Blown out of proportion

All we hear about is the distorted version of Ahmadinejad's statement about homosexuals. Why is that?


Blown out of proportion
by Choob Dosar-gohi

A few days ago, I was home minding my own business, eating my yogurt (as they say in Farsi/Persian) when a friend told me over the phone that Ahmadinejad had made a fool out of himself by saying that there are no gays in Iran. Because I don’t have cable television, I could not listen to Ahmadinejad’s talk at Columbia, live on TV. I had to trust that the president “gand zadeh” as my friend put it. She was upset not only because of Ahmadinejad’s alleged statement about the lack of homosexuals in Iran, but also because of Bollinger’s disrespectful and rude introductory remarks.

Later that night, I attended a meeting of Iranians who had gathered to provide the US Library of Congress representative with information about the Iranian diaspora’s cultural productions. When the representative said that he was going to meet with the queer Iranian group in Los Angeles, people burst into laughter. “But we have no homosexuals in Iran,” remarked a participant, mimicking Ahmadinejad. Everyone got the joke, as Ahmadinejad had spoken at Columbia only a few hours before our meeting. Being one of the two queer people (or at least the only one who is “out” to the most members of that group), I felt the weight of unfamiliar and familiar looks on me. It was as if at that very moment with that sarcastic utterance, I had received the stamp of authenticity (you are the living proof that Ahmadinejad lies!) and at the same time was given an opportunity to participate in a moment of group solidarity: all of a sudden gay rights had become an issue of concern for all of us, intellectual Iranians!

The next day, I decided to find Ahmadinejad’s talk online. Rather than relying on other people’s tubes, I took refuge in Youtube and surely, there it was… headlines such as “Ahmadinejad: no Homos in Iran,” readily jumped at me. I watched Bollinger’s talk and was outraged by his racist remarks. When I heard Bollinger say to the audience that he feels “the weight of the civilized world” on his shoulders, I felt as if I was listening to the good old colonialists’ narratives of rescuing the “savage” and civilizing the “barbaric” in the colonies! “White man’s burden,” as a friend rightly put it. Feeling very grateful for a promise of rescue by agents of “civilization,” I clicked on the next video to listen to Ahmadinejad’s talk and prepared myself to be more annoyed, expecting his infamous sentence about denying the existence of homosexuals in Iran.

As a queer woman who is aware of the violences of religious fundamentalism (including but not limited to Islamic fundamentalism) on queer bodies, I did not expect Ahmadinejad to pretend that he was a gay rights advocate; the same way that I do not expect Christian fundamentalists such as Bush and Cheney to defend gay rights in the US (and they do a good job denying any rights to queers in the US!). As a matter of fact, when Bollinger mentioned the violation of gay rights in Iran, I was thinking: “kal agar tabeeb boodi sar-e khod davaa nemoodi!”

But not only did I expect Bollinger to mention the persecution of gays in Iran, I also expected the question to come up in the Q&A session. After all, this question seems to be the thing to ask these days! It is as if women and queers have become the sexy representable subjects for those who yearn to characterize Iran as the core of the “axis of evil.”

But sadly enough, the hate mongers who are dying to wage a war on Iran are not the only opportunist fake gay rights advocates. Defending the rights of homosexuals is the new fad among the Iranian opposition groups as well. Let’s be forward about it. Despite the chic of homosexuality among the Iranian opposition groups these days, many of the so-called “progressive” forces who wave the gay flag in solidarity with the Iranian “degarbaash” jamaa’at (a term used by these groups to refer to queer in Farsi), remain deeply homophobic, laugh at jokes about “koonis,” and when given a chance in their private gatherings, make fun of queers.

Why do we go far? It was only last year that a famous dissident, who writes petitions defending degarbaashan-e Irani, in his response to a question about the rights of homosexuals in his vision of the free democratic Iran, publicly said that “homosexuality is not an issue for the Iranian people!” How is it that now, all of a sudden, it has become THE issue? It beats me. Could it be that it is fashionable (or profitable for some) these days to defend gay rights and make films about it? It is as if the homophobes of the opposition woke up one day, read their Vogue of Politics magazine and saw that the latest fashion in the homeland politics was to be a gay rights advocate! So now everyone is wearing the gay rights hat, which conveniently hides the bald spot (homophobia) of their democratic future for Iran!

Don’t get me wrong. I would love to see the Iranian queers not be excluded from the realms of the Iranian cultural and political citizenship. After all, have I not experienced exclusion and homophobia in its many forms from all kinds of Iranians, secular or not? I don’t mean to privilege my experience as the base of my argument, but many of these opposition groups rely on nationalist discourses that are deeply intertwined with heteronormative definitions of the nation. That is why when queers become “peeraahan-e osmaan” and are used by these deeply homophobic neocons or opposition forces, one wonders, if the tables turn, will queers still be so hot on the agenda of these groups? I doubt it.

But exactly because of the way Iranian queers have been excluded from the imaginations of Iranian-ness for so long, moments such as this become opportunities for many queers who desire acceptance to insert themselves into the imaginations of the Iranian nation, which is being constantly envisioned by the opposition groups in diaspora. Despite the ambivalence of the nation and the fact that Iranian-ness at this particular historical juncture, for political reasons, has become inclusive of queers for certain opposition forces, I am very skeptical of the intentions of these groups.

And on the other hand, this incident also becomes an excuse for some to make homophobic remarks. These comments range from those by Islamophobes who in expressing their hatred of mollas in Iran, call them gay (“khodeshoon keh kooni hastan!”), to those by people who in defense of Ahmadinejad claim that there are in fact no gays in Iran, and thus erase homosexuality from the Iranian historical memory all together. Unfortunately, even some anti-imperialist Iranians who criticize the opportunistic use of Iranian queers by the opposition forces and the neocons, resort to homophobic language. Sarcastic statements such as “perhaps the pro-gay dissidents do not mind having a gay experience themselves!” are meant to demasculinize the opportunist fake gay rights advocates by using homosexuality as an insult.

Let me also say a couple of words about Ahmadinejad’s response. At the risk of being accused of defending him, I want to point out that Ahmadinejad did not say that queers do not exist in Iran at all. He said “we do not have ‘hamjensbaaz’ the way that you have it in this country.” I understand the denial of the existence of queers in Ahmadinejad’s sentence and am the first one to say that he is extremely homophobic. It is no news to anyone that he represents one of the most socially conservative officials in Iran. But he is correct to say that homosexuals do not exist THE SAME WAY that they exist in the US.

The meaning of being queer is different in the Iranian cultural context than it is in the US. Despite the desire for representing a homogenous global gay identity, there is no such a thing as a unified gay identity that transcends history, politics, and culture. The historical processes that have culminated in the formation of the gay rights movement and have shaped the gay and lesbian identitarian politics in the U.S., are different than the ways by which homosexual practices and identities are formed/lived in Iran.

But what is interesting is that out of all of Ahmadinejad’s statements and answers, this particular remark has been blown out of proportion and is being circulated in the media as the highlight of his speech at Columbia. We do not hear about his questioning of particular forms of knowledge as taken-for-granted truth. We do not hear about his criticism of developing nuclear weapons. All we hear about is the distorted version of his statement about the existence of homosexuals in Iran. Why is that? I cannot help but to wonder.

After Ahmadinejad’s talk, a queer Iranian group in Los Angeles was bombarded by requests for interviews by the American media about the violation of gay rights in Iran. CNN repeatedly showed the notorious image of the hanging of two young men in Mashad who were prosecuted for the rape of a minor, and represented that image as the evidence of killing of gays in Iran. Again, I am not defending the capital punishment, be it by the Iranian state or the American state (they both have these laws, executed in different manners. Both need to be criticized). Nor am I denying the difficulties that many queers endure in Iran. What I am concerned about, is the politics of representation and the way by which an image about the punishment of alleged rapists is circulated as the proof of the killing of gays in Iran. I am weary of the chic of the Iranian homosexual in the post 9/11 period.

I think it is important to question these politics and to be skeptical of the appropriation of queer rights by different political agendas. After all, “gay,” “lesbian,” “hamjensgara,” “degarbaash,” or any other identity that claims to represent a group of people is not a reflection of an inherent characteristic. Nor is sexuality the only factor that makes one a “hamjensgara,” “degrabaash,” etc. There are multiple discourses that participate in the constitution of these identities in different political and historical moments. The question is which identities are readily represented in particular discursive fields and which ones are not? The dilemma of the Iranian queers at this historical moment is to negotiate a legitimate space in the imaginations of Iranian-ness while being aware and critical of the current political discourses that move queers from the position of the abject other to that of the subject.



Which Foaad?????

by Rosie (not verified) on

Mr. Rashidian, please just tell the gentleman whether you were referring to him or not. There is an important line of discussion going on here which I and others are trying to follow. As difficult as it already is, why make it moreso?


How is Ahmadinejad a dictator?

by Mehdi (not verified) on

This is a response to all of the Iranians who use this website and claim to have the welfare of all Iranians in their interests.

(You know the type that always call somebody an IRI agent if they are anti-war or if they question the US media)

As if the IRI has agents! (hahaha)

When was the last time any of the vehemently pro-war or anti-IRI Iranians were in Iran. If it was 20+ years ago I have news for you Iran has changed and is changing.

You like to make exhuberently emotional claims like Ahmadinejad is a dictator even though he was democratically elected in 2005. You say irrational things like the Mullahs want to build a bomb and use it against the "civilised" world. When are you guys going to stop watching the ridiculously biased U.S. media and actually talk to somebody who is living in Iran or someone who has been there recently.

If you did you would notice that nearly everyone of them is anti-IRI but not the reasons you are. They are angry at the government for not bringing them enough eocnomic benefits, not for lack of freedom of expression. (Nearly all Iranian taxi-cab drivers in Tehran express their dismay and discomfort with the current government and they are'nt repremanded by some new-age SAVAK)

As for this article I think that it is dead-on.
Good job Choob Dosar-gohi I think your article makes a good point!


Nonsense Polemics

by J. Rashidian. (not verified) on

Dear Foaad,
If you support the IRI under any interpretation or rank of priority, you 'd better off defend your idea, if you are not the person who writes materials alleviating the plight of the IRI, you should not be upset, no accusation meets you.

So, once again, names are not important, we do not know each other to be ashamed, and none of us cares about such a silly thing. Only if you feel unfairly accused of "serious accusations" please answer the accusation without nonsense polemics.

Foaad Khosmood

You have lost me completely!

by Foaad Khosmood on

Mr. Rashidian,
I don't understand your point. I'm not talking about the meaning of your first name or any name. I just want to know who you are accusing. How can I tackle anything if I have no idea who you are talking about? If it is a different Foaad, I can't comment because I don't know him.

Again, I simply want to know if this Foaad is me or not:

We know a number of IRI’s sympathisers like Foaad, Soraya, Sadre-Brothers, Ammani… all, a buch of sold intellectuals, who happened to be welcome on this site.

Is this an unfair question?


Jahanshah or Foaad

by J.Rashidian (not verified) on

Dear Mr. Foaad Khosmood,

The names are not important, unless for the IRI's Information Ministry.

If a name happened to be "Jahanshah", it dose not hint any pro-Shah tendency; it is also true that Foaad is not absolutely a late former Fedaeen’s sympathiser in Kurdistan.

So, if there are "serious accusations" please focus to tackle them, this is the only important issue for the audience.

Foaad Khosmood

Dear Jahanshah Rashidian,

by Foaad Khosmood on

Which Foaad are you talking about? I'm the only one on this site that spells his name with two "a" s. You are making serious accusations here, and I'd like to know if I'm the one at the end of it. Thanks in Advance.


Iran or Mullahs!

by j. Rashidian (not verified) on

Human Rights are baffled, if not violated in any Islam-based constitution—Shiite IRI, Sunni Wahabbi, Afghan Taliban..., as it has been the case since Islam was born. The more the state Islamic is, the more Human Rights are dire. This includes men, women, and children, regardless of their religions, ethnicities, and political ideas.

Those Muslims or seculars who try to undermine the Human Rights, based on religious solidarity with the Islamic states and ignore the crucial role that freedom is baffled in these countries are morally accomplice with the human rights violation.

We know a number of IRI’s sympathisers like Foaad, Soraya, Sadre-Brothers, Ammani… all, a buch of sold intellectuals, who happened to be welcome on this site. They neither truly believe in Human Rights nor solidarity with the victims of the IRI, they use the freedom of expression to defend the survive of one of the most anti-democratic regimes, the IRI.

They never mention the catastrophes due to the human rights violations in Iran.

All they do, they highlight a possible US attack on Iran, and warn people of damages to the stability of Iran or, better said, Mullahs!


I know, part of it is out of

by Mellah (not verified) on

I know, part of it is out of anger and frustration. I don't deny it. day after day, you only see a stream of the same kind of garbage, and all that by a minority of loud mouth dirthy speaking gang of leftist-islamonazis of our time.
But partly even that is deliberate. Read what I have written, the profanities I have used are nothing but "filth, bitch ot shit". Now read the so called " thoughtful" article again. The name starts with "goh", in it you see such nice etiquette conforming words like "kooni" and so on. Yet no one seems to notice ot object, when such streams of dirty language comes from this gang. Even someone who says she agrees with me, seems nothing wrong with worse words being used by the article itself. And then look at the rest fo this site, any one who has not at one place or another chosen to cuddle up to the islamic republic or lick its balls is constantly addressed with terms like microbe, filth, fascist, imperialist, bvlood sucker, shit... constantly and everyone seems to have accepted this, the same way they have accepted all the rouge acts and crimes of these peopl's masters in Tehran. Why? Because those who shoudl object are either slent or confine themselves to reasonable arguments, which is necessary but not sufficient, and completely miss the goal of these people and their tactics of pushing on , creating the right atmosphere by being bluntly shamless and indignant, "jav sazi" and then riding on it.
This has to stop and the way is to treat then their way every once in a while with out any shame or conservation and use a langauge they deserve and then sit back and throw light on the hypcracy and the double standards of the silent majority who has effectively bent low for them to take a ride.
This is a game that needs o be racted to in the right way.

There is no shame in calling them what they really are, every once in a while.
This, too, is necessary.


Mellah: Bravo. However, if

by Anonymousee (not verified) on

Mellah: Bravo. However, if you don't use profanity, you will be a great deal more persuasive in your reasoning and changing minds. Thanks.


Indeed I wonder that too.

by mellah (not verified) on

Indeed I wonder that too. Based on what do you assume I wasn't there doing exactly that? Where were you?
And how is it that you can attack me personally if that is so wrong?
I use this language because it breaks down a wall of hypocritical fake "civility" behind which these types hide and manipulate. Kayhan's shariatmadari is at least honest, and risks bearing the consequences of his actions. How come Shariamadari is open season for insult but not the types of this person?


Where were all these brave people?

by Jahangir Alavie (not verified) on

I wonder where were all these brave people who sit in their pajamas in front of a flickering monitor and fight a virtual fight when their alleged dictator was in New York a few days back and they had the opportunity to confront him personally. They could use their God given freedom in the "land of the free" to hurl all sort of abuse at the "holocaust denying dictator". But they prefer the cozy atmosphere of their apartments, sipping a nice cup of coffee and listening to their favorite Jazz artist. This way they can hide behind pseudo names, act like total loonies and still denigrate the whole argument.


To Mellah

by Shirin (not verified) on

When I read your comments, I feel like someone is yelling on Jaaliz! I don't agree with this Choob's article. I agree more with what you are saying. But I hate the way you are saying it. You sound so much like Keyhan's Shariatmadari in tone and way of arguing. You have no etiquette, or let's say netiquette. When you use foul language and hate speech, your argument loses its credibility. To me, you sound like a rude child just nagging and cursing for not getting what he wants. Online discussion boards need some etiquette. If you can't control yourself, you'd better go see a shrink. You are not civil enough to participate in a discussion.


There is a time for

by Mellah (not verified) on

There is a time for everything. Not everything is to be tolerated. The same way that Holocaust denial or blatant racism are not to be tolerated. Certain things are simply too much. Don't throw tolerance into everything, it is a meaningful and deep notion. Do NOT use it as a rotten bone to throw whenever it is politically apt to do. Go read about WWII and tell me how the freedom fighters and the various resistance groups in different lands "tolerated" Nazi collaborators and mouth pieces. I give you a clue, they didn't, and it was much more tahan curse words that they used. And yet every breath of fresh air in freedom that you inhale is because of their attituide. STOP abusing words and notions, STOP raping the meaning out of the words.
I will NOT tolerate the likes of this "person" here. It is my RIGHT! I never asked for her to be banned, but I DO ASK for my RIGHT to expose her for what she is. I DO ask for my right NOT to tolerate the nonsense that she spreads and to react accordingly the only way that "I" think she deserves to be addressed.
Popel are dying, by rope, under torture or gradually. How can you tolerate it Jahsanshah when this filth shamelessely repeats the propaganda of a fascist system and calls the victims of their public hanging "alleged rapists". Who alleged it? WHY are we to believe them OR her? Didn't they accuse Sirjani of sodomy? Didn't they accuse every single innocent victim of theirs as a criminal of some sort? Are we SO forgetful to sit behind and allow this filth to repeat their criminal charges without confornting her? Their blood calls to you from the ground, calls to all of us.
Not so much love? How can there be love while our kin are being suffoctaed by those this bitch and her like always are loudly defending under various excuses? What love? You are threatening to delete? Nice job. You wanna silence the cry? It will show in a form neither you or I would like after that in the society. Be warned.
Personal attacks? Since when is that a no no in Iranian. com? Everywhere you lokk is about that. Her entire stinking article is personal attacks agains "certain" types of people.
Personal attacks? Poeple have attacked that poor lunatic Hajiagha in much more personal and direct manner, although the poor guy is clearly suffering, and yet I didn't see you jump in and threaten to delete their "personal attacks" then? Why not? That is precisely why such filth should not be tolerated without a PROPER response they would deserve.
What is it? Some are more equal than other, huh? It stinks everywhere. It stinks of all forms of hypocracy and double speak everywhere.

PS. Should I assume that you werethe one who deleted my first comment here?


it is our choice to align with dictator(s), or try to create....

by Traveler (not verified) on

Human Rights are the most important issues in Iran; this would include men, women, and children, regardless of their religions, ethnicities, and sexual preferences. Those who try to undermine the Human Rights, based on political excuses and inconclusive rationales, and ignore the crucial role that freedom plays in human growth and development, they neither truly believe in Human Rights; nor are they able to practice them. That is why, intellectuals and some people end up aligning with dictators and dictatorship. Iranian history is full of examples, e.g., 1979 Iranian revolution.

In terms of gradual victory and short term negotiation to gain our rights and freedom, in general, this strategy would work if freedom of expression and assembly relatively are formed and supported in the civic discourse of a society. Until creating a social environment that people can relatively play their social and political roles fairly, there cannot be a gradual victory for social and political groups; nor is a negotiation platform for them, even in a small magnitude.

Now it is our choice to align with dictator(s), whether we chose it deliberately or unconsciously, or try to create a relative social and political society in which we are able to at least express our needs---hoping that some day, as a result of a fair opportunities, we would get our rights fully.


Choob Dosar-gohi dobaare goh

by Anonymous234545 (not verified) on

Choob Dosar-gohi dobaare goh dare mikhore, keep it up; we don't give a damn that u like to have sex with women baba. GROW UP, we have bigger issues and problems in Iran.

Jahanshah Javid


by Jahanshah Javid on

Please stick to the issue and avoid personal attacks. I hate deleting things...

Isn't it disturbing that in the comment sections you rarely see love and respect?

It is possible to oppose someone, most vigorously, and still respect them as a human being with a different opinion than yours.

Do you need a fucking lesson in manners?!

Seriously, be good to each other. We only have each other.

Tolerate, tolerate, tolerate


You didn't delete my

by Mellah (not verified) on

You didn't delete my comment? Then where is the one I left before this?
I am the one bullying and terrorizing, or you gang of leftist anti-american anti-iranian islamist propagandists?
Your lot has been terrorizing our entire nation for years and decades now, comrad! This is where you all come from, now it is all green and "feminist"... you just move the cover and you see the ugly red beneath. You want us to shut up to such obvious commi tactic that your couple of loud mouth hateful jerks are perpetrating? How stupid do you think the rest of us are? Attacking the comment section like hords, this is what "Hezb-e communits-e karegari" does as well. Look at! What are you worried about? It has become the bastion of all you losers.
Terroroze you? I wished I could. When my people, my loved ones live under constant terror by filth that the likes of you are always ready to defend or white wash when their filth becomes manifestly undefendable, why should your lot live in peace of mind and freedom. Peace and freedom that you enjoy ONLY because you and hypocrite filth like you tore your ugly asses to be able to live in the country that you nag about and bit with your rabies infected half brain constantly and non stop. I told you, get back to your loved anti-imperialist islamofascist shit and build the paradigme and identity and all the rest of this crap together.
WE are fed up with you jerks. Hear me?
Because your kind, backed by murderes in charge of Iran, their money, their support..., your kind is only good for making loud noises so that the freedm seeking voice of Iran can't be heard in the diaspora.
Stop the bullshit victim act, whenever you are confronted. You and your stinking gang are the bullies here, the same way that your beloved torturers are the bullies inside Iran.
Get used to it.... You spread hate and bullshit, you get confronted and exposed as the filth that you are!


Why so angry? Anon. 567 and

by Choob (not verified) on

Why so angry?

Anon. 567 and "mellah",

Sibil tala is not the author of this article and no one has deleted your comments. Is it not enought that you trerrorize people in weblogistan? Is the your new frontier to bully people who voice their ideas? I wonder why this article has made you so angry!


The Islamist/jihadists lobby

by Anonymous567 (not verified) on

The Islamist/jihadists lobby include paid Lesbian lackeys (etellati, mozdoor) such as sibil Tala, the author of this post. why don't you tell us about your relationship with Hossein Derakshan?



by J. Rashidian (not verified) on

Ahmdinejad is a product of Islamism, this is a new category of social diseases which has not been discussed in the classic volumes of ideological terminology.

The fact that Ahmadinejad is son of a blacksmith and was probably brought up in a poor family is his only shield against the hail of facts proving his ideological deviation from his social class. His fanatical tendencies have nothing to do with his social background. There is no doubt that such a character would join any other far right racist, fascist and sectarian groups when Islamism were not available.

Hitler and Mussolini were also from poor milieus, but by contrast to their social background, unexpectedly turned back to their social origin by becoming devoted capitalist right-wing activities. Many other examples can be found throughout the history that son of a rich family belong to the left, Fidel Casrto, Che Guevara, Engels, Chu En Lai were typical examples.

Ahmadinejad’s personality disorder is not only due to his family background or his hideous looks, which could, at worst, cause a Complex of Inferiority. Ahmadinejad’s characteristic is another phenomenon, a social characteristic deeply anchored in religiosity. As such, he is first an Islamist and, often, liked to it, a lumpen, a German word used by Marx describing a political thug. Both Islamism and lumpanism led to his character formation.

So his definitive personal disorder originally comes from a milieu of both lumpamism and Islamism combined, his psychological traits are less important because are predominated by these two factors. In general, personal disorder comes in every shape and form. No specific class or background seems to generate more psychopaths than others. The psychopaths can be as good looking and clever as the next person with an Ahamadinejad’s looks.

We see similar personality disorder by some other religious seniors of the IRI. For example, Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of the IRI, was sociopathic. Despite of many advisors, he never learnt to conform himself to normal norms; his stiff glance, his dumb and mechanical gestures, the lack of his emotional traits in face, the week command of his rhetoric were all symptoms of his personality disorder. Islamic seniors like Khomeini, Rafsanjani, Khatami, Khamenei, Bani sadr, Soroush, Moein… are traditionally right, conservative and retrograde, but in a common sense, they are not considered lumpen, as Ahmadinejad.

What distinguishes Ahmadinejad from them is his ridiculous lumpanism. The lumpanism is his most outstanding characteristic. This is not his only vice, but added to it his Islamism, makes out of him an Islamist lumpen, a phenomenon which can be psychopathically more dangerous.

Ahamadinejad’s Islamism, cannot offer plausible rationalisations to the real problems. This brings him into increasing conflict with the realities. Ahmadinejad’s lumpanism remains the main factor of his rhetoric lapses and odd attitudes.

His constantly deteriorating behaviour can be threatening even for his surrounding and we can witness more and more about the consequences--he would not be the next President candidate--. This is the reason that Dr. Nogherekar, an Iranian psychiatrist and writer, classifies his mental disorder as “deteriorating”. Dr Noghrekar’s prognoses show that Ahmadinejad is mentally disordered: he suffers from schizophrenia and effective narcissism.
However, I believe that Ahmadinejad-phenomenon is a typical problem of collective mangle, namely the lack of rationality due to the long influence of religiosity. The mangle of course creates a number of fanatics who are similar to Ahmadinejad-phenomenon.

Ahamadinejad sees the imminent emergence of the Twelver Imam, the Mahdi, for whom since more than one thousand years Shiites wait. The Imam is expected to appear to set aright a decadent and wretched world. Ahamadinejad views himself the direct vassal of the Imam, being in permanent contact with him and working closely with him.

What psychopathically more dangerous seems is Ahmadinejad’s belief in his task to accelerate the Imam’s reappearance. According to the Shiite sect of Hojjatyeh, to which Ahmadinejad belongs, the reappearance requires much destruction and bloodshed, so be it. The more ills in the world, the more he and his sect can hasten Imam’s reappearance.

It is clear that Ahmadinejad is an Islamist thug with all typical symptoms of both Islamism and lumpanism combined, but he is inspired from a collective irrationality, he is politically a product of the IRI, and he is a perfect symbol of political Islam.

Ahmadinejad is a true devoted follower of late Ayatollah Khomeini. He knows, like any “sane” followers, what he wants, apart from his lumpanist rhetoric, he does not contradict himself, and he is relatively conscious what other IRI’s seniors would differently say or act in his place.


Jalebeh tamam kasani keh beh

by Anonymous0034 (not verified) on

Jalebeh tamam kasani keh beh shekli az ahmadinezhad va jomhori eslami tarafadri mikonand(dar inja)

dar kharej zendegi mikonand . lotf kardeh beh iran beravid agar vaghan behtar az usa ya...ast.
vali khodetan ra amadeh konid keh az larijani ham defa konid keh az sangsar khejalat nemikshad va shayad eftekhar ham mikonad.


Zionists are alive and well

by Zionist Lover (not verified) on

I see that the Zionist propaganda machine has become aware of this very disturbing (for them) article. They do not want to see an Iranian hamjensgara actually defending the president of I.R. In their book, it's like blasphemy! So they have started their attacks. So far Ahmadinejad was a Holocaust denier; now because of his remarks at the University lynching session, he has become a gay denier - not a gay rights denier, but a gay denier. I think we're going to hear this question asked of him in EVERY interview over and over again: "do you deny the existence of gays in Iran?"


This article is a clear

by Just_to_make_it_clear_ for_U (not verified) on

This article is a clear example of desperateness among some Iranian so called intellectuals who do not hesitate to defend one of the most despicable characters in Islamic regime when they want to speak against anything American! The author of the article has failed miserably to understand any of the points which were risen by Mr. Bollinger and while herself has written a lengthy pointless article about one of the words from many which were mentioned in Mr. Bollinger remarks, she refers to that single word in the whole speech as "peeraahane osmaan"! You are the one who is making "peeraahane osmaan" out of nothing!

The point which were risen in Mr. Bollinger's speech was not to emphasise on existance of homos in Iran as there is no need for anyone to do it! The point was the people who are being supressed just for being "different" than accepted norms and standards set by Islmaic regime! The point was to draw attention of the world to barbaric behavior of the savage regime against Iranian people for having different political views, different religion, different sexual preferance, different clothing preferance, different hair style preferance etc...etc..! got it? There is no need for anyone to prove that homosexuals exist in Iran no matter "what way" because that is not the issue! It was that despicable creature, Mahmoud Ahmadinejaad who is UNABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTION and failed to answer this question about "why people are being executed for having different sexual preferance"? And this is happening in the times when mullahs and their lackeys are enjoying multiple "sigheh" wives, thanks to looting of Iranian national wealth, or in the business of pimping Iranian girls for in Perisn Gulf states while many young Iranian men have no way of satisfying their sexual needs!

Just get it in your heads! the point is not "gay rights" as you try to twist this minor point into a major issue from a speech by Mr. Bollinger in which he did not leave any of the problems facing Iranian people under Islamic barbaric regime untouched!


You are given well deserved credit

by Foad on

As to why Ahmadinejad's twisted comment about homosexuality got reported so widely, I think it is related to his twisted denial of Holocaust. You see the mass media and those neocons/Zionist are saying to Americans and the world that look he is denying existance of homosexuality in Iran AND we also know that he is denying Holocaust. Then his Holocaust denying is as phony as his homosexual denial. To this I say Holocaust does NOT need confirmation. It is true and sorry to say it happened. The more Neocons/Zionists try to confirm it the more insulting is to 7 million Jews who were massacred by Germans and their willing partners in Europe. Foad



by AmirT on

I should add that I believe that there do in fact exist individuals in Iran who are genuinely (for biological, physiological, or psychological reasons) only into the individuals of their own sex/gender, but it is just wrong to identify the prevalent sexual relations between men and other men/boys in those societies (where access to the women is limited by law and due to culture) as arising from purely homosexual tendencies. Rather, homosexual relations are often considered to be a poor substitute for the "real deal".


Reply to Anonymous-haha

by AmirT on

Thanks for your reply.


I had not known about Massad's "GI" prior to yesterday, but from what I have managed to read so far, I think he has a very interesting perspective, although some of his conclusions seem to be, well, controversial. I'm sure scholars have already analysed the matter to death, but briefly, I agree with you that the old Persian slave-owners were not exactly "gay" in the current Western sense of the term. They just appreciated variety. One night they felt like sharing their bed with this wife, the other with that other wife, then with a concubine, the next day with a "gholaam", while today's gays and lesbians insist that they are ONLY into homosexual sex. What's more, they insist (and that's just beyond me) on imitating the heterosexual lifestyle as their ideal model: two partners "loving each other" in an exclusive, monogamous fashion, living under the same roof forever, and even raising children together. It's like: "We so much want to be like you heterosexuals in everything, but unfortunately, for one reason or another, this is the closest we can get, the best we can do."


At least our forefathers were not confused about what they wanted. :)



by 2-cent (not verified) on

You do not understand Ahamdinejad. When he said we have no gays in Iran like you have here, he meant we have only "kooni" there, which is a different thing!



by darya (not verified) on

Thank u for this comprihensive pieace.
I couldn't agree more.
My experience as a transexual female (in IRAN) was a lot happier then that of my transexual freinds in NY who were disowned by their families and lived on the frindges of society ,
i was completely embraced by the IRANIAN system ,my name and gender quickly changed on my documents and i srarted a new life ,there is a huge gay and transgender cummiunity in tehran ,we even have a gay night every tuesday in one of the best restaurants in tehran, noone is stopping it either .
i started a new job 4 months after my surgery and married the dream man of my life ,im not here to condone or condemn AHMADINEJAD ,Im simply here to tell u my story ,that there is hope in IRAN ,and that there are thousands of gay and transgender bashings happening in youre so called free civilized USA every year .


Thank you for your piece

by IraniIrani (not verified) on

I didnt know he had said it in that way, or that the picture of those two getting hanged were pedophilic rapists.. not that the death sentence is justified in any way, but it completly changes the picture.
And your right, Iranians are mostly homophobes, even the most elegant and educated iranian can be seen throwing out a gay comment from time to time and this comment page proves it..

Keep up the good work!



by Anonymous-haha (not verified) on

i don't like to have sex with men.I prefer women.but the guy RRohit of in the next column is cute.

so go on and decide what's my sexuality is based on the "international gay's" point of view.