Jahanshah Javid

Is the Islamic Republic

Is the Islamic Republic of Iran really an Islamic entity??

Data backs

by Frederic L. Pryor
Middle East Quarterly
Fall 2007, pp. 53-58

//www.meforum.org/1763/are-muslim-countries-less-democratic

As "civil" muslims, we should routinely mock islam, just the way

that secular christians and jews make fun of their religions - in order to avoid those relics of ancient history, to be taken literally and seriously.

داری شوخی میکنی‌ یا جدی میگی‌؟

جی جی جون، والله به خدا ما هم خیلی‌ وقته که همین حرف و  داریم می‌زنیم.

منتها چونکه ژورنالیست نیستیم و اسممونم جاوید نیست، هیچکی واسمون تره  خرد نمیکنه:)

همیشه من گفتم، روزی که خلق بفهمد (از گلسرخی) که از ماست که بر ماست، این جهان گلستان میشه.

همونطور که قدیمها خرافات خیلی‌ اهمیت داشت (چه در ایران و چه در خارج)
و الان داره کم کمک فراموش میشه، یک روزی هم مردم یواش یواش متوجه میشن که
دین و آیین، یک زمانی برای بشر لازم بوده که بهش یک سری اصول رو تجویز
کنه. ولی‌ با پیشرفت علم و صنعت و همچنین پیشرفت بشر در زمینه‌های مختلف
علوم انسانی‌ و فلسفه، دیگه بودن و یا نبودن دین تاثیری در زندگی‌ اجتماعی
افراد نخواهد داشت.

روزی که انسان براستی بفهمه که آلت دست یک سری آدم‌های خودخواه شده که
از خودش هیچ بالاتر نیستند، اونوقته که مثل ابراهیم همه این بت‌ها رو
میشکنه.

تفاوتها بین مردم از بین خواهد رفت و دیگه هیچ کَس، کَس دیگرو گول
نمیتونه بزنه، و هیچ کَس، کَس دیگرو  نمیتونه متهم کنه و گناه کوتاه فکری 
خودش رو به گردن دین و ایمان دیگران بندازه.

مردم آگاهانه راهشون رو انتخاب خواهند کرد. همینطور که الان در
کشور‌های دمکراتیک، دین و سیاست (تا حدود زیادی) از هم جدا هستند، دیگه
کَسی‌ از رای دادن به شخص مورد نظرش واهمه و شکی نخواهد داست.

این وظیفه روشنفکر‌های ماست که به این مساله توجّه خاصی‌ داسته باشند و
بجای اینکه همش در مورد دین اسلام فتوا بدند و نظریه صادر کنند، یک کم به
آگاه کردن مردم بپردازند و توضیح بدند که چرا و چطور تعصب در دین و آیین،
مانع از رشد فکری و سیاسی انسان  میشه.

وگرنه، تا صد سال دیگه هم اگه هی‌ بگن دین اسلام فلان و فلان...و محمد
پدوفایل بوده، و حسین این و آن بوده، جز اینکه تخم نفاق بکارند و خرمن
دشمنی و جنایت درو بکنند، حاصلی نخواهد داشت

.

سر زمین سرد ما گردد بزودی لاله زار

 مهر و امید و عدالت ، باز گردد بر قرار

From: Daneshjoo

Violence in History

Indeed other major religions have and had their share of violence in their name, but one can also not deny that Islam is more pro-active in promoting its followers to act upon their beliefs. 

But if that were so, one would have expected the Islamic world to have been the focus of violence during the 20th century. And yet it is not so, and the only proper example of genocide in that region came about when the secularist leaders of post-Ottoman Turkey massacred the Armenians.

Other than that, we have mass slaughters like the Somme, and government purges like under Stalinism, and bombing nightmares like Hiroshima, and organised cruelty such as the Japanese labor camps/death camps for the Burma railway, savage civil wars like in Spain, and long running conflicts like Ulster. None of it with any Islamic input, and this is millions of lives being lost. The most comparable situation in the Middle East is Lebanon, where civil strife has led to repeated massacres - throughout both the 19th and the 20th centuries. But Lebanon is not the most Islamic of Middle Eastern countries, rather, it is one of the least.

The Middle East conflict is relatively recent, and a Muslim fundamentalist reaction was relatively slow to develop. The Palestinian cause was resultely secular until the late 1980s. The Israel/Palestine conflict is very interesting, when assessing the religious input to contemporary violence, because it indicates that the degree to which the Christian and Jewish world is willing to act and use force to attain their aims. The US/Israeli blockade of Gaza is a very fair litmus test of ethics, morality and democratic values in Christianity and Judaism.

Dear jj, are these countries authoritarian because they lack

democracy, or they lack democracy because they suffer religion?

I think you mean well but your conclusion is difficult to support, and the bundling of countries you listed is incorrect based on my  direct, extended experience with several of them:

Tunisia & Morocco are both 'benevolent dictaorships' and would be in serious trouble if their islamic forces & tendencies were not under tight control. Both are on ascendance and doing extremely well. Morocco happens to be a rather stable country (first country in the world to have recognized the independence of U.S and has always enjoyed great relationship with). The curent king is sort of like Shah and has started building of democratic institutions. he is much more moderate than his dad, Hasan. In Tunisia, Zeinolabedin has been on a country building tear. Both can count their lucky stars that they have no oil or gas of any real significance or they would end up like Algeria because oil cartels won't leave them alone and islam was instrumental in creating havoc. Note that these North African countries have very similar cultures and language.

Pakistan was a disaster from the day it was created because of the very nature of its foundation being islam. Afghanistan, well, we all know about Afghanistan. Somalia/Yemen, more or less similar stories exacerbated by strategic location and discovery of oil.

Turkey is a democracy and has been on ascendance since Ata Turk created a secular country, made sure islamists are put in their place, and Latinized the written language which efectively separated Turkey from Islamic cultural influence via language. What little problem they have faced in internal political arena has been mostly in the past 10 years or so since the islamist party took power. Malaysia/Indonesia both practiced moderate islam before rise of radica islam in 60's. However, Indonesia's islamic radicalism has subsided almost completely since democratization. Malaysia, was not and is not a dictatorship and has a very progressive Monarchy (King rotates between 5 major provinces) and has functioned extremely well for a long time and even handled Asian Flu better than others. Mahatir Mohamad took a lot of undue power but that part of it was not much different than American presidents or european, power struggle with constitution and congress. Mahatir understood that Anvar will bring islamism to Malaysia. With hindsight he was absolutely correct as Anvar and islamism has been on the rise creating all sorts of concerns including for the Chinese Malaysians.

As for Iran, our misery started with islam and while it is not all due to that as we owe that to Mongols, Turks and the rest as well but the greatest damage has come from islam first and shi't version of brits/safavid second. Had it not been for islam and shi't, we would at worse have another dictatorship post 79 not the this weird beast of a cancer eating our country.

Without islam destroying Iran and most of the rest of the world (along with other religions including capitalism & communism), you and I will be talking technology, space, betterment of human condition, and the next trend in whatever jj.

Yes and No!

Yes" to your notion that lack of democracy creates the atmosphere for religious extremism.

No: Because you seem to ignore that "no democracy" does not exist in a vacuum and is directly related to lack of education or wrong ones!

and No because one can not so simply equate teaching of all religions, their impact and intentions. They have common grounds but also different methods and instructions of how to reach their goals!

Indeed other major religions have and had their share of violence in their name, but one can also not deny that Islam is more pro-active in promoting its followers to act upon their beliefs. 

That is to the extent I will address this second blog, because it is no longer in the context of freedom of speech as the first blog was and more of a philosophical one.

Good Blog

This is one of your best comments yet JJ despite its brevity.