Constitutional clash

The constitution has placed a ban on all reforms deemed to be “un-Islamic”


Constitutional clash
by Jahanshah Rashidian

The trigger of violence was officially pulled in Iran when it became clear that the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini’s vision of an Islamic society was to take precedence over all other visions and interpretations after the revolution of 1979. There was disagreement from the start among the various political forces over the definition of the revolution itself.

The left and secularists wanted the term „Democratic Republic”, while a spectrum of Muslims preferred “Islamic Democratic”, but Khomeini opted for “Islamic Republic”. The referendum of March, 1979 overwhelmingly demonstrated the meaning of the term “Islamic Republic”, and produced the first isolation of all who believed in adding the word ”Democratic” to Iran and did not believe in “Islam above all”.

The referendum proposed only two options to the voters, Islamic Republic or Monarchy, and was thus boycotted by The National Democratic Front, a broad coalition of forces with different political tendencies (from Left to centrist and moderates). Apart from the Tudeh Party, a pro-USSR party who unconditionally supported the IRI in the first years after the revolution, all other leftist groups and a majority of Kurds boycotted the referendum.

A critical fragmentation occurred over the creation of a body of Constitutional Experts, which was to prepare the new constitution, and over the text of the Constitution itself, which was to be voted on in October, 1979. By then it had become clear that Ayatollah Khomeini’s idea of an Islamic society and government was to prevail and that other ideas as to the nature of the new Islamic Republic were not to be tolerated.

The most controversial aspect of the Constitution is the central role it grants to the religious leadership. IRI’s Constitution of 1979, revised in 1989 to entrust ultimate power into the hands of the clergy, is dominated by the "Supreme Leader," who is chosen for life by a body of Shiite clerics. According to the Constitution, in absence of the Hidden Imam (Mahdi), his representative on earth, the Supreme Leader, possesses a vast array of powers, including command of the armed forces and the Revolutionary Guards Corps, the power to declare war and peace, the power to appoint the Head of the Judicial Power and the head of the Iranian Broadcasting Corporation, and the power to dismiss the president.

According to Article 161 of the Constitution, the Supreme Judicial Council determines the laws under which the Supreme Court operates. The Supreme Court, in turn, is responsible for supervising the proper application of laws in lower courts and for creating unity and uniformity in the judicial policies of the country. The head of the Supreme Court is appointed by the Supreme Leader and is answerable only to him. This is in fact the legal arm of repression and attrocity based on the medievel Shari’a. (Islamic law). Typical to the constitution’s numerous internal contradictions, the judicial body cotradicts Article 2 which rejects any kind of oppression.

According to Article 1 of the Constitution, the form of government in Iran is that of an Islamic Republic due to the current referendum. Not only is Islam omnipresent in the rule and administration of the country, but also in its absolute and unchecked exercise of power through the institution of the Velayate Faghih (absolute power of the Supreme Leader).

According to the Constitution, all candidates of the Iranian Islamic “Majlis” (Iranian parliament) and all presidential candidates must be approved by the Guardian Council, which vets them for "strict allegiance to the ruling theocracy and adherence to Islamic principles”. Under the surface, however, the president and parliament operate at the whim of the Supreme Leader. Every election in Iran is constitutionally controlled by Mullahs and engineered and manipulated by their institutions. No President or Parliamentarian has been elected through a fair and democratic process.

The Constitution actually named Khomeini as the Faghih, (Supreme Leader), investing him with extensive authority over the judiciary and all branches of government. The Constitution reflected the efforts of Khomeini and his supporters to translate his notions of the ideal Islamic state into practice. Not only was this a clear departure from secular and democratic concepts of politics, it also went against the views of certain religious authorities.

The clash of opinions right after the revolution over this issue between Ayatollah Shari’at Madari and Ayatollah Khomeini brought out into the open internal political differences among the Ulama (clergy) and intensified the power struggle. The Constitution, which declared that the Twelver-Shi’ite sect of Iran superseded other creeds and denominations in the country, also antagonised the Sunni minorities, notably the Kurds and Turkamen, who already felt threatened by the intransigence of the Centre towards their aspirations for minimal self-rule or local autonomy.

As dissension within society intensified, the reaction by Islamists became fiercer. Until the summer of 1979, the attacks had been against the Left as a whole. The next attacks came on those who had been toeing the Islamic line but considered outlook. These included “Mojahedin” (MOK members) and other lay supporters of the Islamic Republic, and eventually factions from within the religious establishment itself, especially those associated with the Muslim People’s Republic Party, close to Ayatollah Shari’at Madari.

The attacks during late 1979 and throughout 1980 extended to those within the administration itself, especially the “liberals”, (a term used by the left to describe those within the leadership with ties to the bourgeois class, including President Bani Sadr and Prime Minister Bazargan). In this process freedom of speech and expression greatly diminished. Individual liberty has been further repressed by the enforcement of the Shari’a through the establishment of Revolutionary and Islamic tribunals which were set up immediately after the Revolution.

In August 1979 the Islamic Prosecutor General extended the jurisdiction of the Islamic courts to cover all “counter-revolutionary activities”; as well as commercial and industrial disputes. Criminal offences were dealt with by the Revolutionary courts. Victims have to conduct their own defence since the functions of a defence lawyer are combined in the person of the Islamic Judge (Hakem Shar’) in each city (a Mullah usually from Qom and usually appointed by Khomeini), who hold powers of arbitration and final sentencing in all cases.

The demand for political liberty had been at the heart of the protests of 1978-79. Ayatollah Khomeini himself, before coming to power, repeatedly promised freedom of expression under the new regime. He knew how hungry people were for freedom, which especially after the US-led coup of 1953 against the Prime Minister, Dr. Mossadegh, became people’s greatest dream.

The suppression of the right to form political parties began under the Shah. After the coup, the Shah accepted a two party system; in which both parties were the only sources to form government, parliamentarians and other key positions. In 1975, the Shah merged these two parties into the Rastakhiz, or Renewal Party. A one-system party were imposed on Iran.

In the short period of democracy following the uprising of February 1979, hundreds of organisations were formed and the underground opposition forces were able to work openly for the first time.

Once in power, the Shiite clergy formed the Islamic Republic Party (IRP) and organised their supporters into a paid professional militia, including the Revolutionary Guards (Pasdaran), the Islamic Revolutionary Mojahedin (not to be confused with the MOK) and the Hezbollah or the Party of God. This consolidation paved the way for a crackdown on the independent organisations.

On December 1, 1979, the Constitution of the Islamic Republic was proclaimed by the Assembly of Experts. Principal 26 guarantees the right to establish societies and organisations. Like any constitution of totalitarian regimes, the IRI’s constitution is also based on ideology, its ideology is Islam: Article 2 defined an Islamic Republic as a system based on belief.

The Constitution limited the rights of people and their political activities to within the framework of Islam. Parties, associations or political and professional societies, Islamic societies and societies for the recognised religious minorities can be formed if they do not negate the principals of independence, freedom and national unity or the principles of Islam and the Islamic Republic. No one can prevent anyone from participating in any particular organisation.

However, despite this remark at the end of the paragraph, not one day passes when a group, individual, idea or political entity that is not pro IRI is not attacked.

In fall of 1979, the small office of the newly founded Democratic Front was attacked and its members were forced into hiding. Shokrollah Paknejad, a leader of the Front, who had been imprisoned under the Shah for a decade, was arrested and executed in prison in January, 1982. In fall, 1979, the office of the Iranian Writers Centre, a democratic publishing group, was confiscated and its literature banned. The director, Said Soltanpour, a famous poet and playwright,, was arrested at his wedding and executed on June 21, 1981. Other members of the Writers Centre were forced underground or into exile.

On January 26, 1980, the offices of the MOK throughout the country were assaulted by agents of the regime. The Iranian constitution creates a façade of democracy and a semblance of a separation of powers. In reality, it institutionalises Islam by establishing the most repressive and parasitic organs by which totalitarian power can be prolonged. Like any totalitarian regime, the constitution bestows upon the dominant class unlimited power divided among mullahs who rule according to Shari'a.

Seen in this light, the Constitution is incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy. So, the core problem of Iranian society is not the interpretation or reform of this Constitution but its very existence. It is an obstacle to any progress toward democracy and modernisation. While the ideological focus of the constitutions of other totalitarian regimes has been on race-- that of Nazi Germany highlighted the superiority of the “Aryan Race”, that of Apartheid South Africa ensured the supremacy of the whites-- the IRI constitution’s focus is on Islam. The IRI has imposed an Islamic model of a totalitarian system, in which the main characteristic is gender segregation. Hand in Hand with the Constitution, the regime attempts to impose a patriarchal system of society inspired from an Islamo-arab culture.

Although Article 3 talks about “the elimination of imperialism and foreign influence”, it implicitly accepts the influence of Islamo-arabism by saying: “Since the language of the Koran and Islamic texts and teachings is Arabic, and since Persian literature is thoroughly permeated by this language, it must be taught after elementary level, in all classes of secondary school and in all areas of study.” Therefore, Arabic language lessons and reading of the Koran become more compulsory despite their being abhorred by an increasing majority of students.

The tendency of such a constitution is to pave the way for unleashing an Arabo-islamisation of Iranian society. This is not only a thorn in the eye of any Iranian nationalist, but more practically, it is an obstacle to democratisation and modernisation of Iranian society. It stipulates a process in which any non-Islamic components, including those of pre-Islamic Persian ones, must be ignored.

Thus on April 19, 1980, the Islamic Republic launched The Cultural Revolution in Iran. The universities were purged of secular and democratic professors and students. Then, campuses were dominated by IRI-oriented gangs of thugs and whatever was left of the early democratic student movements was confined to Islamic student groups. It was the beginning of official state violence to force islamisation of universities--and in the following years of all Iranian culture.

Any aspiration for democracy and modernisation in Iran must begin with the negation of the IRI’s constitution. The constitution itself legitimises the means of repression and backwardness. In any form and reform, this constitution creates a model of state in which all institutions are orientated in the direction of backward despotism.

The constitution is full of contradictions and has placed a ban on all reforms deemed to be “un- Islamic” by judicial and Islamic authorities--Article 4 is immutable and the Council of Guardians ensures that all articles of the Constitution as well as other laws are based on Islamic criteria.

The IRI’s constitution favours the medieval norms of ruling Mullahs. Since it restricts individual and political rights, ensuring that the Iranian people cannot challenge the clerical regime's supremacy, it stands firmly against any democratisation, gender equality, social justice and modernisation of society.


Recently by Jahanshah RashidianCommentsDate
Journée Internationale des Femmes
Mar 08, 2010
Stop Indian Gasoline for Mullahs’ Repressive Machinery
Feb 04, 2010
Iran Fails United Opposition
Jan 20, 2010
more from Jahanshah Rashidian


by Psychiatrist (not verified) on

There are an obvious syndrom, pathological signs of mental disease, in your writings. In your case, your personal disorder can be due to your mental illness and must be analysed by a psychiatrist before you creates serious problems for others or yourself.


REPLY : WHERE ARE........................

by Faribors Maleknasri M.D (not verified) on

I think a real IRI´s Follower CAN only be in the ISLAMIC REPUBLIC of IRAN. I didnt know who else could ever defend the Constitution and protect what is achieved in the last 30 yeras from being rubbed again. Although the devils and satans - there exist since a long time only small probs of this sort - are standing on the doors of the republic all barking and grunting but they have not dared to enter till now. All because of those Defenders. For me they are the only reason why the country lives in safeness. Greeting


Re: Mazlom Ast

by jamshid on

Thank you for your your post. I always wondered if believing in god is hard wired in our brains? Or is soft wired throught a complete and total brainwashing since childhood? Or both perhaps?

For a moment imagine you were born and raised in a small remote society detached from the rest of the world. Assume that the word "god" was simply removed from all writings and talkings so that you were not familiar with either theist or the atheist arguments. Imagine and visulaize this. for you, the universe is just there. Once and adult, say an outsider pays you a visit and talks about an all mighty god. Then ask yourself would you believe it? I think most people wouldn't.

I think it is the brainwashing, generation after generation, day after day, that makes us dependent on a god.


Mollahs' tricks

by Mehran (not verified) on

Mollahs will find traditionally their tricks to hold the power in Iran if we are not vigilant. They screw the whole nation.

Jahanshah Rashidian


by Jahanshah Rashidian on

Not only conventional religions like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, but also Taoism, Hinduism, , and the ancient Greeks view the soul as a composite, incorporating various levels or parts. What Mazloom’s articles described may be in this view the lower level which somehow can exhibit to our physical body—I personally do not believe in a physiological source of Divine in us because such a claim seems to ignore the exprimental effects of cognitive, conditional, behaviourist fields of psychology.

Higher levels are claimed to be more refined and can not be described in our three dimensional world. Islamic Sufis call the parts rouh, the Hindu soul has etheric, astral, and causal bodies, while Judaic Kabbalah teaches of the nefesh, ruach, and neshamah. Buddhism, on the contrary, denies the concept of an eternal, individualized soul. However, Buddhism does include some soul-like ideas, such as the collection of aggregates, or skandas, which bear a person’s karma into future lives.Tibetan Buddhism teaches that the most advanced practitioners can attain the Rainbow Body, which enables the person to exist in a body beyond the physical body. A detailed comparison of all these systems of the soul is better left for a long article. We begin by noting that the various levels of soul interpenetrate and influence each other. The fully evolved human comprises an organic whole, with all aspects integrated. So we must start with the physical body and all its marvellous subsystems, which interact with the foundational part of the soul.The believers of such a body-soul composition think that our thoughts, emotions, and physical sensations, while driven to a large degree by our physical body, contain the substance of our foundation soul, the soul accumulates and organises the coordination.

Rosie, write your article based on your experience and we will talk about. You may read Dr. Stanislav Grof , a Czechoslovaian pychiatrist, doing some research with the help of LSD to clarify some state of non-ordinary consciousness.

Jahanshah Rashidian

R: Mazloom

by Jahanshah Rashidian on

Yes, I see more civility on the site! Concerning the last post; although, I corrected the sentence by changing  the name of Khomeini with Khamenei, some IRI supporters used the mistake as Ottoman’s Bloody Shirt to grumble about everything.

Some IRI’s embarrassed supporters or fake dissidents now stick to complain that people should be more tolerant and patient until “the road of democracy” will be paved by the regime! The IRI chopped off three hands and two feet yesterday to pave the road of democracy! See my Blog.

I read the interesting articles you posted, my feedback is on Rosie's answer.  

Rosie T.

Omid, JR

by Rosie T. on

JR wanted me to write a separate blog about this discussion. Actually he'd mentioned it to me before, too. So the discussion rally shouldn't be here but on a separate blog. The problem is I can't write it now. So So I really don't know what to do. I should contact you about it off-line. I want to contact JR too. Robin


God Spot

by Mazloom on


As usual a well documented article, but this time I don't see too many IRI supporters try to tear it up by being too nit-picking on minor glitches such as whether Khomeini ever conducted a Friday Prayer or not, even though his words were repeated everywhere, including in the Friday Prayers.

I am going to copy and paste three pieces (there are very many like it) in regard to brain and spirituality here, even though your article is not about that, and I do it here because Rosie T. has brought to the attention her mystical experiences. Not that it is any of my business what makes people tick, as long as their ticking is not entered into the business of governing the people (not that Rosie T. is making such an attempt yet). I am worried one day Dildo Worshipers might attempt to replace IRI regime with their own brand of Dildo Republic.

Rosie T. Please withhold your input about this till you are ready to write your article about your mystical experiences.


'God spot' is found in brain

by Steve Connor

Science Correspondent

LA Times, Wednesday 29 October 1997

SCIENTISTS believe they have discovered a "God module" in the brain which could be responsible for man's evolutionary instinct to believe in religion.

A study of epileptics who are known to have profoundly spiritual experiences has located a circuit of nerves in the front of the brain which appears to become electrically active when they think about God.

The scientists said that although the research and its conclusions are preliminary, initial results suggest that the phenomenon of religious belief is "hard-wired" into the brain.

Epileptic patients who suffer from seizures of the brain's frontal lobe said they frequently experience intense mystical episodes and often become obsessed with religious spirituality.

A team of neuroscientists from the University of California at San Diego said the most intriguing explanation is that the seizure causes an over stimulation of the nerves in a part of the brain dubbed the "God module".

"There may be dedicated neural machinery in the temporal lobes concerned with religion. This may have evolved to impose order and stability on society," the team reported at a conference last week.

The results indicate that whether a person believes in a religion or even in God may depend on how enhanced is this part of the brain's electrical circuitry, the scientists said.

Dr Vilayanur Ramachandran, head of the research team, said the study involved comparing epileptic patients with normal people and a group who said they were intensely religious.

Electrical monitors on their skin ­ a standard test for activity in the brain's temporal lobes ­ showed that the epileptics and the deeply religious displayed a similar response when shown words invoking spiritual belief.

Evolutionary scientists have suggested that belief in God, which is a common trait, found in human societies around the world and throughout history, may be built into the brain's complex electrical circuitry as a Darwinian adaptation to encourage co-operation between individuals.

If the research is correct and a "God module" exists, then it might suggest that individuals who are atheists could have a differently configured neural circuit.

A spokesman for Richard Harries, the Bishop of Oxford, said whether there is a "God module" is a question for scientists, not theologians. "It would not be surprising if God had created us with a physical facility for belief," he said.


Study: No ‘God spot’ in the human brain

Finding contradicts theory of specific region designed to talk with God

By Ker Than

Staff Writer

updated 12:26 p.m. PT, Wed., Aug. 30, 2006

The human brain does not contain a single "God spot" responsible for mystical and religious experiences, a new study finds.

Instead, the sense of union with God or something greater than the self often described by those who have undergone such experiences involves the recruitment and activation of a variety brain regions normally implicated in different functions such as self-consciousness, emotion and body representation.

The finding, detailed in the current issue of Neuroscience Letters, contradicts previous suggestions by other researchers that the there might be a specific region in the brain designed for communication with God.

"The main goal of the study was to identify the neural correlates of a mystical experience," said study leader Mario Beauregard of the University of Montreal in Canada. "This does not diminish the meaning and value of such an experience, and neither does it confirm or disconfirm the existence of God."

In the study, 15 cloistered Carmelite nuns, ranging in age from 23 to 64, had their brains scanned while asked to relive the most intense mystical experience they had ever had as members of the religious order.

The nuns were not asked to try and actually achieve a state of spiritual union with God during the experiment because, as the nuns put it, "God cannot be summoned at will."

Nevertheless, the researchers believe their method was justified because previous studies have shown that actors asked to enter a particular state activated the same brain regions as people actually experiencing those emotions.

As a control, the nuns were instructed to relive the most intense state of union with another human ever felt in their lives while in the Carmelite order.

The study found that MYSTICAL EXPERIENCES activate more than a dozen different areas of the brain at once. One of the regions, called the caudate nucleus, has been implicated in positive emotions such as happiness, romantic love and maternal love.

The researchers speculate that activation of this brain region during mystical experiences is related to the feelings of joy and unconditional love the nuns described.

© 2008 All rights reserved.



Michael Persinger

At Laurentian University in Sudbury, Canada Michael Persinger has a lab set up to induce religious experiences. A person puts on a motorcycle helmet equipped with electromagnets that product a magnetic field that causes micro seizures (overactive neutrons) in the temporal lobe of the brain. These micro seizures cause spiritual and supernatural experiences. People will feel a sense of presence in the room (like God, angels or aliens), or have an out-of-body experience (like a near-death experience).

According to Persinger the sense of self is in the left hemisphere of the temporal cortex matched by a corresponding sense of self in the right hemisphere of the temporal cortex. When these two hemispheres become disorientated there will be a sense of another self. When the amygdala is also stimulated, emotional feelings will be enhanced causing intense spiritual feelings.

A number of events can trigger these spiritual or supernatural experiences:

Very Stressful events-like a car accident, or surgery.

Decrease in oxygen to the brain- like at very high altitudes. A centrifuge can cause out-of-body experiences.

Extreme changes in blood sugar levels.


Many hours of Sleeplessness.

Temporal lobe seizures

Electromagnetic disturbances in the earth





Rosie T.

PS LostID, the other problem with

by Rosie T. on

Islamic law and democracy and the 99% is even if they all were devout Muslims who were comfortable  with Islamic law (which I explained below, they're not) what about the other one per cent? Democaracy means one hundred percent.

Let us suppose for a moment that 100% of these 99% Muslims indeed LIKE to wear veils and not drink at parties or go out on mixed-sex outings--why should I...a born Jew, have to observe this?Human rights, basic freedoms, must be granted 100%...even IF ...even IF...those 99% "Muslims" lall iked these kind of laws, which I assure you, they DO NOT.

 QUESTION FOR THE FORUM:  does anyone know if I as a born Jew would be subject to hanging from a crane in a public square for:  fornication, imbibing alcohol, or lesbian practices in the IRI?  I'm serious, it's a serious question.

Rosie T.

JR, LostID is wonderful, I know him very well..

by Rosie T. on

he ALWAYS opens up new debates and they ALWAYS bear some fruit. 

Dr. Maleknasri, yu must be more open to reason.  Your dedication to this website is inspiring and you are sorely needed, you are "our"  Khomeinist, or at least mine.  You must open up more.  Obviously you're here to seek a dialog, so...let's REALLY dialog....let's... you argue your own points scrupulously but I don't know if you hear others' as scrupulously.  And come to think of it many of us probably need to listen to you let's...let's....

 For example JR wrote and I keep repeating:  the choice was for an Islamic Republic as AGAINST the Shah's monarchy.  It was a spurious choice.  So many options in between--a secular constitutional monarchy, a secular republc, even an Islamic Constitutional monarchy...not to mention the outside the spectrum choices...a socialist or communist state...nothing else was on the table.  It was a FORCED choice.

Open up, Dr. M., open up.


For e

Jahanshah Rashidian


by Jahanshah Rashidian on

reading several Lost ID's comments, I do not think that he capitluted to Dr. FariborS!

I think he just posted a comment to open new debates.


REPLY : 98%, 99, what so ever..............,

by Faribors Maleknasri M.D. (not verified) on

Most poeple prefere to talk about person instead to talk about the points. What i write, for example, is called "Hart o purt". Although I allways try to document and bring arguments for what i am trying to say as I also try allways to be objective regarding the ISLAMIC REPUBLIC of IRAN. Anyway may be the table had been small in refrandom 1979, but: It was the first question. If Iranians - I mean the ones who have founded thier ISLAMIC REPUBLIC of IRAN, are living there and are willing to protect what they have achieved in the last 30 years - had decided against ISLAMIC REPUBLIC then they should have the garanted possibility to decide again FOR something different. It was sought that in a first round the nation should say YES or NO to ISLAMIC REPUBLIC. In case of NO a second round should follow. Answering other comments regarding my "Hart o purt" as my sayings are named: i do not find it correct to say what Iranians have to do. I see only what they do. when I count a few scientifical achievements of Iranians through religious powered Working so promptly there is a Video. In "IRANIAN" is nothing sacred, I am sure there is no Sensorship. But the suspicion that the Web-Master holds an open eye on what is comming in is not far away. Greeting

Rosie T.

LostID, the problem with a constitution based on Islamic law as

by Rosie T. on

being democratic because 99 per cent of the population is Muslim is that Islam is a word which can mean many things.  MANY of these Muslims are secularists, whether they are observers or not (you see if your parents are Muslim, you are called Muslim even if you are atheist), Many who are NOT secularists firmly desire a separation of mosque and state law,regardless of HOW devout they are (and that includes "my first Iranian lover", the one whose life I supp[osedly ruined by "making" him "do the nasty" outside of marriage.  He was as devout as can be, but believed in a secular constitution).  Another problem is the term Islamic law is too vague while Sharia law is too specific as something which I HOPE you find inherently know, the executions for sex acts and drinking and the hand-cuttings and so on. And the vagueness of the term Islmic Law makes it EASILY arguable to mean Shariah.  And let's not forget that according to Islamic law it is also punishable by DEATH to convert and be apostate from one cannot assume that all these 99% Muslims wish to be so...they may wish to be something else such as Buddhists, which I understand is becoming popular in Iran as throughout the world, although under wraps in Iran, for the reasons just explained, and contained in the words "Islamic law"  There is also a large wave of preference for Zoroastrianism, and what just happened to the Christian convert is well-known.



To Lost identity

by Navid19 (not verified) on

Iran doesn't need Shariat (Islamic law)
of course majority are Moslem.

We need CIVIL LAW applicable to all residents of the country irrespective of their religious beliefs.

Jahanshah Rashidian


by Jahanshah Rashidian on

Firstly, totalitarianism may strive to give people a sense of collective power and strength in the detriment of basic and democratic rights of all and the weakness for minorities--see Nazi Constitution. A constitution of such a regime is not of course democratic because dose not couple with the international standards for Human Rights and human protection. It is like  if a cannibal society can, based on its majority-principle, legalises cannibalism!

Secondly, the Islamic constitution was its first exemplary in the world, at least, it needs a period of try, say one generation and then a new refrendum to accept or deny it. Are the majority of people still for this constitution? How can one prove it under an Islamic regime?

Thirdly, from your alleged 95% Iranian Muslims after the revolution, how many percent are now in a free society the conscious Muslims?

Fourthly, If there is unfair treatment of Palestinians by Israel, which I am personally against, does it justify the IRI's atrocity and its constitution?


Jahanshah Rashidian

R:Mehdi Araki

by Jahanshah Rashidian on

From singled celled organisms to multiplicity of animal and plant, there was a process of evolution, but with possible slow phases. A plant or animal which falls into this “slow” phase will be ignored by a universal rule, called natural selection. This rule, like many other mathematical rules and physical constants, contributes to the cycle of life and is not to be decoupled for evolutionary process unless because of a mutation-- when the process is suddenly cut off, mutation.  But when the process is slowdowned for a short period, the organism is at the risk of annihilation because of its inadaptivity—as shown in part of fossil record.

The social evolution has similar perspective; the social evolution proves to couple in our time with a course for democracy, progress and secularism. These cannot be steadily inhibited by a "slow phase", or in our case by ereligion.

What a character like Ahmadinejad, with mental illnesses, and his like says has nothing to do with reality and Evolution, including social evolution of our country in the long-term.

In the short-term, any social event is not forcibly in the course of evolution; Islamic revolution belongs to a "slow phase" of social evolution, therefore cannot be in long-term abided by Evolution.

I agree with you, Russian and Chinese revolution were inspired by Hegelian / Marxistic Dialectic, which are at least “scientific and evolutionary”. Their afinity with the Islamic revolution is in the lack of democracy--one of the necessary elements  of  the social evolution.


Re: Lostidentity

by jamshid on

A constitution based on Islamic law? Whose Islamic laws? Yours or mine? Believe me our interpretations of Islamic law would be quite different.

The problem with such constitution is that it could easily paved the way for a few Shias to dictate to the rest of shias how to be a good shia. And this is wrong. A none religious government will protect the majority shia as well as and the minority sunnis and all other religions.

Religion should stay out of politics. It is private thing between people and their god.


In all fairness, What is the

by LostIdentity (not verified) on

In all fairness, What is the problem having the constitution principles based on Islamic law, if >95% of population is moslem. Isn't that democratic already? Would someone make this point clear to me? Wouldn't it be undemocratic if a few minority comes around and tries to screw up the laws against the majority? In Israel there's a greater than 40% moslem population (even after the mass exodus), how do you feel about that situation?


JahanShah Rashidian

by Mehdi Araki (not verified) on

"The IRI is a failure of human evolution. It cannot survive by ignoring all rules of evolution."

Let's bet the Islamic Republic of Iran will never fall in our lifetime? Do you not know the MENTALITY of the Basij and those who follow the system? That this was a revolution continuing the path of the prophets? (Just listen to Ahmadinejad: )

They believe there will be 1 revolution in Iran and thats the revolution of Imam Mahdi (az nehzat e khomeini ta enqelab e mahdi khodaya mohafazet befarmayn). The entire history of Iran prior to revolution was also based on one ruler/monarch. Today it is a system and a system based on Shia Islamic messianiac views. You also mention Russian and Chinese rev's, but mind you those were secular, you cant compare Iran's Islamic rev to any other movement, thats what Focault taught us.


To: Rosie

by Louis Dis Nef (not verified) on

and you know what?

Most of the heroic Iranians who are so vocal here, go to Iran every summer and bring back lots of saffron!

That is what geopolitic means to many of them!


Political mulla in layman's terms...

by Setiz (not verified) on

Political mulla is like a pimp. There isn't much difference between a good pimp and a bad pimp. Khomeini was the pimp union leader. So is khamenei.

The only difference between a pimp and a political mulla is that the pimp delivers the merchandise upon voluntary payment; while mulla only gives you an IOU for delivery of the merchandise in heaven upon forced payment. Albeit mulla's delivery includes the interest for the forced payment and consists of a pack of 72 virgins to be delivered in heaven.

Doc Maleknasri M.D.: Are you only the receiver of fund on behalf of mulla or the deliverer of the merchandise as well? How many virgins do you currently have ready for delivery? Can someone make a deal with you to receive some of the virgins in advance in this world rather than in heaven, or make the payment to mulla in the heaven upon actual delivery of the merchandise?


Dear Rosi T

by Tahirih (not verified) on

I totally believe you about your experience,people have to feel it to believe it.
The evidences of discord and malice are apparent everywhere, though all were made for harmony and union.

The Great Being saith: O well-beloved ones! The tabernacle of unity hath been raised; regard ye not one another as strangers. Ye are the fruits of one tree, and the leaves of one branch. We cherish the hope that the light of justice may shine upon the world and sanctify it from tyranny. If the rulers and kings of the earth, the symbols of the power of God, exalted be His glory, arise and resolve to dedicate themselves to whatever will promote the highest interests of the whole of humanity, the reign of justice will assuredly be established amongst the children of men, and the effulgence of its light will envelop the whole earth.

My Dear you are not Iranian and your understanding of house arrested Mulla's is not based on first hand experience with these creatures.

Rosie you are a great thinker,and humanist do not waste your time defending house arrest mullahs,listen to what NAZOKBIN said about them.
God bless,or creator bless or allah bless,(they are the same name for the same father of humanity).


My dear polit, open minded Mr Rashidian

by Tahirih (not verified) on

You are truly educated in human virtues,I understand what you tried to tell me,and I appreciate your being so polit.Your reply was a great example of learning to differ in a civilized manner.

As far as Natzi's 1000 years ond Russia's cruelty these were all man made remedies and since they were man made ,they did not last ,but a divine promise is a divine promise.Only thing that corrupt it, is when it's time has past and it is not relevant.You may say how can we safeguard humanity from this insistance on practising something that does not apply anymore,and I say humanity a 1000 years from now will be more mature and wise.
You are a great writer and please write more.
God bless.


The Mullahs Again!

by Naazokbin (not verified) on


By all means.

And you know what? I believe after Iranians gain control of their country again, all the mosques which have been built and are financed by the state should be turned into schools and educational centers of all kinds for those who didn't have a chance to get proper education.

Those who want mosques can use their own private money to build them and not the country's.

And no screaming in the loudspeakers in their mosques which troubles most Iranians. They have to learn to carry on with their religious rituals with some dignity, like members of many other religious organizations.

No scary street processions, either. Streets in each city belong to all the people living in that city and not a bunch of backward fanatics.

They also need to learn to celebrate life instead of endlessly mourning the dead. But that's their business. As far as I'm concerned, they can cry and beat themselves with chains for thousands of more years to come.

To Rosie:

You may not believe this, but it is much easier to uphold human rights than to butcher innocent people or even those who have committed crimes.

In an argument try to understand everything in their context and don't jump into conclusion.

If you are thinking of Ayatollah Montazeri being under house arrest, you need to read about him, as well. He invented the idea of "Velaayateh Faghieh."

He broke up with other mullahs after he was sidelined and didn't become the Velaayateh Faghieh, himself.

Mullahs' animosity toward each other is over the spoils of the revolution and not as a result of deep-seated ideological or political differences.

They hardly ever talk about saving Iran. Instead they always talk about saving Islam.


Mr. Jahanshah Rashidian

by Navid19 (not verified) on

Thanks for your article,
Keep up the GOOD WORK.


Rosie T.

And you will give justice, human rights, freedom of speech,

by Rosie T. on

equality to everyone EXCEPT ALL mullahs?

Including the ones under house arrest?

Oh, those are different, right?

But the rest are all exactly the same.

There's three groups of people in Iran:

Mullahs, mullahs under house arrest and everyone else.

I can't possibly win this argument. Can we drop it please?


Rosie T & Naazokbin

by Navid19 (not verified) on

Rosie Jan

Azize baradar

Khatami is Mullah why you think he is different from rest of them.why???
Just because he open the window a bit and people thought they are free now.



We Don't need Mullah.We saw different shapes and versions of Mullah for a long periods of time. Don't fell for their trap.
If pigs can fly, You will see mullahs who care for their fellow man and their words and actions are the same.

Naazokbin Jan thank you You said it all.


Re: Rosie

by jamshid on

They don't need the word sharia. They did even better with a one-two punch: 

Article 4 of the IRI constitution states: (words in parenthesis are my clarifications)

All civil, judicial, financial, political laws and all other legal matters must be base on Islamic laws (which includes Sharia as one of its pillars).... and these laws (Islamic laws) supersede all other laws of the constitution. Any decisions as to what is Islamic are vested in  the clerics of the Guardian council.

Article 98:

The interprtation of the constitution is solely vested in the clerics of the guardian council.

Rosie T.

Thanks, I will....

by Rosie T. on

I will try to do it.

Jahanshah Rashidian


by Jahanshah Rashidian on

Agreed, your short comment sums my article up too.