Can you fight Islamic Republic without discussing Islam?

by DavidRamezani

Happy NowRooz to everyone,

We have been trying to form a group to fight Islamic Republic (IR). However, we have some people who are opposed discussing to criticizing Islam in this group. I like to know if it is possible to fight Islamic Republic, without discussing Islam. We have some people who are strongly opposed to Islam and we also have some people who are devote practicing Moslems and criticizing Islam offends them. Is it possible to have these two groups of devote practicing Moslems and those who are strongly opposed to Islam in one group and expect them respecting each other?

How do you balance the rights of two diametrically opposing groups of people in the same entity?

How do we balance this situation? How do we protect the rights of both sides?
I would appreciate any comments or inputs on this issue.

David Ramezani


more from DavidRamezani
Mash Ghasem

DR,as DM would say:I have a lot of good time,

by Mash Ghasem on

man besiar khoshvaghtm, that you have this space and we could have this conversation. As you mention a collective wisdom always works better. I really don't mean to sound lecturish, and due apologies if I do, but at the moment we need a lot more than just collective wisdom, we need collective action, intervention, planing and organizing,..As we are having this conversation hundreds of defensless prisoners in jail in Tehran were shot and killed, still injured in critical conditions, but prevented from leaving the jail and receveing the care they need, and all this happens without the world giving a blink.

So we need to strike a balance between these two sides and follow our discussions with conceret actions for people in Iran, especially and above all,  as immediate as  possible for THE POLITICAL PRISONERS, cheers


To Mash Ghasem…

by DavidRamezani on

Dear Mash Ghasem:

If we Iranians want to gain people’s trust and restore trust in our society we must have the courage to put all the cards on the table and give everybody a chance to present their case and express their views. This process would bring credibility to our activism and would also encourage everybody to be engaged in this democratic process. This way no one would feel they have been left behind and they have been part of the process all along.

There are some issues in our country which many of us avoid to touch. We shy away from those thinking that if we keep it quiet it would go away by itself. It takes so much courage to be honest and confront the issue as they are and not as the way we want them to be. This would be a healthy process and it would bring us closer and it would help us to unite.

I believe in **Unity in Diversity**. I have been promoting this for many years. I know it is a big challenge but I believe in Collective Wisdom and if we all put our brains together we can tackle this challenge.

I appreciate all your valuable comments. I want these discussions to be educational and informational so we all can benefit from that.

David Ramezani


It's hysterical

by Escape on

  In fact I've been calling it 'those who can't tell the difference between the common cold and the death plague'


A Few differences

by Escape on

  Every single one of these subjects you take for granted is acredited to your intelligence.
As a community.
Believe me,it's so..
Muslim Legacy.Countries that Muslims want to escape from.
Christian Legacy.Countries that Muslims want to escape to.

Muslim Legacy.Madrassahs that indoctrinate Muslim
children with bigotry and terror.
Christian Legacy.Mission schools that teach reading and
writing to Christians and Muslims alike.

Muslim Legacy.Suicide bombings for Allah
Christian Legacy.No suicide bombings for Jesus

Muslim Legacy.International terror organizations.
Christian Legacy.International charities.

Muslim Legacy.No formal charities for non-Muslims.
Christian Legacy.Leading provider of disaster relief to Muslims.

Muslim Legacy.Murder of aid workers.
Christian Legacy.Supply of aid workers.

Muslim Legacy.Christians in jail for apostasy or blasphemy.
Christian Legacy.Religious freedom.

Muslim Legacy.Modern-day slavery in the name of Islam.
Christian Legacy.Abolition in the name of Christianity.

Muslim Legacy.Muslim clerics who engage
in or condone terrorism.
Christian Legacy.Christian clerics murdered each year by
terror groups rife with Muslim clerics.

Muslim Legacy.Daily religious violence against Hindus.
Christian Legacy.None.
Muslim Legacy.Daily religious violence against Jews.
Christian Legacy.None.
Muslim Legacy.Daily religious violence against Buddhists.
Christian Legacy.None.
Muslim Legacy.Daily religious violence against Muslims.
Christian Legacy.None.

Muslim Legacy.Censorship
Christian Legacy.Freedom of speech

Muslim Legacy.Intolerance for criticism of Islam.
Christian Legacy.Tolerance for religious dissent.

Muslim Legacy.Restricting other religions from preaching faith.
Christian Legacy.Allowing all religions the
same right to evangelize.

Muslim Legacy.Conversions allowed to Islam only.
Christian Legacy.Freedom of conscience.

Muslim Legacy.Converts to Christianity beheaded.
Christian Legacy.No dead converts to Islam.

Most famous Muslim: Osama bin Laden. Most famous Christian: The Pope.

When they say 'Clean up your own backyard first' I say - GET THE F%K OUT OF MY BACKYARD THEN.


The answer is simple. Just

by alimostofi on

The answer is simple. Just celebrate Noruz everyday. That's what we all did well before religion came around. I really do not know why you asked.

Ali Mostofi



Soosan Khanoom


by Soosan Khanoom on

You feed on  the islamic fundamentalists ....... you are looking for the Radicals ....... you will be happy to see them ......... you may even go as far as to create one  .... why ? because they prove your case.... you like to push their buttons to make them mad....... you want them mad  so you can laugh and enjoy it ....... all because of your ego

But now people like me makes YOU mad ......  now table has turned and you have me and all of this is because I am not a radical . or a fundamentalists  or an IR supporter ........ and when it comes to me you are speechless ....... you have nothing to say ....... you can not even hate ......and sadly enough you are not used to Love 

Peace from bottom of my heart to you cause I care less about these fights... I am a sufi at heart and i told you before that love is my religion. How can one not be a believer once it comes to love? ........ forget about all the organized and political religions ... they are number one reason for the wars and blood shed in the history...... Religion is a personal affair and should NOT be involved in the politics.. 

There is a mystic side to all religions ..... In the silent and private world of spirit all the religions are one including Islam ...  That world is the only breath I take .......

Only Breath

Not Christian or Jew or Muslim, not Hindu
Buddhist, sufi, or zen. Not any religion

or cultural system. I am not from the East
or the West, not out of the ocean or up

from the ground, not natural or ethereal, not
composed of elements at all. I do not exist,

am not an entity in this world or in the next,
did not descend from Adam and Eve or any

origin story. My place is placeless, a trace
of the traceless. Neither body or soul.

I belong to the beloved, have seen the two
worlds as one and that one call to and know,

first, last, outer, inner, only that
breath breathing human being.



Muslim mystic is U.S.'s bestselling poet - TIME

Centuries later, Rumi's poetry still rocks - Standard-Examiner 

Why Is The Muslim Mystic, Rumi, America's Bestselling Poet? | Here ... 


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Mash Ghasem

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


Thanks for NowRuz and same to you. I am not as radical as I come accross. It is just that after a lifetime of listening to Muslims I had it. I like to press their buttons.

When I read Soosan and her like I get mad. For 1400 years Muslims got their way. They got to all people names like "najis" and "kafir".They got to take other peoples property. They abused all other people. From Jews to Zartoshti; Bahai and anyone else they wanted. Forced relocation of people; massive conversions under penalty of death and more. Now they react so violently to the least bit of reaction. That is why I want to show people what is possible. That thier actions now and in the past does have  consequences. People must realize what they do to others maybe done to them. When that happens they will begin to act differently.

That is why I respond the way I do.

Mash Ghasem

DR jan , thanks again for opening up the can of worms, aka

by Mash Ghasem on

Iranian history and culture.  Your periodization of Isalm in Iran is a very good intro to any investigation of religion in Iran. Again some might argue our peoblem with reliogionin Iran is not merely temporal but a qualitative cultural, political phenomenon. Below is a link to Prof. Dostar, ( I think the most outstanding writer on this topic) you be the judge.


VPK: Agha jan , before anything Noorozat Pirooz va har Rozat Norooz ( I know you don't like Aiedat Mobarak! see I do pay attention to little details when it comes to you, you are of the more decent folks in here, minus your Isalm phobia) hoping you a great new year.

Aziz man, Ghasem is my avatar name, my real name is as Persian as it gets.  Respectfully when you make an statement calling for deportation of all muslim to Saudi Arabia, well, you tell me what is the difference between that and all this nonesense we see and hear every day from IR. As Naser Khosro says( though it might sound a bit male-chuvinsit these days):

اندر بلای سخت پدید آید

راستی و مردی و بزرگواری

Time for us to show some "bozorgvary" towards friends and foes alike.

Happy New Year to all. No more posting till next year, Ciao.


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Mash Gaasem

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


I don't need a Tazi named guy telling me who I am. I don't blow people up; that is your Muslim friends. 

Islam is a world problem not just Iranian. It will be dealt with by the world. Meanwhile Muslims will whine "racism"; "nazis".


Iranian experience of Islam…

by DavidRamezani on

Hello Mash Ghasem and Veild Prophet of Khorasan:

Here is the Iranian experience of Islam in Iran. Here is the history of Islam in Iran. This is what history tells us about Islam in Iran:

The first wave of persecution of Iranians started on 637. Persecution of Iranian Zoroastrians by Arab Moslems! The following link would tell you how it happened:
1. Persecution of Zoroastrians (started on 637):

The second wave of persecution was during the Safavid dynasty. This time it was persecution of Sunni Moslems by Shia Moslems.
2. The Safavid conversion of Iran from Sunnism to Shiism (started on 1501):

The third wave of persecution was during the Ghajar dynasty, mainly during Nasseradin Shah. This time the Bahá'ís were being persecuted by the Shia Moslems and still continues.
3. The persecution of Bahá'ís (started on 1844):

4. The forth wave of killings, genocide, chain murder, assassinations started on 1979.
1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners

For the past 1374 years three different large groups of people have been persecuted in Iran simply because they have had different religions. What is the justification for this? What is the explanation? What is the source of all of these hate, anger, injustice and discrimination? What does it take to stop this? Who should we expect to solve this problem? For so long and so many victims! So sad and so inhumane…


David Ramezani

Mash Ghasem

DR jan , your attention to theory is appreciated, however all

by Mash Ghasem on

three thinkers you site are highly Euro-Centric and a bit old. Our problem with Islam is very much an Iranian affair and specific to Iranian history and culture if you will.

Some might dare to say, Aramesh Dostar is a lot more relevant to a study of religion and religious thinking  in Iran that Durkheim,Weber and Marx combined, as much as I appreciate latters contributions.

VPK, you sound just like a Hezbollah (in reverse).

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan


by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


Islam is the root of the evil and must be confronted. Until then we are just beating around the bush. There is no way to cure this without dealing with Islam. Islam is a virus of the mind.

I agree with SOS: Islam has got to go. The hard core Muslims should be kicked back to Saudi or whatever hell they came from. There is no place for Muslims in a civilized world Iran or anywhere.


More on sociology of religion…

by DavidRamezani on

Greetings Mr. Curious Joe:
Thanks for your response. My view on religion is the same as the 3 prominent scholars who have studied the Sociology of Religion:
1. French David Émile Durkheim in a book called The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life in 1912.
It follows, then, that less complex societies, such as the Australian aborigines, have less complex religious systems, involving totems associated with particular clans. The more complex the society, the more complex the religious system! As societies come in contact with other societies, there is a tendency for religious systems to emphasize universalism to a greater and greater extent. However, as the division of labor makes the individual seem more important (a subject that Durkheim treats extensively in his famous Division of Labor in Society), religious systems increasingly focus on individual salvation and conscience.
Durkheim's definition of religion, from Elementary Forms, is as follows: "A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden – beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them."

2. German Karl Emil Maximilian "Max" Weber:
The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism
The Religion of China: Confucianism and Taoism
The Religion of India: The Sociology of Hinduism and Buddhism
Ancient Judaism

3. German Karl Heinrich Marx:
Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man—state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

PS: I will write on Islam in particular later.

David Ramezani

Curious Joe

Response to Mr. Ramezani's last post

by Curious Joe on

I’m glad you were not insulted nor felt “condescended” by my remarks, as apparently Mash Ghasem Jaan did.


Let’s get to the essence of your last post.  There were 4 paragraphs in your post, followed by a short concluding sentence – which sounded like a “motherhood statement” --  something “general” that you can put at the end of any subject debate to close the discussion in a civilized/optimistic manner.


The first 2 paragraph of your post focused on Islam.  The last 2 paragraphs, expanded the horizon beyond Islam.


As for your first 2 paragraphs, no one should call Iran “Islamic Republic of Iran”, nor “Christian Republic of Iran”, nor “Bahai Republic of Iran”, nor “Gay/Lesbian Republic of Iran”.  At the end of the day, Iran is Iran (or it could be called Persia) – Just a “one-word country” – either Iran, or Persia.  End of the debate on your first 2 paragraphs.


As you know, most Americans think that the USA is a Democracy.  Well, it is not.  It is a Republic. But no one calls USA: The Republic of America, let alone calling it the “Judo-Christian Republic of America”.


Back to Iran, Islam and “IRI”. Do you really expect 80% of the 75 million Persians in Iran (with large numbers of illiterates in the villages) know the difference between a Democracy or a Republic?  So what does “R (as in IRI) = Jomhoori” means to an American or an Iranian?  As Shaboon Bimokh would say:  “If Democracy means Freedom, I’ll take it. If Republic means Liberty,  I’ll take that too”.


But let’s expand the horizon, and concentrate on your last 2 paragraphs. The problem with all religions is that they try to use their governments as a crutch for their beliefs, while the thinking people (like you and I?!) seek to separate the church/mosque/synagogue/etc. from the state.  So, let’s focus on your main question: “Can we fight Islamic Republic without Discussing Islam”


Well, Iran has its own issues with forcing the women to go under chador, giving few thousand toomans of oil export money per month (bribe) to poor villagers so that they can be bussed to Tehran to either vote for IRI or create a huge supporting population against the minority opposed to the IRI’s woodoo government, or simply pay a bunch of chaaghookesh, obash, laat, Basiji and revolutionary guards to maim/kill the people, or put them in Evin Prison – while shouting “Allah-o-Akbar”, or “Death to America”.  So, clearly, Islam is used by the IRI to maintain power and fill up their Swiss bank accounts.  Under such a scenario, can we, or should we “fight” IRI without clearly demonstrating that “Islam” is being used to lure a bunch of poor villagers (constituting over 60% of population in Iran) to keep a bunch of mad men (like Gadafi) in power?


Frankly, the similar scenario is going on in the US.  The religiously motivated individuals provide the support for continuing the ban on same-sex marriage, restricting access to abortion, prohibiting stem-cell research, teaching creationism in public schools, promoting abstinence-only sex education, and so forth.  So, can we fight these US forces without discussing Judo-Christian values/evangelism?


I have an answer on how we could do that.  First, we have to have a set of full-proof fundamental/morals that supersede/exceed all religions’ principals on this planet.  And Second, we have to have clear objectives that make all religions’ teachings on earth irrelevant. 


Please ask me how, if you want me to expand.


Curious Joe



Religion in public domain polarizes the society

by DavidRamezani on

Greetings everyone and thanks to Mash Ghasem and Curious Joe for your contributions! Before 1979, I for one do not remember ever people wanting to talk about Islam for any reason. People did not care about Islam or any religion. Basically Islam was a non issue as far as politics was concerned. It only became an issue when Islam got involve in Public Domain and took the center stage in politics. It is quite natural for people wanting to discuss in opposition or in support of Islam.

Islam by penetrating into politics it polarized the society and people became divided, one group in opposition and the other is group trying to protect Islam. This polarization got escalated and become more and more hostile. If we had Baha’i Republic of Iran, we would see the same polarization of the society and if we had a Christian Republic of Iran, it would have been the same story. So we can not blame the people for wanting to discuss in either direction about religion in general and Islam in particular. It is a very natural reaction toward any religion.

Even in the United States, if we had the Christian Republic of America, even the Americans would be polarized and every talk show or any public debate would revolve around Christianity either in opposition or in support of it. So I am not surprised why people wanting to discuss the religion of any kind when they live under that particular theocracy.

So, the question is what is the best way to channel that energy into a healthy discussion and try to harness that energy for a constructive and productive debate or discussion in any group? WE can achieve so much if we could guide this energy into a direction where it would produce some educational and a positive results.

I believe in collective wisdom of the people and I believe if we all put our brains together we can resolve this issue.


David Ramezani

Mash Ghasem

Well, Prof. Curious Joe, thanks for your condescending reamrks

by Mash Ghasem on

You still fail to be specific on exactly what part of this conversation here doesn't meet your high academic standards. But you should take heart , you're not the only non-Iranian that has had that condescending attitude on this thread.

If you could have read Persian and had a bit of familiarity with Iranian writers and publications of the past four decades, you might have realized that a lack of theory  wasn't exactly the problem in Iran.

Curious Joe

How About Some Homework Before Making a Comment?

by Curious Joe on

With all due respect to David Ramezani, where have all you guys been during the past 32 years (well before the emergence of IRI)?

Back in early 1970s (before Khomeini's arrival/adventures), The Council of Secular Humanism was created by Paul Kurtz, currently the Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the State University of New York in Buffalo.  He started the quarterly magazine called "Free Inquiry" that I have been subscribing/reading for the past 32 years. (click on //

The current issue of the Free Inquiry (April/May 2011 Vol 31, No 3 --Page 4) precisely addresses the question that David Ramezani is raising --- but with a lot of in-depth analysis and credible references, rather than an 18 year old “intellectual” behind her/his computer, being high on alcohol or some other drug, making an ad-hoc comments to a blog in not knowing what on earth is she/he talking about.

Please read the Free Inquiry before you even bother to comment on things that you may have no idea about.

Thank you for taking this as an advice, rather than an insult.

Curious Joe

G. Rahmanian


by G. Rahmanian on

And me! But who was I to blow against the wind! Like millions who despised mullahs in general, I never trusted him. But, again, I was a nobody then. And who would listen to the nobodies?

Mash Ghasem

All social phenomenons are complex, we only simplify them by

by Mash Ghasem on

our abstractions, our theories .And such simplifications, reductionism most often don't work; hence the accumulated aggregates of all social problems facing humanity today.

I for one have lost faith in sociology or any other form of theory per se. Let's focus on practice. If theory helps it, good, if not, time for a new one!

DR- We could and should oppose Islam if it is actively imposed unto the Public Sphere by a state ( as is the case with IR), other than that, it falls within the Private Sphere, and as such it  shall remain free of any type of regulation and interference.

GR, this is not the time or place to discuss Lenin's "What is to be Done," but in 1917 he actually went against his own former writings and only because of such major revision the October Revolution was possible. As for Ayat Shaytan ,one of the most important reasons why  Khomeini was able to maintain his leadership position was  simply all the lies and empty promises he gave to everyone, under the sun from women to jews to lefties to ...and we all bought it, except a few like Shamlou.

Then again that was an exception that proved the rule.

And a hearty Happy New Year to All.

Towards an Spring of Insurrection. Bahman dar Bahar. Tis a lovely season to overthrow.





sociology of religion

by DavidRamezani on

Dear Rahmanian, thanks for all your informative responses! I learned a lot.
From the sociology of religion perspective you are absolutely right. However, if we do a comparative analysis of the religions, one religion could be more complex than the other.
David Ramezani

G. Rahmanian

Dear David,

by G. Rahmanian on

If anyone tells you one religion is better than another, they're lying to you and you must not trust them!!!


Consistency factor…

by DavidRamezani on

If we compare Mohammad with Jesus Chris or Bahaullah, it is so much easier to deal with Christianity and Baha’i faith, because the life of Jesus and Bahaullah were consistent through out their lives. In the case of Mohammad there is no consistency between Mecca and Medina and that makes Islam so much challenging to deal with it.


G. Rahmanian


by G. Rahmanian on

In a democracy, whether a religion is political or apolitical its members do participate in the political life of the society. If you try to divide any issue the way you have done with Islam, then you have a different problem. You need to solve the problem of whether you want to deal with one Islam or another yourself. That, as our friend, MG, has pointed out is a personal choice. A democracy provides the conditions for everyone to participate in the political, economic, cultural and social life of the society.

If by political Islam you mean special treatment then you are creating a problem that cannot be solved within an organization and will eventually result in divisions.


Honestly !

by Rea on

Have read a lot of things on IC but nothing as shallow and stupid.


Ideological battlegrounds…

by DavidRamezani on

Greetings Dear G. Rahmanian and Happy NowRooz to you as well…

Thanks for your valuable response. Here is the challenge we are face with respect to Islam. In my view there are two models of Islam:
1. Islam in Mecca (lasted about 13 years)
2. Islam in Medina (lasted about 10 years)
The Medina model of Islam is considered Political Islam (Islamism) meaning political ideology based on religion of Islam. So Islam is a two dimensional phenomenon (Religion and Politics). I personally do not have any issue with Islam in Mecca. I believe all the problems are about the Medina model of Islam which is the political Islam. We are trying to distinguish the two models of Islam. Since the roots of all the Political Islamic groups are in the Medina model of Islam and they all use the Medina model of Islam as their source of inspiration, then we should be able to discuss the last 10 years of Mohammad’s life when he was in Medina.

I realize it is not an easy subject to discuss and it makes things more complicated, but we do not have a choice but to trace back the political Islam to its roots during the last 10 years of Mohammad’s life in Medina. In Medina, Mohammad was both a spiritual leader and he also was a political leader. He had a dual role and that is why it is a complicated subject when we discuss Islam.

I hope I am able to make this as simple as we all can understand and discuss it in here. Our challenge in Iran is the Political Islam. Before 1979, we did not have any issue with Islam as spirituality or simply set of rituals to practice in the privacy of individual.

I believe any religion including Islam respected when it is practiced in the privacy of individual.

David Ramezani

G. Rahmanian


by G. Rahmanian on


G. Rahmanian

Ideological Debate!

by G. Rahmanian on

Should religion or any other ideology be debated at this stage of people's struggle against the Islamic Republic.

Islamic and its core teachings, is an ideology that, contrary to what some of its ideologues would like to claim, deals with "spirituality" and supernatural ideas and not the real objective issues of day to day life of the people. Where Islam does deal with non-spiritual or earthly issues, such teachings are, in essence, outmoded and are not compatible with the modern laws of advanced societies.

As we have seen in Iran, there are so-called "Islamic Intellectuals" who need to rely excessively on modern western philosophies in order to promote "their own" brand of Islam.

It goes without saying that the  issues Iranians are dealing with, differ according to each group, stratum or class within the society. A poor man's concerns are not the same as a rich man's. Discussing an ideology--in this case, Islam--that is shared by different classes, groups or strata within the society is counterproductive at this stage of the Iranians' struggle for democracy and democratic freedom. In a free society, such debates take different forms.

Since this struggle includes Iranians from all walks of life and the demands of the majority of Iranians which oppose the regime have no ideological basis and are essentially political, economic, cultural or social in their modern forms, bringing in ideological agenda will only complicate such issues and cause more division than unity within any organization that is not based on any particular ideology.

You mentioned the Soviet Union and communism. There is lots of literature about the failure of communism in the former Soviet Union and why and how it failed. What I'd like to point out here is what led to the triumph of the communists and how they succeeded in overthrowing the czarist regime in the then Russia.

In a pamphlet called, "What Is To Done," V. I. Lenin discusses the importance of transforming the workers' organizations which were limited in their struggles by their class demands and, as a result, by their world outlook, into an all-embracing Marxist party that would help their class consciousness with regards to the rest of the existing classes within the society of the time. In other words, he introduced an ideology which he believed was a winner against the regime in power. As we know, Lenin and his comrades eventually succeeded in their struggle.

The implications of such ideas and what happened afterwards are beyond the scope of this comment. But one thing I'd like to add here is that, thanks to Stalin's massacres and exiles, there was almost no ideological warfare towards the end of the Soviet era. The "debate" had been reduced to mere propaganda by the Soviet media telling the world about the supremacy of Marxist ideology.

As we saw before the revolution of '79, Khomeini and his camp used a different ideology that is, in their fight against the former regime in Iran. Whereas, in the Marxist ideology economics played a major role in initially attracting the masses, Khomeini, knowing that Islam does not provide the economic comforts of a modern capitalist society and deals only with promises of a great afterlife, resorted to lies to deceive Iranian masses to follow him.

As I have mentioned earlier, the overall Iranians' struggle against the regime is not ideological and is inclusive of all the citizens who want to free Iran from the yoke of a regime which is using Islam as a tool to suppress them. Under such conditions any debate on Islam can derail people's struggle and is tantamount to reducing the democratic ideals of tens of millions of Iranians to a mere debate on religion.

Happy New Year To All!



by mullah-kosh on

To celebrate the so called Rastakheez e "Pars", first you change your name from David to something "Persian". When you do that, perhaps you can begin to learn of your identity. Pars is a province of Iran. The country was never known by Iranians as Persians, but always known as Iran. So I suggest we talk about the culture of Iran which encompasses many different provinces including those in Tajikstan, Northern Afghanistan (Sogdia), Media, Parthia, and all others. Stop using the greek version of our name imposed on the country by the Western scholars. Then we can talk about the rest of the stuff, but I do agree with SOS, Islam must be eradicated for enlightement to occur in Iran. 


Balancing out a diverse group of people

by DavidRamezani on

I would like to thank everyone for their very valuable contributions. I am very grateful for all your inputs. Special thanks to Afshinzad, MM, Mash Ghasem, Yolanda, Roozbeh_Gilani, Hirre, Everybody Loves Somebody…, SOS-FREE-IRAN.

We are a non partisan, non ideological, a broad based all inclusive and a centrist group. I believe setting any kind of conditions in the bylaw would be a limitation toward some other group of people.

Here is an example similar to our situation in Iran. Imagine if during the medieval period (Dark ages) when the Europeans where fighting the Roman Catholicism and someone joins your group and sates that in our group we can fight the Roman Catholic Church, but no one is allowed to discuss Christianity. This would not go well with the Protestant Movement which was fighting the Catholic Church.

So we are trying to reach a balance in our case and see how we can balance out everything.

Happy NowRooz Afshinzad,
David Ramezani


is the main issue

by afshinazad on

why are some of your group are offended by mentioning Islam, this shows they are not open minded and they are not tolerant, what is with Islam that nobody can attack or the question it. if someone has a belief to Islam good for him and no one is asking him or her to give up Islam but at same time they have to tolerant and also they must use their brain some time that what is this Islam, if other religions could tolerate and why not Islam. You see your friends problem is not a Islam, their problem is they don't understand the Islam, blindly they have adopted the Islam, and they want their belief dominate on others.

Islam in IRI regime is tool to fool people and people are not buying that anymore, look at AHMAGYNEJAD he understands that and he has started using nationalisim beside the religion but ofcourse we all know why.

so you want to fight the regime, fight with combination of problems and main core of that is Islam,your bodies could store the Islam in their closet for some day but not for today.

happy norouz