Jahanshah Rashidian

JR, don't go too fast on Islam!

Irrationale attack on a widespread ideaology (for you Islam) is really counter-productive to your objectives. It seems you may think that you have suddenly come up with the root-cause and therby a remedy to all 21st century (the one and only) root of evil in the world - Islam.
More interesting is that you are inclined to be the enlightening element in this dillemma.
You perfectly fit the stray-soul that is very clearly described in the book of Islam - The Blind, the Deaf and the Irationale!

I have no idea how long it will take for us to grow up and be able to smell the roses of reality, tolerance and peaceful coexistence.

To open your eyes, I refer you to the mindset of your forefathers, the Marxists, Revisionists, Maoist and etc'ists of 40's and 50's in Iran and see how wrong and alienated they were.The clips are available on Utube.

Do you really think that religion is the issue? Can you open up your eyes and compare pre-Lutheran Europe and see if today's evangelists are any better?

You remind me of a super-scientist we had at work. I was a tean and started my 1st engineering career. The 1st subject he covered was 2+2=4. and then he showed me how he can still reach a totally different answer by going thru 3 pages of advanced math (all purely correct) with all integrals, diff. equations, and etc. to yet prove 2+2=5 at the end.

This is the rationale you choose to follow.

Peace;

Sadegh, please grow up and

Sadegh, please grow up and stop acting like a child. Either that or don't visit sites that are heaviliy political. Stick to your research and stay away from political discussions since they can always heat up.

This realm is not for softies.

Dear JR thanks for taking

Dear JR thanks for taking the time to reply...unfortunately I just don't have the time to reply to your post, but hopefully will be able to do so at some opportunity in the future. I agree though that Islam never had it's "render unto Caesar what is his" moment which is problematic and therefore suspect political incursions ought to be curtailed and restricted to the domain of private practice. The fact that many religious scholars have always argued for an apolitical conception of Islam is proof of this. Anyway, thanks a again for taking the time and giving some food for thought as usual, though I often disagree with your positions, censorship notwithstanding.

Ba Arezu-ye Movafaghiat, Sadegh

It is truley sad to see

It is truley sad to see this behavior in one of my countrymen.

If you can't see how patronizing or arrogant this is I can't really help you - you either have manners or you don't...setting yourself up as the conscience of all Iranians with a right to deliberate upon who's worthy of "sadness" and not is really quite egregious.

Ba Arezu-ye Movafaghiat, Sadegh

Mr. Sadegh

As you once wrote in one of your comments to Fred, you live and have to survive under IRI's rule. I respect your right to live and understand a sort of reservation you have to put in your writings as a tactic of survival, but let me also express my disappointment that a scholar and intellectual with such a great board of knowledge like yours is not really forced to have an approach to IRI's lobbyists in the West. Hence, one may also speculate that you do not stand beside a secular and democratic opposition, but plan to water down the illegitimacy and illegality of the IRI.

Let me answer some of your allegations which go too far than  supposedly the suvival tactic:

--Contrary to your allegations, Islam is not only a religion as you say, but a political religion. Other wise,"Al-Islam-w'al Dawlah" has no historical sense and all those jihadi expeditions were only to defend Arabian territorial integrity! And all non-Muslim tribes in Arabian were not physically so far eliminated, and  advanced cultures and civilisations in the Middle-East were not annihilated by Muslim invaders!

Aggressive character of Islam, historically and now politically, is its main difference with other Semitic religions; this is so eviden that you cannot water down Mr. Sadegh.

-- Contrary to your ;profain; words, the prophethood of Muhammad is the main argument of Muhammad himself, "Muhammad-al- Rrassul-Allah". Was not  Mount of Hira, near Mecca, his first rendez-vous with God's angel, where he  received the first revelation of the Koran delivered by the Angel Gabriel? Nabuwwat, or Muhammad's claim of being God's prophet ((Muhammad-al-Rassul-Allah) is one of the pillars of Islam. Almost 100 surahs of the Koran attempt to confirm this claim .As if all these surahs were not enough, Islamic scholars have additionally narrated different sayings over different periods and circumstances to endorse the belief on Nabuwat.

--Contrary to your softening version of history, Muhammad was before the prophecy a reliable caravan-businessman (Muhammad-al- amin), working for his belated wealthy wife, Khadijah. As a prophet in Mecca, he had a messiah attitude-sage, decent, humble and generous to the poor, with whom he shared his meal. After 10 years of prophecy, he had to leave Mecca and his migration--"Hijrat"-- to Medina in 622 marked his new career.

--In Medina, as a powerful Messenger turned to his personal ambitions, he even misused the existing traditional norms of society, and his Allah-commanded rules ; he also violated ethical rules of his own religion to achieve his goals. As such, he had the privilege of having more wives than was permitted under his own Islamic law. He even had the controversial right to marry his daughter-in-law, Zainab--she divorced the Prophet's adopted son (Zaid) to marry Muhammad. As a husband, he had the advantage to arbitrarily treat his wives as he liked.  

In his financial exploits, he allowed himself the right to rob caravans (for which other robbers would have been beheaded), or to impose humiliating "Jizya" (taxes charged from non-Muslims) on "Dhimmis" (subjugated Christian and Jewish minorities living in the early Islamic community). He ordered the confiscation of lands and properties from "Dhimmis", his enemies. He openly claimed that "the spoils of war were made lawful unto me". 

As a founder of belated Omayyad Caliphate, he had the right to fight back against his rivals, and was merciless and revengeful toward his enemies and rivals, even so far as to give orders to murder many of them. He was the founder of the first Arab Empire (a Caliphate which became during a long period after the Prophet's death one of the biggest conquerors in the world).

Historically, many believe that Muhammad was a religious and politically prominent leader. He undoubtedly left significant marks on the history of mankind. Many Western scholars, without believing in Muhammad's prophecy, have confirmed this fact althoughr the sources of information about the personal life of Muhammad are reduced to the Koran, "Sirah" (biography of the Prophet) and some parts of the Hadiths which are considered as "sahih" (reliable).  

Muhammad conquered Mecca: According to Ali Dashti, while Muhammad surrounded Mecca in 632, a compromise of capitulation was achieved: Muhammad accepted a peaceful capitulation of Mecca; in exchange for a general amnesty for the population, though excluding certain individuals like Ibn Abdullah, who was one of Muhammad's early companions and wrote down manuscripts of the Koran for him. He was executed because of having publicly declared the man-made origin of the Koran. 

Although Muhammad accepted the peace treaty, on his return from Mecca to Medina, he attacked a group of Bedouins en route and so the treaty was voided.  Are you really believe that people of Mecca received with opened arm Muslims, as you would attribute  such an attitude of submission to early Persians under Sassanids? 

--and finally, contrary to your appeased version of secularism, I really do not believe some one like "Ex-pasdar; bearded, ex-IRI's official in sensitive organs like Ministry of Information, Ershad, Consulate in Istanbul ( all in the first decade of bloody repression), and now an admirer of Montazari's Islam…, can be a right symbol of democracy and secularism for a nation fed up with any version pf Islam. 

Mr. Sadegh, you have a wide board of knowledge in many subjects, including philosophy which happens to be my interesting domain too. I ask you to focus on any other subject but leave politics and Islam for those who have more free room to escape self-censorship(???) To tackle the real problems of our people. 

Your wrote, "I feel "sad"

Your wrote, "I feel "sad" and disgraced by many Iranians' conduct here on this site who can't even engage in civilized conversation and dialogue."

Unless you were referring to someone else, I am challenging you to fine one "uncivil" statement in my response to you. I know you won't find any, so my conclusion is that it is you who cannot behave in a civil manner when confronted with opposing views.

Please be more civil.

Reply...

Minorities inside Iran have long been persecuted by the central government. Maybe you ought to read up on the despotism of Reza Khan through to the IRI (maybe if you have the time, when you're not being "Iran's conscience" to read "Iran and the Challenge of Diversity" by Alireza Asgharzadeh or "Iran as Imagined Nation" by Mostafa Vaziri...anyway...I have things to do so I am not going to get into a longwinded debate with you Jamshid...These points should suffice...

It should be clear that I think that any form of theocracy is not an option, only a liberal polity committed to social justice is - if this isn't clear by now that I really ought to stop wasting my time here debating you and others...

Secular and religious Iranians should focus on bringing about a liberal polity which entitles people to practice their religion or personal beliefs without fear of persecution and with a representative government accountable to the populace voted in via competitive elections...how to do that is a very difficult question, and I don't profess to have all the answers, unlike some people...There are numerous tactics and strategies which can be set into motion but many including myself are still thinking the issue through. 

Finally, I feel "sad" and disgraced by many Iranians' conduct here on this site who can't even engage in civilized conversation and dialogue...

Ba Arezu-ye Movafaghiat, Sadegh

Re: Sadegh

You wrote, "it was only after her (khadijeh) death that he (mohamad) married for reasons of political expediency. "

Which included a nine years old Aisheh. I completely agree with your justifications for Mohamad's behavior as a man. But as a prophet of a true God, his behavior is not justifiable.

Remember that according to Koran, God sent an Ayeh to Mohamad giving him permission not to respect his wives "turns". If God would go to this much detail, why wouldn't he tell Mohamad not to sleep with a nine years old girl?

Because the customs of that time was such that it was fine to marry with a nine years old? Ok. Then why God banned other lesser crimes? Why couldn't Mohamad be, at the very least, a role model for future generations to come?

I believe the answer is that according to Mohamad himself, he was just a human being and nothing more.

Which I agree. But if we consider him just another human being AND a prophet of a true God as well, then we got many questionable and unresolved issues.

On another subject, why were "moslems" a persecuted minority? Why not the jews or other minorities that existed back then? What was so different about the moslems? The fact is that Mohamad and his followers engaged in the act of robbing caravans which angered the tribe leaders of his time.

To Mohamad the end justified the means. I don't want to argue whether that was a good thing or not, but the fact remains that Mohamad robbed many caravans.

You wrote, " Moreover, the corruption, despotism and blood-letting of the Sassasians is nothing to be proud of either".

Today, the corruption, despotism and blood-letting of the IRI is nothing to be proud of either, but does that justifies invasion by the US (or Arabs 1400 years ago)?

You wrote, "Iranians need to cast aside their racial-centric psyches which have led to the marginalization and persecution of Turks, Kurds and others for hundreds of year"

What does "race" has anything to do with this? Are you referring to the Shah's "aryamehri" attitude? That was 30 years ago and it is gone. Today's dislike of what the Arab invaders did to our ancestors has nothing to do with "race", and has everything to do with Iranians' awakening to the truth of our history.

"persecution of Turks"???

My dear friend, Turkic tribes RULED Iran almost exclusively since the Ghaznavis and until the Pahalvis. That's about 1000 years.

So tell me how could the Turks be persecuted and by whom? Or maybe you don't know Iran's history, as you claim that Jahanshah does not Islamic history?

You wrote, "Your muddle-headed thinking has led you in the direction of intolerance and confusion".

It is so amazing that you declare powerless victims of intolerance, prescribed by the IRI, as "intolerant", while you should be focusing on those who in power in Iran and who are the "embodiment" of intolerance and who are practicing and preaching intolerance on a daily basis.

It is truley sad to see this behavior in one of my countrymen.

You wrote, "When they are forced to do so and persecuted for being "apostates" then again that is a political issue"

The treatment of apostates are clearly stated in Koran. So this IS a religious issue, as well as political.

I do agree with your last statement that we should try to focus more on our common goals. This perhaps is more important than all the rest of my (and your) comment regarding 1400 years ago.

I am curious to know what is your prescription for unity among seculars and religious Iranians who are against the IRI?

Also, I would like to know if you are a reformist and believe in slow change. This is important to know for you readers.

A few points...

Muhammad was loyal to his first wife Khadijeh alone for well over a decade - it was only after her death that he married for reasons of political expediency - very common in non-Islamic cultures including pre-Islamic Persia's. The fact that he was loyal to a single women discounts your assertion that the man was driven solely by lust. Also Muhammad never claimed to be "divine" himself; in fact he stressed that he was human like anyone else. He unequivocally stated that he was merely a vessel. Of course you can take or leave that assertion. This is a matter of faith...since you live in Europe know one is forcing you to accept it. In Iran we suffer the problem of political despotism and an ideologization of everyday life. This POLITICAL configuration annihilates one's capacity to believe and express oneself as one likes and is entitled. This is clearly a massive problem that must be combated and given no slack in terms of criticism.

Also if you have read any Islamic history then you know that the Muslims were the persecuted minority and fled to Medina from Mecca to find political refuge. They were then attacked on successive occasions and retaliated in kind. When Mohammad returned to Mecca after the wars with the tribes of Quraysh he did not exact vengeance; he made peace and life went on. The lack of religious freedom in Iran is a political, not a religious issue. Religious and non-religious despotism share the characteristic of despotism. If one doesn't use religion to sanction one's despotism then one uses something else, such as nationalism or national security or foreigners or whatever. You're attacks on Islam and the dreaded 7th century Arabs are just pointless and endlessly baulked at by westerners who find it risible that we've self-mythologized ourselves to such an extent that we continue to blame the Arab conquest for all of our woes. I'm sorry and really don't mean to be disrespectful but I find this whole approach pathetic and utterly misguided...one can't say much more that "get over it, it happened (and you were no party to it), let's work with what we have now". Moreover, the corruption, despotism and blood-letting of the Sassasians is nothing to be proud of either...Iranians need to cast aside their racial-centric psyches which have led to the marginalization and persecution of Turks, Kurds and others for hundreds of years. 

Islam-bashing doesn't help your case at all JR. Your muddle-headed thinking has led you in the direction of intolerance and confusion. It's none of your or my business whether Iranians qua individuals choose to follow the Islamic creed as a matter of personal faith. When they are forced to do so and persecuted for being "apostates" then again that is a political issue whereby freedom of conscience and expression ought to be guaranteed by an arm of government with no religious affiliation - i.e. a secular government. Ganji makes quite clear that public and private realms are to be separate and that religion has no role in the public domain - anyone who has read even a little Ganji knows this. You are attacking a straw man. That being said there is little doubt that Islam needs to modernize, reform and conform with the tenets of a liberal society. Christianity and Judaism did not travel this road (and still struggle from time to time) without pain and hardship. Historical transformations do not happen seamlessly overnight. Many intellectuals are struggling and partaking in this transformation as we expect: Ganji, Soroush, Ramadan, Eshkevari, Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd (living in exile from Egypt), Ms Nawal El Saadawi etc... 

Furthermore, the reason why Iranians who oppose the regime have never been able to offer a tenable or empowered alternative is just this. You attack a man who repeatedly from within Iran has denounced the regime, been jailed and tortured, and clearly aims for an end of clerical rule and velayat-e-faqih. Ganji is very different from Khatami - he doesn't want to merely open up the system, he desires its complete overhaul. As long as we continue along this path there is no hope...We need to focus on commonalities and not petty differences...

To all: Attacks are not welcome...so let's please try and keep this discussion civil...

Some relevant books worth reading for those interested:

Muhammad his life based on the earliest sources - Martin Lings

Islam: Religion, History and Civilization - Hossein Nasr

The Transcendent Unity of Religions - Frithjof Schuon

Understanding Islam - Frithjof Schuon

The Road to Democracy in Iran - Akbar Ganji

Reading Legimation Crisis in Tehran - Danny Postel

Ba Arezu-ye Movafaghiat, Sadegh  

Iranian Poets and Islam

To Iranian Muslim

From a previous post from a True Iranian:

"These poets had to plant love back to hearts of victimized and despairing people.

You are saying that "We are the spiritual sisters of Rumi, Hafez and Saadi" and "I follow these sages. The beauty they found in Islam is evident in every poem they ever wrote.."
It is widely accepted for your information among academic circle that the brutality of Islam is not something new. In our famous poets’ times, Islam was more vicious and indeed crueler with no human rights watch group over them and no international laws. These poets had to plant love back to hearts of victimized and despairing people against the most barbaric ideology, the Islamic cult ruling their daily lives and poetry was the best instrument. These poets could not jeopardize their own lives; they were not revolutionaries. Instead, they offered love to people and tried to humanize and reform this backward and brutal Islam cult through their poetries. However, Islam has not and can not be reformed. We have been witnessing all atrocities of Islamic Republic of Iran against Iranians. The backwardness of Islam and Islam being an obstacle to our freedom and democracy in Iran is well recognized to suffering Iranians and if you become an apologist here after 1400 years of nothing but misery you would very well position yourself with this dark force."

Mr Rashidian you speak my mind

by looking at Saudi arabia today you can realize how intelligent they were 1400 years ago,(nomadic, barbaric,murderer,caravan rubber).
the difference between Mohammad and known mass murdereres like (changize khan,Alexander the great,taymoor khan and Hitler) is,he killed in the name of god like Khomeini and radovan karavitch.

Muslim Reality

The reality of Muslim experience in Iran is that the creed (especially in it's Shia) form as it evolved in our country is influenced less by the personallity of Muhammad as recorded in the ahadith than by the philosophies of our poets and mystics (like Hafez, Sa'di, Mowlana, and even Khayyam). Most Iranian Muslims' views on religion and religious tolerance are shaped by these Islamic Humanists. Those who dispute the "authentically Islamic" character of these later thinkers fallaciously essentialise Islam, defining it rigid terms that better reflects the thinking of Iran's rullers than the reality of popular Islam.  

---------- 

Khomeini's velayat faqih was not universally accepted by his clerical peers (Ayatollah Khoi flatly rejected it) and today the concept is under sustained attack by clerics like Montazeri and Bourujerdi.  Other Islamic thinkers, like Bazargan, Shabestari, Soroush and Fazlur Rahman all argued forcefully for pluralism, tolerance, human rights and democratic government, and they did so as Muslims and from a Muslim perspective. Their ideas were not completely innovative, but rooted in Mu'tazilite thinking that lies at the core of Shi'i philosophy.

---------- 

The rise of theocracy in Iran had everything to do with political circumstance and was never a foregone conclusion. If and when Iran acheives a true democracy, I predict it will look more like Turkey or Morocco under their respective Justice and Developement parties than a stridently secular France.

---------- 

Finally, it is intellectually dishonest (both from Muslims and Islam-bashers) to reduce Islam to the collected sayings about Muhhammad compiled centuries after his death, or to the literal text of one Islamic book, namely the Qur'an. 

Dear Jamshid

The need of a separation of religion and state has not only been proposed by atheists and seculars, but also Western philosophers-- like Locke, Spinoza who even believed in God.

It is amazing that this separation is now ignored by some IRI's lobbying “intellectual” Iranians who mostly call themselves “secularist”!
Is really the taboo so dreadful that these Iranians should sell their souls by self censoring? Let the various Islamists aside.

Let’s challenge all together louder the doctrine of the IRI. Other wise we have to pay more for our reluctance. As you said, "Some of our long time and well trenched taboos must be set aside in these days and times. One of those taboos is the unquestionable divinity of Islam and its prophet Mohammad."

Shadooneh

I do not understand why you got so upset. Do you have any statistics and evidence that Iranians in majority are for an Islamic regime (any kind of Islamic regime)?

Once again, I do not attack Muslims as human beings and do not deny their freedom of religion. But political Islam, which contains sharia-based judiciary, Velayat Faghieh, jihaist and repressive organs, Islam-based Constitution...,from which millions of Muslims are the direct victims, needs to be challenged and its doctrine, Islam, must answer to people it rules if it is authentic, divine, and legitimate.

If Ganji or his likes prove that this doctrine has all these mentioned characters and can guarantee individual freedom, social justice, cultural liberalism, human rights, gender equality, liberty of thoughts, the rule of law, democracy…, then Mullahs or their political progeny or any devotee of political Islam like MOK, Melli Mazhabi..., has the ball in your field to be democratically elected by a majority of Iranians to rule the country. If not, they should leave people alone to decide about their own destiny. Is that too complicated to understand?

Point raised by Jamshid

"For too long, any critical voice has been silenced with violence. I do not believe nor can respect a religion that its only response to criticism is punitive violence"

Islamists have offerred extreme violence in Iran and elsewhere. This "religion" is already recognized as "SS Laam" among Iranians for not being free to question Islam and histoty of Islam's in Iran against Iran and Iranians.

Re: J. Rashidian

You made many valid points Jahanshah. I think some of our long time and well trenched taboos must be set aside in these days and times. One of those taboos is the unquestionable divinity of Islam and its prophet Mohammad.

For too long, any critical voice has been silenced with violence. I do not believe nor can respect a religion that its only response to criticism is punitive violence, be it Christianity of dark ages, or political Islam of today.

I think any people deserves to have access to information from all sides, and then make a decision for what he wants to believe in. This is in contrast to a belief that is based on brainwashing since childhood, or fear of persecution, or not having access to any other belief system.

It is sad that our country lives in the 21st century only to be ruled by a government with a 7th century mentality.

Is this really what YOU want the opposition to do?

Would you start a political movement by asking an Iranian "...if he can prove the legitimacy, authenticity, and divinity of Islam..." Please, Mr. Rashidian tell me if you used get beaten up all the time when you were a schoolboy. You sure don't seem to be able to pick your fights! Going at the akhonds' regime by attacking Eslam will get you nowhere - I don't want to even speculate what such politically immature, amateurish and blatantly reckless idiocy will get you. How do you know "most people do not mind which interpretation of Islam is better and reject it entirely as a tool of their long plight". I am sorry that I don't see a single reference to any of your claims about using vague terms like "an increasing majority" of Iranians. Are you saying that Iranians striving to change their government are coalescing around the Mohammad-was-a-wife beater slogan?!!! Moreover, do you have any way to quantify your claim "People are more curious to find out why became Muslim and are forced to be"? Sorry, for being so hard on you dear, but I think you've been taking it too easy for too long.