah Khamenie. As Imam Khomeini would always say, "man bandeh mardomam" (I'm the slave of the people). Neither has ever claimed to receive direct commands from God. Prove to me otherwise.

Then you claimed that "historically" the mullahs and their supporters have been elected. Since when? History of the ISlamic Republic is 25 years. Ayatollah Khomeini in the beginning always said that he wanted the President to be a non-Mullah, so that all voices were heard in the system. The first Presidents were never supporters of the "Mullahs" (like Bazargan and Bani Sadr). In fact, the Mullahs never liked them, and they ran out of the country. Second, the Gaurdian Council are not ALL Mullahs. Where did you get that fact? From your Satellite TV?

The Gaurdian Council is made up of 12 people, of which 6 are selected by parliament. The current Gaurdian Council is 6 "Alims" (as you call Mullahs), and 6 LAWYERS selected by parliament. They are not mullahs at all.

Wow, where did you get your ignorant facts? Since when is Hujjat-ul-Islam mean "Hope of Islam"? It means "Proof (Hujjat) of Islam". If you simply knew farsi (and no arabic at all), you would still know these facts.

Last but not least, Rafsanjani is not a conservative. He and the Supreme Leader (Khamenie) are on bad terms and Rafsanjani and his children have always made remarks such as wanting to abolish the position of the Supreme Leader. The conservative camp HATES rafsanjani, so how could you claim that Rafsanjani is one of them?

My question to you is this: Why did you write that article? Solely for propoganda? Because it sure sounded like Propoganda to me. Especially since you velified your enemy by using negative terms for them (ie: mullah), thinking that would make them less of people and you more of a god.

Best Regards,

Ali Daei's privacy

On Ali Daei's wedding photo:

Dear sir or Madam;

I am writting on behalf of Mr Ali Daei our national football player in regards to publishing his personal weddind pictuers. He feels by posting his pictuers on your site you have violated his personal privacy and he is extremly upset regarding this matter.

He would appriciate that the link would be removed from your site as soon as possible.

I thanks you,

He probably thought I was some punk

On Siamack Salari's "I'm famous":

I was the one who ran into him that day in San Francisco. I was coming back from a day up at Baker Beach and was walking around SF to buy some gifts for my trip back here to Iran (I'm writing from Khoy, Iran, right now). I saw Siamack walking down the street from afar and he stood out like a glistening marshmallow amidst a crowd of chocolate syrup (he is the type of dude you'd like to go up to and pinch his cheeks) but I wasn't quite sure where I recognized him from.

Before I walked past him with a grin on my face, I realized he was the guy who would write in about the adventures of his family (I like the one about not recognizing Ali Karimi in UAE the best). I was gonna keep walking but I decided I couldn't let this opportunity pass me by so I turned around and tapped him on his shoulder at an intersection.

I could tell by his reaction that he probably thought I was some punk street kid who came to bother him. We talked a bit, me with my rough dirty south slang and him with his polished British accent. I would have liked to ask him more about his journeys, but he looked like he was in a hurry to get nowhere so I decided to let him go peacefully.

On my way back to Berkeley on the BART, I had a feeling that he might write about this encounter ... and at that very moment if you looked close enough, you might have been able to see the beginning of the huddling of water droplets in my right eye which ultimately may have culminated in the formation of what might have become a tear.

To my main man Siamack, keep on writing and we'll keep on reading.

Aidin Fathalizadeh

Should serve as an example

On Paul Merage's donation to University of California, Irvine:

Mr. Paul Merage, whose real name is Parviz Me'raj, is a Jewish-Iranian born in Tehran who has also donated $5 million+ to Tel Aviv University to establish a Center for Iranian Studies. More power to him. Should serve as an example to many Moslem Iranian millionaires!

AKJ

Would rather die under mullahs

On Ernest Friar's "Short on facts long on ridicule":

I never seem to understand why non-Iranians always think they know what is best for Iranians everywhere? Dear Mr."I consider myself a communist" you surely must be brainwashed if you honestly think Mojahedin Khalgh are Iranian people's friends just because they have women fighting alongside with men!

Believe me Sir, Iranians everywhere would rather harbour the torturous "mullah regime" than allow some phony communist group with outdated and moronic views take over their country! If anything I would rather starve to death under the mullah regime than allow communists tell me how to live my life! and I'm sure most Iranians agree! (notice I said Iranians not brainwashed foreigners, i.e. YOU).

Will not replace a theocracy with another

On Ernest Friar's "Short on facts long on ridicule":

I was baffled reading your article painting such a rosy pciture of the Mujahedeen. You failed to mention that this is the group who stood side by side with sadam and shot across the border killing many of their own country men. The iranian people will never forget their atrocities and for this reason they will never have a place in Iran

I am also shocked how you can see them as a true opposition group when their theocratic principles may be hundred times worst than the mullahs. After all their great leader doesnt even shake hands with men. The iranian people will not replace a theocracy with another. You need to revise your article and make it more realistic.

Better references

On Ernest Friar's "Short on facts long on ridicule":

Friar's response ' in response to "The other religious nuts" by Rosa Faiz, is itself void of any facts and long on personal views much like dozens of so called experts that are paraded before us on mainstream media. Mr. Friar was looking for a better referenced article criticizing the Mojahedin-e-Khalgh Organization (MKO) than the one provided by Ms. Faiz.

Well I'll be more than happy to oblige. Let's begin by the well sourced report released by Human Rights Watch in May titled 'Human Rights Abuses in the MKO Camps'. You may also want to read through another well referenced article by The Guardian released today titled "'Tank girl' army accused of torture" which happens to corroborate everything in the Human Rights Watch report.

Mr. Friar, by your own admission, you're a non-Iranian who defends the MKO based on its actions. That is exactly the line given by some politicians in U.S. and U.K. who know little about this group's bloody history but are trying hard to remove their terrorist designation.

Daniel M Pourkesali
Virginia

Disarrayed hodge-podge

On Vida Kashizadeh's "Not that old hat again":

Back in October 2004, in your response to my commentary on the fallacious composition titled “Bad Thoughts, Bad Words, Bad Deeds: The Myth Concerning Zoroastrianism”, you stated:

" ... I agree that the article is weak and narrow. But it's an opinion -- one person's opinion. If this encourages you and others to write a response, that would be great. I would be more than glad to publish it ... ”

In spite of the spirit of “openness” and perhaps “misplaced pluralism” you expressed previously, once again in the “RELIGION” segment, you have allowed “one person’s opinion” to be passed off as a piece of scholarly treatise on religion simply by association of the category title! My main question is: Should an opinion or an editorial be placed in a segment called “religion”?!

In her pseudo-intellectual, quasi-feminist editorial, titled “Not that Old Hat Again”, Ms. Vida Kashizadeh, attacks Zoroastrianism without even the most basic knowledge of the tenets of that religion, or of the evolution of socio-religious developments that have shaped Iranian culture over the past 4000 years.

In her disarrayed hodge-podge of a composition, with great audacity, she dumps on Zoroastrianism as an easy scapegoat and a platform for self-aggrandizement and claims that she has “researched” the topic she presents to the reader! Regretfully, her emotional and pathetic ranting is no more than a superficial treatment of a bogus topic that has nothing to do with the teachings of the Prophet Zarathushtra (Zoroaster). She merely regurgitates half-baked factoids taken out of context from secondary and tertiary sources in order to propound misinformation.

Her primary reference appears to be the controversial anthropological study conducted by Mary Boyce on her visit to the village of Mazra’e Kalantar of Sharifabad district in Yazd in the mid-1960s (see A Persian Stronghold of Zoroastrianism, Oxford Press, 1977), which itself is a flawed piece of research as viewed by present-day scholars of Zoroastrianism and of Iranian studies.

The main flaw lies in the fact that local syncretic folk-religious practices that pre-date the Prophet are erroneously presented as Zoroastrian teachings simply because they were practiced by a small group of local Zoroastrians. She fails to admit, either through ignorance or by deliberate malice towards that faith and its followers that the practices related to menstrual seclusion were neither part of the teachings of the Prophet, nor were they common practice by the mainstream.

The practices Ms. Kashizadeh refers to were never ubiquitously observed by the believers at any point in history -- past or present--and were simply remnants of pre-Zoroastrian practices that had crept back into the ritual structure for some and maintained by a small segment of the believers. She ignores the fact that association does not prove causality and primary generalizations cannot be valid in the absence of factual consensus.

Ironically, though she is quick to dissociate and distance the festive celebrations of Chahar-Shanbeh Souri, Nowrooz, and Shab e Yalda from Zoroastrianism, which have constituted an integral and important part of the folk-religious practices of the faith for thousands of years. Conversely, and by selective dissection, she readily attributes the unpalatable and backward practice of menstrual seclusion -- now a dead practice, even among the aforementioned small segment of the community -- to Zoroastrian teachings.

She even goes as far as making the preposterous statement that in the Zoroastrian system of belief women were “created from Ahriman” -- itself an abstract entity simply meaning “negative or bad thought”, which in later mythology was anthropomorphized into what is know today in the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) as “Satan”, “Lucifer”, “the Devil”, “anti-Christ” etc.

Whether, she is looking for sensationalism or is simply a mouthpiece for anti-Iranian and anti-Zoroastrian lobbyists is beside the point. My grievance lies with the poor journalism displayed on your part. Am I perhaps misunderstanding the format of your publication? When segments are given topical titles, such as “Religion”, “Art”, “Poetry” shouldn’t they be reserved for the scholarly or authoritative treatment of those topics? For instance, would you publish an article on Persepolis by the renowned professor Richard Frye and the late madman Ayatollah Khalkhali (who attempted to bulldoze that historic structure 25 years ago) in the same segment called “History”?

I have no qualms about opinions, whatever they may be or however unpalatable they may sound, as long as a certain level of decorum is maintained, and as long as they are published in the proper segment reserved for “OPINIONS”. That way, no inappropriate expectations and no expert standards would be assumed by the readership. If any inept person can simply write and submit whatever piece of trash they please for your segments, without any scrutiny or a minimum standard, wouldn’t it more dignified to convert your online MAGAZINE to a WEBLOG, LISTSERVE or BULLETIN-BOARD?

Yours truly,

No proof

On Farhad M.'s "Cohen kohan":

Dear Farhad,

Etymology is indeed a facinating subject, and here is my point of view:

1- Similarity in sound and spelling is not proof of a common origin. There are many words in different languages, or in the same language, that sound the same, but have no relation with each other at all.

2- The Persisn language is an Indo-European language, the Hebrew (or its origin the Aramaic with its derivative the Arabic) on the other hand, are Semitic languages which are Afro-Asiatic in origin hence not related what so ever.

3- There are two kinds of words, Borrowed Words, that any language can borrow from any other language, or Related Words, which means they must have a common root. In either case the example looks unlikey.

4- The Exodus was first described by Ezra while Jewish people were in Babylon (reference made to it in the old testament, book of Ezra, chapter 42, if my memory serves me right).

The whole idea of Israelites being taken as slaves to Egypt is questionable in my mind. If all the Israelites were taken to Egypt, then who was living in the land of Isreal during that time?! Israelites or non-Israelites? In either case it undermines Ezra's account.

5- As for "genetic" discoveries by the "Scientist"... lets start from the known facts shall we. Humans share 98% their genes with chimpansees... the remaining 2% has to explain all other human characteristics, in all the races and cultures throughout history!

As for patrilineal Cohen Modal Haplotype gene having passed from father to son without interruption from Aharon, for 3,300 years, ... do you know what the probability of a father not having a son for 3300 years is?

Scientists often use "Science" to "prove" all kinks of dreams ... I know, I am one.

Best regards,

100% 6/8 free

On Behrouz Bahmani's "Death to 6/8":

I feel your pain bro... but give me two months and I guarantee you will be not be dissappointed with the album we are producing. We are in the mix and mastering stage and finishing the CD design right now. I cant give too much away but it is a surprisingly successfull mix of socially aware Persian lyrics with a Dylanesque satirical sting to them, over rock music ala Dire Straits, straight from Iran! 100% 6/8 free!

Will need you guys help for promoting it when its ready!

Babak K

Aylar=Diana

I just had a revelation! Aylar and Diana are in fact of the same person! Her official website is Aylar.no

Boy she moved up fast!

ok... gotta go now! :))))

B

Marriage is not a business transaction

On Parissa Sohie's "Champions of wrong causes":

I felt compelled to write to you after i read your reply to the canadian duo on same-sex marriage and terry shiavo's case. I hope that you realize that you can not use "lack of research" as an argument to discredit one's view on any subject matter, especially in something as sensitive a topic as religion and marriage and how they affect each other. They may in turn call your conclusions and take on any subject irrational, and so that makes it very hard to reach a consensus. having that in mind, i find your view on the same sex marriage and that it usually comes from the fundamentalist of everyback ground, a very unrealistic generalization, very misguided.

To top if off, you fail to assume responsibilty for having such an opinion by distancing yourself and saying that you don't necessarily disagree!! Marriage is much more than about just an Institution of based on social and economic benefits and that is "necessarily" true. It is not endorsed by religion just because it establishes social order and it is not abouthaving certain rights in ownership or inheritance. you simply can't view it as a form of a business transaction. The discussion over those rights will be appropriate only when certain steps have been taken to bring a coouple closer together, based on love, respect and emotional feelings. Don't take this as a sign of fundamentalism or fanaticism on my part, but incest and adultery have always been condemned in every religion and you can not blame the message of the book ( any religious doctrine for that matter) simply because those who preach it happen to deviate from the principles. I will leave the answering to your question up to those fellows.

On shaivo's case, your knowledge of her medical situation and the legal arguments on the details of exactly what went on in the courtrooms in 15 years or in that hospital room, and between her parents and her husband, is as good as everyone else's and comes straight from the media, whether mainstream or independent, so if there is anyone who can not make any claims and call everyone else's "unfair accusations", it would be you. There is absolutely no link between what her husband did and the overall snctity of marriage and that this is a religiously sacred bond. He was one of the so called bad apples, based on how he managed to live his life while terry was on hospital bed. People's lack of understanding and hence not accepting his actions, should not be used to dispel and disprove the sacred notion of a marriage.

Does that ring a bell?

On Dario Margeli's "Ding dong! Ding dong!":

I guess I will have to use Mr. Dario's own bells and sound a ding dong back to himself. Mr. Dario, you are typical of a person whom we do not wish to travel to Iran. Who gives a damn about a person going to Iran with this attitude: "How embarrassing, the Spaniards having to pay for a guard because Iranians are a cause of trouble." For someone supposedly opposing prejudice, you are a sorry specimen: "They had satellite TV on with programming from inside Iran with a sibiluu woman presenter covered head to toe with a chador."

Whether the woman had a chador on or whether she had facial hair does not influence her performance as a reporter or does it Mr. Dari, the not prejudist? And I can tell you one more thing, Mr. Not Prejudist: the treatment you got at the embassy is justified, given your obvious attitude prior to your interview. Besides I am sure it was many times better than the treatment Iranians get at foreign embassies, specially those of western countries.

The country you so express your love for, is something imaginary in your mind. Your fantasies belong to a period of Iranian history where even bare- footed drug addict hippies from the west, on their way to their Shangri La in the opium fields of Afghanistan and Pakistan, were treated like princes in Iran.

"Which countries want to kill homosexuals? Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and other shitty countries. Does that ring a bell? Ding dong! Ding dong!" Of course, it does Mr Not Prejudist, or should I by this time use Mr. Hypocrite? It is not many years ago that countries like Spain and and Italy treated homosexuals like shit, and now you of all people are lecturing us? I can see that you are familiar with the persian language so I'll give you a proverb to mull over, "Ab ke sar bala bere, ghoorbaghe ham abu ata mikhoone."

And by the way, the Ding Dongs do tell me something indeed: whatever temporary tragedy, our revolution has brought upon us, it has had one advantage and that is keeping the likes of you out of Iran. God bless the embassy staff.

Get Simorq-anized

On Mohammad R. Jahan-Parvar's "On the Aryan trail":

Dear Mohammad R. Jahan-Parvar,

I read your article with interest. Political mythology is a powerful tool, one that can be used in both beneficial and malevolent ways. I have several approaches to re-working Persian myths for greater cultural and historical transcendence. One of them, inspired by Farid-edin Attar's Conference of the Birds, is up on my website. Yes, it's time for the Iranian community, and indeed, all of humanity, to get "Simorq-anized". Read all about it here.

The beauty of it is that we are already part of the great migration.

Best regards,
Rezwan Razani
AjabanZaban.com/

We are an ungrateful bunch

On the Pahlavi era:

It is truly sad how we did not appreciate what we had and shot ourselves in the foot! As much as I am proud to be an IRANIAN I have to admitt we are an ungrateful bunch.

Mahsa S

If a people are muzzled

On Mohammad Ala's "Expensive speech":

I have just finished reading Dr. Mohammad Ala's, Expensive speech. I found it to be well written, soundly reasoned and thoroughly thought provoking. He deserves kudos for initiating discussion on the very important topic of free speech and how it pertains to the Iranian-American community. Having said all this, however, I must in all humility and with the greatest respect for Dr. Ala's opinions, disagree with some of the ideas expressed in his piece because I have the greatest faith in all segments of American society, including the Iranian-American community, to engage the right of free speech in a responsible and productive manner.

My interpretation of Dr. Ala's article is that he was strongly urging a Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along" approach to the notion of free speech. Free Speech has never been about "getting along" or about promoting unity within any community. The right of free speech is predicated on the notion that robust and vigorous debate is the only avenue to find "truth" whatever hat means. When we asked others to limit their participation in open and free discourse, then we are in essence using social pressure to muzzle them in a manner which even the government is not permitted to do. If a people are muzzled either by government interference or by social pressure then the right of free speech ceases to be meaningful in any way, shape or form.

While in theory it would be nice if we lived in a world where offensive and hate filled speech were not part of social discourse, the reality is that we do not live in a utopian world. Offensive and hate filled speech are everywhere. If we were all likeminded then we would all be able to agree on what types of speech cross the line and should be prohibited from the pubic arena. The problem with America as a country and Americans as a people is that we are not likeminded. America is a richly diverse patchwork of individuals in which speech that one person may find offensive, another finds socially relevant and redeemable. If we are going to start drawing lines between what is permitted and what is not ... who is to decide; the government; the community; the majority? God forbid!

It is the right of free speech guaranteed to us in the Bill of Rights which in fact protects us from interference and oppression from the government, the community and the majority. The First Amendment to the Constitution exists precisely to protect the most offensive and controversial speech from suppression. The best way to counter obnoxious speech is not to call for restraint or self-imposed silence, but rather to vigorously encourage more speech. Persuasion, not physical, intellectual or social coercion, is the solution. The notions underpinning the concept of free speech have never been to promote unity of thought within a community, but rather to provide all individuals within society the means to contribute to public discourse in hopes that that a more enlightened and invigorated society will develop.

Each of us who loves and believes in the right of freedom of speech must welcome the fact that this freedom not only protects that speech with which we agree and those ideas we hold dear, but more importantly it guards that speech with which we disagree and ideas we may despise.

This does not mean, as Dr. Ala, makes abundantly clear, that every form of speech or every utterance is protected by the Constitution. One may not hide behind the Bill of Rights and cry freedom of speech if one has contrived a fantasy and promoted it as fact with an intention to deceive and cause harm, or intentionally injured another person's reputation with untruths. The matters of libel and defamation are matters for the court's to deal with, however. Urging individuals in a free society to restrict or sacrifice one of their most basic rights in hopes of promoting harmony and unity within a community, however, is tantamount to social suicide. The silencing of voices never results in a happier and healthier community it only results in thought control and a complete evaporation of the pool of ideas within the social marketplace. This results in people being held prisoner by the heavy chains ignorance. The only thing that can destroy the chains of intellectual deprivation is the enthusiastic exercise of one's right to speak freely.

I do not wish to put words in Dr. Ala's mouth because I may have misinterpreted his beliefs, but after reading Expensive speech, I was left with the sad impression that he doesn't have complete faith in the Iranian-American community as a whole, or individuals within the community to understand and respect the fact that along with the right to express one's ideas freely comes the responsibility respect and uphold three important principles that are inherent in the right of free speech..

The first of these principles is that each of us must recognize that our own opinions and ideas, no matter how strongly held, do not rise to the level of universal laws and cannot be forcibly imposed on other people. This protects us from being intellectually dominated by others and it protects others from being dominated by us.

The second principle is to support in word and deed those legal structures which protect everyone's right to free speech, even if the speech is of a nature that we do not personally agree or perhaps even regard as repugnant. Part and parcel with this principle is the firm belief that everyone has the absolute right to disagree with and reject prevailing social ideas.

The last of the three principles is the belief that the best ideas will ultimately be the most persuasive and will prevail over inferior ideas within the market place of social thought. If one doesn't believe this then one can neither support the notion of free speech or democratic government. Some individuals believe that bad ideas will always win out because people are incapable of judging for themselves which ideas are good from those that are bad. These are the very kinds of people who believe that democratic forms of government cannot function because society cannot govern itself.

I have far too much respect for the incalculable contributions that the Iranian-American community has made within the larger context of American society to believe that anyone needs to adopt or adhere to a "can't we all get along" approach to freedom of speech. Just as with all other segments of American society, Iranian-Americans are not citizens who have been molded by a cookie cutter. There is a rich diversity of opinions, ideas and beliefs held by millions of very different individual Americans of Iranian origin or descent in the U.S. today. Only the freedom to speak and express ideas openly and without fear will lead to what Dr. Ala says the Iranian-American community should strive for: "We should seek to support one another and our organizations which are seeking to protect our rights and our identity as Iranians, not undermine these organizations or each other." I couldn't agree with him more on this point, but I believe that the only way to truly support each other is to vigorously, enthusiastically and regularly exercise your freedom to speak and to respect every other person's right to do the same whether you agree with them or not. Solid ideas will always survive and prosper while worthless ones well fall by the wayside.

Divine truth

On Mohammad Ala's "Expensive speech":

Thank you Mr. Ala for a very true analysis of Iranians on the Internet. E-mails and even some of the articles submitted to different web sites, including Iranian.com site, are replete with foul language, vicious character assassinations, and condemnation of every organization and individual who does not agree with their view. This is Iranians on the Internet's understanding of free speech.

Mojahedin, Monarchists, Reformists, Constitutionalists, Referendom (ists!), war-mongers, grass-root activists, seculars, religionists, etc. etc.--and everyone of these groups believes in its "Divine Right" and its "Rightousness" and each claims to have found the "Truth" !

Ever since the Nobel Prize was established, Iranians are the only people in the world who attack and condemn and use the most shameful language for one of their own who has won the Nobel Peace Prize for the first time in Iran's history. Why? Because they don't agree with her views on how to bring democracy to Iran!

Alas ! How fortunate is a ruling establishment whose opposition are these groups!

Thank you again and best wishes,

Nahid S.

Mishi Diba

Could you give ma any info on how I might get in touch with Mishi Diba. He earned a degree in petroleum engineering at the University of Oklahoma in the early 70's. He went back to Iran prior to the revolution. He is related to Empress Farah Diba, a cousin or nephew. His father was a physician in Iran and his mother lived in Paris. I met him through a mutual friend Pat Emery. Any info you might provide would be most appreciated.

Thanks,

Find my friends

Help me to find my friends. I am Looking for: Amir Ramezan-nejad, Amir Rezaie, Bahram Noori Nekoie and Ferial Alizadeh.

I left Iran in 1979 and living in Canada since.If any body knows any of my friends I love to find them.my name is Pari (Parvaneh) my e-mail address is pari@telus.net.

More June 5 | June 6 | June 8
>>> All past letters

� Copyright 1995-2013, Iranian LLC. | User Agreement and Privacy Policy | Rights and Permissions