|
December 29, 2001 * Integrating modernity into culture I think (and hope) that Nima Khoshkish's article was sent from Iran ["Man zendaani meeshavam, pas hastam"]. If so, it is yet another example of how far Iranians inside the country have come in the relatively short historical space of a couple of decades. A distance that many of their compatriots outside the country have so far failed to traverse as successfully. It is encouraging that Mr. Nejat-Hosseini's memoirs was published in Iran. It is even more gratifying to see this particular reaction to it. It seems to me, from all I read and see about Iran, that Mr. Khoshkish's dispassionate perspective on the recent past, as expressed through the book review, is more often than not the norm inside the country. Ironically, this type of mindset is the unintended consequence of the tumultuous years under discussion in the memoirs. For all the mistakes made by various groups of Iranians in the decades before the revolution, and the years hence, one thing is certain: Iranians have come closest to integrating modernity into their culture than most of Iran's neighbouring nations. * Not a good thing Just wanted to make a note on the comments by Saeed Ganji ["He's ALL WE'VE GOT"]. This is not to support any side of the Iranian dilemma as I can not claim to be too knowledgeable about it, but this is more or less on the George Bush comment. The fact is that any nation rallies behind their leaders during the war. The Iran-Iraq war was one of the main reasons that Khomeini and Saddam both managed to weather the early storms of their reign of terror. The French revolution and its ultra right and left groups survived the early years because of war and you can pretty much flip through history books and find example after example of this. In fact, my first immediate reaction to September 11th, other than shock and disappointment, was that , God, we are now stuck with George W for another four years and trust me, living outside of US, that is not a good thing! Thanks * Typical reaction John Mohammadi ["Don't get left behind"] appears to have two obsessions: Shahriar Zangeneh and Mohammad Khatami - of the former he is an antagonist and of the latter, an apologist. I was almost getting totally disappointed with the pace and direction of the reform movement in Iran that Mohammdi's article came to the rescue and suddenly brightened the horizon. Reading his latest comments on Zangeneh's article ["Cannot win"], I couldn't help but humming Monty Python's "Always Look at the Bright Side of Life". Now imagine as our two constitutional experts, sitting in front of their fast computers in the cosy surroundings of their centrally heated condos, are busy debating the tiny and minute aspects of an otherwise robust constitution, what the equally dismayed and dejected people of Iran should feel once they hear the "Good News" as John Mohammadi (JM) prophesizes: " ... some people would do better to be a bit more positive, realistic and constructive. Iran is changing and the future beckons - don't get left behind". So on hearing the above healing words from JM's concluding paragraph, let' us see what the typical reaction of "some people", as he puts it, should be : (don't forget humming the Python's song as a background theme): - The arrested, tortured and imprisoned student in his Evin cell is already feeling better, even the faecal particles that he swallowed while his head was plunged into a cesspool taste like m & m! - The girl who is still nursing the wounds from the 50 lashes she received for not observing the veil, is thinking "a bit more positively - as JM suggest" and looks forward to 50 more the next time she goes out shopping. - The couple who are accused of adultery and are about to be stoned, try to be "realistic" and pretend that this is a story picked up from the Gospel of "St John" - in this case St. John Mohammadi's - and JM should intervene with the prophetic words: "Let the one who has not sinned cast the first stone"! - The teacher/civil servant who has to take up taxi driving at nights (among other "appropriate" jobs) to make his income enough to feed his small family, is being "constructive" and applies for a part-timer in the local sangaki. - And finally all the people who have to bribe their way into any government office, remind themselves of the smiling face of the laughing President and remember that "Iran is changing and the future beckons". They pay their bribe with open mind and closed eyes! They won't get left behind for sure. * Society has to evolve first I have received many letters regarduing my piece, "Don't get left behind", saying that one or another aspect of the constitution is legally unchangeable and therefore everything is totally unreformable. This misses the whole point of the article. Like I said, no matter what the constitution itself claims, there is nothing about the constitution that can't be changed or ignored or re-interpretted. It is just ink on paper, and the enforcement of every provision depends on human will and interpretations which itself depend on the social/economic/political practicalities. Making certain rights conditional on Islam is not necessarily an insurmountable barrier because one can interpret Islam to mean whatever one wants, and then actually enforce it to whatever degree one wants. Islam, just as any other religion, contains self-contradictory views and statements and many ideas which have changed significantly over time or have simply been ignored or even entirely made up (such as the institution of the Supreme Jurisconsultant.) So the interpretation of "Islamic" is quite fluid and flexible. How well those views are actually enforced are also quite flexible. The constitution declares Iran to be Islamic and we all know that in practice, no one has been able to prevent anyone from drinking alcohol or watching satellite TV and the authorities have all but given up trying to do so, and will entirely cease in a few years because they discover that certain "Islamic" idas are just not practical or enforceable. Secular government/constitutional interpretations FOLLOW when there is a secular society (and Iran is still far from being a secular society - under any type of regime.) So, to change the situation in Iran, the society has to be allowed to evolve first, and the constitutional changes/re-interpretations will follow because the impractical views will simply not be enforceable (or enforceable only at a great political price that the system will not willingly pay.) This changing of Iranian society is happening today and the pace will increase in the future, and lifting sanctions will speed it up, but civil war, revolutions etc. will only slow it down. My comparisons with the US constitution was about form, not content. The point was that constitutions are open to interpretation depending on political/economic/social changes. Iran's society is different from the US and so naturally its laws will take a different form, as it should. After all, Iran is 90% of one particular religion and naturally this will influence everything. Incidentally, many ideas of the US Constitution such as our current version of separation of church and state which we take for granted are actually quite recent re-inventions. Some of the original 13 colonies were indeed secular, but some were entirely based on religion and very intolerant. It was only 50 years ago when a Jew was legally subject to discrimination in the US, just as Catholics (and women and Blacks.) It was only 20 years ago when in certain states and cities, business were not allowed to open on Sundays, the Christian Sabbath (known as "blue laws".) When American society evolved, these constitutional/legal interpretations changed because they became impractical (because of new ECONOMIC realities, not because of sudden moral awakenings.) In any case, I hope that my article at least enriched the debate. Regards, * Revolution was the greatest setback This is a reply to an article which appeared in March of 2001. The article was in regards to the role of Reza Pahlavi. Mr. Pahlavi could be what Iran needs to overcome the oppressive regime which overthrew the 2500 year old monarchy. The constitutional monarchy was backed by the clerics in the 1920's when Reza Shah assumed power. They saw power in the the monarchy as opposed to a true republic. The clerics were paid by the establishment in Iran to keep quiet and it was not until the establishment began a strict implementation of a secular government that the clerics began fomenting revolution. This was done by Reza Shah by administrative, and judicial code which was not based on Sharia law. The educational systems were based on secular learning and not Islamic teaching principles. The White Revolution further eroded the mullahs power and from the early 1960's the internal struggle was on against Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. It is apparent that the Shah and Empress were forward thinkers. Can it not be reasoned that when the Shah realized the need for separation of church and state that this was the correct thought. Think back on what the shah had to struggle with to bring his country into the 20th century. Does one really think that the coup of 1953 did not have the support of the Iranian people. Yes, the United States was behind it, but the people wanted it. There is talk of the wealth of the Pahlavi's. Do not foreign leaders live in nice homes compared to the common person. the Pahlavi's were no different. Ashraf Pahlavi was a member of the royal family and hence had access to the trappings of a royal household. You must remember that she also had given tremendously to the women's movement and social and child welfare in Iran. The Pahlavi foundation was funded by the crown estates which were turned over by Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi and the foundation like others invests in money making endeavors. It funded many philanthropic endeavors. it was appropriated by the new leaders as was all personal property of the Pahlavi family and its relatives. After the revolution, anything that was associated with the Pahlavi's was eradicated. Think of the hanging judge Khalkhali. He killed many of the military and in doing so left Iran open to attack by Iraq. They thought the military was destroyed. Thanks to the Shah the military was strong and the weapons were there to fight for Iran's freedom. the infrastructure and weapons were there because of the Shah. While Khomeini and many opponents were spared by the shah and his government, the Shah's followers were not. Khomeini did not spare Pakravan. He had him murdered. Amir Abbas Hoveyda was murdered. The female education minister was murdered. The revolution lost all credibility at the point if not before. The Shah and Empress tried to pull the country into the 20th century very quickly and in doing so disrupted lives. It was a state of flux and the internal agitators used this to their advantage. When there is all the talk of corruption, is the corruption not worse now? Who lives in the palaces and villas of the wealthy. Women have more rights than what they do in other Islamic/Arab countries. This is due to the Shah. Remember Khomeini requiring the wearing of the chador. Iran was on it's way to being a great country and its people as the royal family recognized were great people. They truly wanted a great Iran and for that reason they cannot be criticized. Iran needs to really think clearly if the revolution helped them. The shah was on his way to liberalization and had the mullahs not forced the issue where could Iran have been in the 22 years since the fall of the shah. Iran's standard of living was increasing. Now it has fallen back and it will take a long time to come back. The Royal Family is the way to this prosperity. Iran and its people need to think if they want to join the new millennium and not be viewed as a rogue nation. It is time that the average Iranian get past all the gossip and unproven facts about the Iranian Royal Family and they need to look at the accomplishments that came under that rule. Iran is no better than what it was when the Shah left power. Most countries advance. It is time for a change in Iran. I felt personally that the Revolution was the greatest setback. The Shah had a tremendous grasp of the political manifesto. He was very aware of how terrorism would destroy the Middle East, he was aware how Iran had to be a regional power. Look to your neighbors and the uncertainty there. It is time for your government to change. It is up every iranian to look to see what benefit they received from the Revolution. The country is in shambles. * The Grand Question Once again, I enjoyed reading the eloquent expression of Ms. Mehrtash's musings on the issues that are relevant to all the members of the large community of "hyphenated" Iranians ["Deltangi"]. When I say "eloquent", what I have in mind is the following: When you read through "Deltangi", it is as if you yourself wanted to say many of these things, but for whatever reason you didn't I don't know. Maybe I should use another word, like "articulate". One thing that surprises me is Ms. Mehrtash's being free from "ta'assob", prejudice, and bias, that is so rare in the writings of most fellow Iranians who write for iranian.com . Ms. Mehrtash has many valid observations in her writings about the lives, and in particular the emotional lives (the worries, obsessions, regrets, etc.), of Iranians who are living outside the geographic boundaries of our country, Iran. She writes about the obsessive comparison between "khaarej" and Iran that has become part of our existence, and the resulted seemingly eternal confusion thereof. For many immigrants, the task of convincing themselves that they made the right decision by choosing to leave Iran is a never-ending struggle. I have seen when two Iranian strangers bump into each other, say, when standing in line for seeing a Kiarostami movie, how predictably their small talk leads to the Grand Question of whether living in Iran is better or the in the U.S. (Interestingly, however, one thing that never occurs to us is our own role. We are used to thinking about Iran and the U.S. in passive terms as if neither we can possibly play a role in improving the situation back home, nor do we have a responsibility for that. And please let me leave it at that for time being!) But here I would like to only comment on one of the sentences of "Deltangi" that deals with one of my favorite issues, where Ms. Mehrtash writes: "Getting married, having children, and establishing a strong family unit often get lost in the pursuit of success." I'm not sure what she means by "getting lost", but the first interpretation that comes to mind is that by becoming consumed in pursuing personal success one won't get a chance to work on one's family life. If that's what "getting lost" was meant to mean I should say that the cause of failing to establish a strong family in America goes way beyond that. There are many reasons that help marriages of the couples who were meant at the altar to be parted by death become temporary. I was once amused by a writer's suggestion that it might even have something to do with Americans' "disposable culture". Let me paraphrase: "We don't fix things when they're broken. We throw them away and buy new ones. That has become so much part of us that we do the same when our marriages don't work. We'd rather get rid of them and start anew." But one important reason why half of the marriages in this country end up in painful separation, in my opinion, is that the attitude that is so much encouraged in the U.S. cultural atmosphere for an individual's success in his/her material life, his/her career included, is essentially, that is, in essence, at odds with the qualities that are necessary for the permanence of living together of two people. I sincerely wish this was only MY opinion, because then I could doubt it more easily. But this opinion is shared by experts as well. Let me quote only one sentence from a book the reading of which I find necessary for figuring out the so-called American way: "Given the enormous American emphasis on independence and self-reliance ... the survival of the family, with its strong emphasis on interdependence and acceptance, is striking." [From page 87 of the second edition of "Habits of the Heart", the result of research by a team of American sociologists.] In other words, it is not that most people lack the capacity to succeed both outside and inside home, but that, in slightly exaggerated terms, the general attitude that is encouraged for individual success is simply incompatible with the attitude that is necessary for making a successful marriage. It's only ironic that in a country like America when individualism in its extreme form is ever-present in their lives, the notion of marriage BASED ON LOVE is so much advertised in the media, and then they call India the land of contradictions! * Do more than write and whine Some people are never satisfied. No nation, and I mean nation, not government, has been as generous and as respectfully loving to Afghans as Iranians. And yet one of our own ["Hadi Khorsandi"] blames the rest for not doing enough. Has he forgotten that many Iranians live not much better, if not worse, than the Afghan guests. Mr. Khorsandi should do more for the poor than write and whine why the rest don't. * Instead of admitting faults I read Jahanshah Javid's "Let him go home" with much interest. Come on man, what was that crap? To be exact, if left me quite surprised. At the beginning I was thinking 'hey, finally here's someone who has something good to say' but then the author gets into details, and in my opinion, screws up entirely. The result of his actions are: "Bad person, bad friend, bad son, bad brother, bad father, bad lover, bad publisher, bad Iranian, bad American..." but where does "bad Iranian" fit in? Where does he talk about the millions of lives he and the likes of him ruined? killed? destroyed? A country that has gone to complete destruction? Who lost most in this bloody 20 something years that was the result of pure ignorance. Iran or America? He goes on and on about how his family was so 'american'. But who gives a damn about that? what does that have to do with anything? he misses the point entirely and goes on about the car the family drove. WOW, you sure were cool to drive a Shahin instead of a Paykan. Instead of admitting his faults, and mistakes he gives us info about his father's religous status. And in the end, what does religion have to do with it? Yes, religion is the tool the clergy has been using, but it's not the reason for this chaos. If those bloody chaps were Jewish, Christian, Budhist, they would be donig the same thing. we're sorry to tell you Mr.Javid that the rest of us 'bums' and 'losers' who do believe in god, and didn't have fathers as sophisticated as yours, never went through and put others through half of the things you did. Regards, * Entered a new phase Dear Mr. Javid: Thank you for your so very candid auto-critique and biography ["Let him go home"]. I really enjoyed reading every sentence and watching your family portraits. You have entered a new phase of your life as a publisher. The passage you have traveled through has been dark and difficult but has a bright and beautiful ending to it. You are by far the most bi-culturized Iranian actively publishing an on-going concern through thick and thin. Your payoff comes in a future not too distant from now when Iran opens up. When there would be a forced amalgamation of all internal and external energies of young Iranians. So please keep up the good work. I am anxious to read your upcoming article about how the mollas annihilated themselves in a rush to grab power. Please don't be so sensitive to having Reza Pahlavi in Iran. There is ample space in that country for each and every one of us without any jealousy. Mokhless, * Don't stress yourself It was a fascinating long story for a young man like you ["Let him go home"]. I like to write something in relation to this after the holidays. All I can say now is that I like you more than before. The only suggestion I have now, cosidering your father's heart problem, perhaps you should take life easier and don't stress yourself to the extent that you do. If you recall I have expressed this concern before. With best wishes, * Not about accent In response to "Got an accent. So what?" I would like to say that had you thouroughly read my essay ["Magical mystery man"], you might have caught onto the fact that I sometimes tend to use a somewhat satirical tone in my writing. My essay was not about the man's accent and I am sorry if I offended you in any way although that is not what I believe I did. The purpose of the essay I wrote was not really about the gentleman's ability to speak English without an Iranian accent, it was about the first person I have seen on Iranian television who seems to realize that Iranian-American youth think about issues deeper than music videos. It's nice that we all get to respond to what other people write, I guess that is the product of the gift of democracy and free speech that America has given us, but I wish we could appreciate what others are trying to say rather than just dwell on little insignificant details that lead us astray from the path we were originally planning on taking. Thanks for your criticism! * Medical diagnosis Esme Man Dr. Mahyar Etminan Hast. Man motekhasese Saratan Neestam valee ba beemaree ye sartan ashnayee daram va dar een mored tahghigh meekonam [""]. Motasefaane, een khanoom Saratane Harem daran. Valee een to ree ke shoma neveshteen Zood ras hastesh (early stage) va ziad fekr nemeekonam peeshraft karde. Valee baraye een ke motmaen beshheem loftan be man begeen een ghode be ghodeye lamphamphy serayat karde yaa na (lymph node invasion). Va ya detoon bashe ke hatman baraye een ke motmaen basheem een ghode pakhsh nashode yek CT scan az shekam (Abdominal CT) hatman azashoon bokonan. Man toseeye meekonam hatman Patholgy (Pathology Slides) agar meetoneen be yek markaz saratan deegee beeroon az iran yaa agar nemeetooneen dar iran bedaheed ke motmaen besheen TASHKIS HAMEEN HAST. Agar soal deegaree dareen hatman be man tamas begereen Mahyar Etminan PharmD * He gave his name as Goodwin Hojak I have a daughter who is half Iranian. Can you help me find my her dad? He was stationed in Norfolk , Virginia, in 1969. He gave his name as Goodwin Hojak. I do not think he knows about her , I tried to get a message to him. Can you help me? Thanks * Appreciated & tolerated I love this web site. People may speak about any subject and different opinions are appreciated or at least tolerated.
|
|
|
Web design by BTC Consultants
Internet server Global Publishing Group