My Diaries

Daddy, I got a job!

2010-12-21T13:37:00.000-08:00

(The previous generation believes we are lazy. That’s not true, I think. Here is why.)

As a kid, I used to hear my parents wishing me a happy life. They hoped to see me grown up, educated, living a decent life, and employed. To them, a good job would be an indispensable part of the bright future one might desire to achieve. They were right, indeed.

I managed to grow up, get higher education in prestigious universities, live a life conforming to principles I find reasonable, and find a job. I’m a freelance translator and media professional, doing business with many individuals, groups and companies. This is a lovely job with a good payment.

After a while of working, I’ve got a circle of friends whose occupations and preoccupations are somehow similar to those of mine. To keep ourselves up to minute and offer best services we can deliver, we practice many things, including surfing the web, reading news here and there, spending a good time on weblogs and social networks, attending conferences and meetings, etc. Even we have our hobbies related to the job we do. Watching movies, reading novels, participating in social events which have something to do with culture and media and taking photos are some of our leisure time activities. In sum, people who belong to this circle have a lot in common in terms of what they do.

My friends and I share a similar background, as well. We are from middle class, somehow traditional families. Our fathers, now retired, had been employed in state-run companies and organizations, working a certain number of hours a month to get a somehow fixed compensation. This latter issue plays a significant role in their definition of work and their perception of proper job.

Let’s recall their jobs. Their working hours were fixed, 7 a.m. to 2 p.m. in the case of my father who worked for Iranian Telecommunication Company. They had to carry out some predefined tasks which were determined by the boss. In other words, they were paid for doing what they were ordered to do. They never had the chance to run a business, to get to know the dynamics and forces of the market, to take risks.

And they had a permanent and almost fixed source of income which was risk-free and payable in the end of each and every month. In fact, the state-run economy of Iran in last decades made many people swear by almost risk-free status of employment in public companies. To them, the sense of security brought about by this type of working was very desirable, very true.

And they used to separate work from hobbies, job from the life. To them, whatever tasks which could directly lead to an income would be considered job, and other things were nothing but hobbies and leisure time activities. In that model of public economy, when the employee needed to learn a new method or technology, he/she was paid by the boss to do so. Hence, “taking time and even paying some money to learn something new which might probably lead to an income” could be just a secondary occupation, not the primary one.

However, above characteristics may not apply to doing business in free market. And in the case of what my friends and I do, none of them actually applies to our career.

Such differences are not problematic per se. The problem arises when the past generation judges us upon his preferred standards. Our fathers never try to understand that to work doesn’t necessarily mean going to office every morning. (In fact, I can stay in my own room and work and make a nice income.) To our fathers, taking working time to surf the web or participating in social events is a waste of time, while to us, i.e. idea-sellers of the information age, this is an investment and real work. To them, watching movies is a leisure time work, while we consider it a work-related practice.

Given above differences, my father believes that I’m not doing my best, that I’m lazy, that I’ve not yet found a real job. Sometimes I wanna yell, “Daddy, I got a job, believe me!”

Tech Effects, Iranian Style

2010-11-22T06:57:00.000-08:00

- Technology is more than a noun – it’s a lifestyle!

A lot is said about the effects of technology on our lives. Such effects can be positive or negative, simple or complicated, superficial or profound. The technology is not per se neutral for it intrinsically encourages some special ways of doing things. In my opinion, however, there is no such a thing as good/bad technology because new technologies usually affect our lives in many diverse ways, some of which may be indeed very good while others might be very problematic. The effect’s spectrum gets even wider should various applications developed for a certain technology be considered.

There are numerous examples to cite here, ranging from two centuries old inventions such as Steam Engine to Information-Age phenomena such as World Wide Web. Take, for example, Email. On the plus side, it is cheap, saves time, allows us to make frequent contacts with the people we love and value, and to make it green, it saves tons of trees and fuels every day! On the negative side, it increases the possibility of (mutual) misunderstanding, replaces face-to-face encounters which are (were?) a richer form of communication, contributes to obesity and laziness, increases our exposure to unwanted messages, and even opens the door to new crimes and illegal actions.

By the above, I surely didn’t mean to share with you something new or extraordinary. BTW, above paragraphs was a review. Now I would like to turn my and your attention to a more nuanced aspect of technology’s effects: local characteristics of the effects of global technologies. Or put it slightly differently, recall the title: “Tech Effects, Iranian-Style.”

As it’s self-evident, in such a debate no one can cover all technologies, much less all of their effects. Hence, I would like to focus on a profound effect of Cell Phones: how cell phones helped establish new norms and practices of Privacy. To demonstrate this effect of cell phones on Iranian lifestyle, we first need to know how life used to be before Cell Phone Age.

When I was a teenager, private room was a luxury privilege. (For the first 15 years of my life, my family used to move every year. Some years, I had a semi private room, enjoying solitude during the night but sharing the room with other family members during the day. In other years, I had to completely share the room with another family member.) Another example: I usually had a personal commode. However, it was not that personal: my parents frequently took a look at it, often out of my sight, “just to make sure that everything is OK.” It was kind of a preemptive monitoring, even if there were no sign of threat. BTW, that was a common characteristic of many parents in that period. Diaries had a similar fate as personal commode. Even though I personally didn’t use to write diaries whatever the reason, I’m almost sure that if I did, it would have been subject to unwritten, non-negotiable rule of “preemptive monitoring.”

While these facts surely had something to do with common parental worries, there was another element in them as well. Intimacy and love had a special meaning for parents: the mental arena and most of the physical world should be shared by all members of the family. If it didn’t happen, they would feel as if they were outsiders.

This “your private space makes me feel as if I’m outsider” was a general behavioral rule of that period, not only applicable to parent-child relations but also relevant to peers’ relations. Moreover, “I need some privacy” was often interpreted as “I want to do some bad things.” The rationale for this was very simplistic: if what you want to do is not ‘bad,’ you can do it publicly.
All above facts and analysis converge on one simple point: privacy was not recognized, acknowledged and respected.

Over time, many factors helped transform that situation. In my opinion, Cell Phones played an important role in this regard. When cell phone technology entered Iran, it was an expensive option. To make a comparison, consider that while acquiring a mobile phone subscription would cost around US$ 1,000 just ten years ago, nowadays a prepaid subscription costs only US$ 5. Therefore, in recent years, many Iranians have found Cell Phone affordable and consequently got used to it.

However, the cell phone technology didn’t come alone; rather, a new lifestyle accompanied it. The lifestyle associated with Cell Phone Age may be analyzed in terms of its features. First of all, it has made communications easier and more personal. While family members used to share just one landline phone, today each one of them has his/her own cell phone. Moreover, one can easily define with whom he/she wants to exchange calls and messages. And he/she can easily hide his/her contacts, making them his/her private asset.

In addition to easier communication, cell phone has many built-in features such as calendar, alarm clock, cameras, games and GPS services, each one of which has impacted our culture in its own unique way. What matters in regards to our discussion is portable memory and interface (Bluetooth technology) that allows easy file sharing. In second place after contacts, this feature made cell phones much more personal. One may record or save various files on his/her cell phone, classify them, and define several levels of privacy for those want to access classified files. In some ways, cell phone memories can reflect much of the personality of the owner.

In sum, personal services of the cell phone technology and almost absolute control of the user over it has made some privacy out of it.

As an increasing number of people turned to cell phone and took advantage of its personal features, they better learnt that each person needs his/her privacy be recognized, acknowledged and respected. And in this way, I believe, cell phone technology contributed a lot to the emergence of modern values and norms of privacy.

Cell Phone and its privacy-related effect is just an example to show how profound the effects of new technologies can be. In fact, many other technologies imported to Iran deserve close look to reveal their hidden socio-cultural aspects.

In the end, I would like to emphasize an important point. Even though new technologies “encourage some special ways of doing things” and can introduce a new lifestyle to the society, we have our ways to adapt the technology to our needs and expectations. As George McRobie nicely put it, “The choice of technology, whether for a rich or a poor country, is probably the most important decision to be made.”

P.S. Title of this post is borrowed from Divorce, Italian Style, a 1961 movie. Subtitle is borrowed from William Arthur Ward who once said, “Love is more than a noun – it is a verb.” Many other things are borrowed from many other people. Big thanks to them all.

Slav*ery Mall in Israel

2010-10-25T14:40:00.000-07:00

A few days ago, I came across a piece of news (Prost*itution in Israel) in a pro-Ahmadinejad news website, Rajanews. Quoted from another website, significant sentences of the story were as follows:

“In an evident case of promoting indecency and moral corruption in Zionist society, women are displayed for sale in Israel’s chain stores... According to Haaretz, each woman has a label that includes her age, weight, dimensions and country of origin. Following pictures shed some light on modern slavery in Israel, the country which claims to be a democracy.”

Then, some photos of the store, along with ‘Slavery Mall in Israel’ caption, were provided to make the whole story even more striking.

Being sure that something should be wrong with the story, I checked the web. A simple search in Google made it clear: “the display was part of an installation by the Working Group Against the Trafficking of Women, part of a widespread campaign.”

I criticized the fallacy in my Persian weblog and sent an SMS to a friend close to Rajanews administrators, asking them to hire qualified gatekeepers for their website. Several other people made fun of Rajanews as well. Consequently, the page was removed from Rajanews website. (Its cached version is still available in Google, copies of it are available here and here, and to get an impression of its impact, check Persian webpages that reported it).

According to Rajanews, original website that reported the fake story was either Mashreghnews or Qodsna. Given the frank, unambiguous article published in Haaretz, I can hardly imagine that this case could be a simple misunderstanding. Rather, it’s fair to believe that the original news editor/translator distorted the story, assuming that no one would ever dare to find the truth. Such a bitter fact that awkward distortion of the truth is still considered a suitable instrument to manipulate the minds of the audience.

Second implication of the event, however, is far more important. Many Iranians had visited the page, found the story to be consistent with their preconceived perception of the Jewish state, thus related to it and cached it in their long term memory as another indication of Israel’s brutality and corruption. The Israeli society I knew, however, could not be this wild and obscene. That is why I doubted the originality of the story, while many other people, even the educated and the elite, did not even give it a second thought. In other words, average Iranian perception of Israel is far different from the objective truth. Unfortunately, the same point arguably applies to the Israeli side as well.

Opposing or disagreeing with another country is one thing, hating it for non-existent causes is a far different thing. Put it slightly differently, there is a knowledge gap that needs be bridged. When, how and by whom? It’s a difficult yet critically important question.

My Persian Weblog

2010-09-20T05:58:00.002-07:00

My Persian weblog is availabale here. Check it out.

She is my Girl*friend

2010-08-20T17:32:00.000-07:00

In MEY: English, Persian

Here is Iran. A young boy goes hand in hand with a young girl. Or they’ve just resorted to a not-so-much-crowded quarter of a park. Or they hang out together.

A Police Officer approaches them. A familiar scenario is as follows.

The officer asks the boy, “Excuse me, what is your relationship with the lady?”
The boy replies, “We are engaged,” such a common answer.
“Are the family of the lady aware of this?”
“No. I’m just trying to find out whether or not she is the one.”
“Please call the family of the lady to come here to learn about your relationship, or we’ll bring you two to the police station.”

In most of the cases, the two are not formally engaged but friends. And in Iran, where girls and boys are separated from an early age, the young would not seek for a ‘simple’ friendship. They wanna be intimate friends. They want to experience something they’ve been long denied.

With a large number of the single having a friend of the opposite gender, this practice is becoming more usual day in day out, especially in metropolitan areas. Even many middle- and upper-class parents feel that a friendship of this type might be acceptable should the two seek for a long-term relationship probably leading to the marriage. And if the two don’t cross some certain redlines (i.e. no consummation before formal marriage), more parents may welcome their friendship.

Investigating the cause, statistics come to join natural inclination as the compound reason explaining a growingly observable social trend. Iran is of a surprisingly young population, almost half of which are 30 years old or younger. And the average age of marriage is going up. According to Parliament Research Center, marriage age is 29 and 28 years for the boys and the girls, respectively. So, who waits +28 years to have his/her first experience of the opposite gender?

Where the young find each other doesn’t matter that much. It might be a chat room where young Iranians seek for friends of the opposite gender and exchange numbers. Or just in the streets with the common form being the boy giving a free ride to the waiting girl. Or in the university. Or in a simple party. Or in friendship circles. Or in subway with exchanging looks and blinks. Or in the workplace.

What matters the most is that they used to hesitate to make their secret public because neither the former generation nor the formal regulations would approve it. According to the old tradition and state-run culture, it shall be either formal marriage or nothing. And for the young generation, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Change, however, is happening as a growing number of the young publicly declare they have a girl- or boy-friend. While a not-formally-married couple would have been isolated in the past and might prefer not to appear in the public, now they can easily find similar couples (as well as public acceptance) and engage in various social efforts, ranging from spending a few hours in café or parks to going on a vacation together.

The trend is so meaningful that even the mainstream media can’t ignore it anymore. In parallel with the facts on the ground, The Distance, a drama aired by Iranian state TV, crosses former red lines and portrays a boy, Saeid, son of a veteran and devout Muslim, who meets a pretty girl in the workplace and befriends her. As opposed to old customs, the fact that some relatives or friends may see them together doesn’t frighten him. Their defiance culminates when his uncle (also a religious figure) asks him who the girl is, and he insolently, and even proudly, maintains: “she is my girl*friend.”[1]

Not surprisingly, the story line of The Distance tries to discourage such friendships. It goes on to provide more details about personal life of Saeid’s girl*friend, Bitaa. Her father had been found guilty in a murder trial and sentenced to death. Bitaa should gather US$ 60,000 to pay the family of the murdered so as to save her father’s life. Since she has got no good-paying job, her last resort is to befriend men, old and young, and try to either steal some money from them or blackmail them. Saeid’s father follows Bitaa and learns about her indecent behavior. He first tries to aggressively discourage his son from befriending Bitaa. However, his efforts were fruitless because his son was in love with Bitaa. Then, he tries to be patient and let his son find out the truth. His patience finally pays off and the morale of the story is established: street friendships are bound to fail.

That drama offers an almost unique story. Parents’ patience in The Distance helped them maintain and strengthen traditional norms. However, in real life, society’s patience may work in the opposite direction because not all the girls/boys who befriend someone of the opposite gender are indecent ones. In fact, many of the young boys and girls form sincere relationships. And in the long run, people may come to believe that such friendships should be not only accepted, but also supported and encouraged.

Besides statistics and street evidences, there is another meaningful argument indicating that such friendships are becoming quite normal in Iran. A few months ago, there were rumors that a new department called Relationship Police was to be tasked with patrolling streets and public places and taking into custody or penalizing not-formally-married couples. Subsequently, in a TV interview, Ahmadinejad firmly decried this act [2]. His stance faced harsh criticism of clergies and hardliners. However, he reemphasized his position. Ahmadinejad, as a populist president sticking to power no matter what, knows that swimming against the current is a grave mistake. And, in this case, he sided with the people, I believe.

[1] This translation may be disputed. The original dialogue is “she is my friend.” However, as noted earlier, a simple boy-girl friendship is almost meaningless in Iranian culture, and a female/male friend usually means a girl*friend/boy*friend.

[2] He was quoted as saying: “to stop a girl and boy in the street and investigate their relationship is really hideous. Their relationship is none of your business.”

Giants and Giant Killers

2010-07-23T06:43:00.000-07:00

It is said that in 1722 A.D., while the last Safavid king spent his time in the Harem courting his many wives and concubines, Afghans orchestrated an attack on Iran led by an afghan commander called Mahmoud. It took almost 16 years for an Iranian hero, Nader, to rise and defeat Afghans. Even though the rise of so-called Napoleon of Persia was promising, with his various invasions of Indian territories bringing some invaluable treasures to Iran, his last years was an absolute catastrophe. Nader, who was once admired as a giant-killer, became a cruel giant himself. A new giant killer was needed to remove him from power.

In Iran’s history, the story of giants and giant-killers is not limited to the old times. This pattern is of a fractal nature, extending across many inter- and intra-regime changes. Despite a few exceptions, almost all regime changes in Iran might be considered examples of this pattern.

In terms of intra-regime changes, Rafsanjani-Ahmadinejad struggle is an interesting chapter of today Iran’s politics. Rafsanjani, pragmatic post-war president of Iran whose main motto was ‘reconstruction,’ believed in a capitalist philosophy. As expected, his semi-capitalist reconstruction was not pain-free. Consequences of that period, including increasing gap between haves and have-nots, made people feel as if a giant was formed. To some of the supporters of the Miracle of Third Millennium [1], Ahmadinejad is the new giant killer and he has been successful so far in defeating Rafsanjani in public performance and attracting masses, even though Rafsanjani’s team is still of a considerable influence in Iran’s politics. (You may skip following three paragraphs which describe one of the fronts of Rafsanjani-Ahmadinejad war and read the concluding paragraph.)

The recent struggle over controlling Islamic Azad University (IAU), which is perhaps one of the most important privately-run enterprises in today Iran, is a front of proxy war of power between Ahmadinejad, represented by High Council of Cultural Revolution (HCCR), and Rafsanjani, represented by IAU Board of Founders.

IAU was first founded by a group of revolutionary figures including Ayatollah Khamenei (then president of Iran who later resigned from his position in IAU), Ayatollah Rafsanjani (then parliament spokesman), Mir Hosein Mousavi (then premier of Khamenei administration), etc. Due to limited capacity of public university, its mission as a private enterprise was to provide higher education for those talents which could not ‘conquer’ difficult entrance exam of public universities. By opening many branches in almost every province and major metropolitan area of Iran, it turned into a prosperous institute with a huge amount of working capital and assets. IAU currently serves around 1,350,000 students and offers undergraduate and graduate programs. With a stable management, IAU turned into a camp for moderate politicians and Rafsanjani supporters. As expected, conservatives couldn’t tolerate it and tried to contain it. Ahamdinejad’s election was a suitable time, so they resorted to HCCR which is supposed to manage higher education institutes to achieve their goal.

10 months ago, in a preemptive act, AIU Board approved a bill which earmarked IAU as a devoted public charity, which, according to current laws, implied that the government could exercise no control over it. Six months ago, HCCR passed a bill aimed at changing statute of IAU and bringing it under the control of the government. HCCR bill replaced some of the IAU Board members, most notably Mir Hossein Mousavi, and set new guidelines for its management. IAU refused to subscribe to new statute. The debate got so hot that the Supreme Leader had to intervene and suspend both bills temporarily so that a ‘close examination of legal issues’ lead to final decision.

AIU-HCCR struggle is just an example of Rafsanjani-Ahmadinejad war. Whether or not the new hero can defeat the old giant is not an issue. The most important concern is that how this cursed circle of ‘Giant Killer-Becomes-Giant’ may come to an end.

[1] “Ahmadinejad: The Miracle of Third Millennium,” Fatemeh Rajabi

I Have a Dream

2010-07-13T10:41:00.000-07:00

I have a dream.
I have a dream which offers me almost everything I miss in my life. Dignity, pride, self-esteem.
I have a dream in which I don’t need to pretend. It is me, just me. And my dream respects my ego.
My dream is a wonderland in which love is traded for love. Be just for your soul mate and she will be yours, just yours. Be everything to your soul mate and she shall be everything to you.
My dream is a manifestation of beauty. No element need be added, taken away, or altered. Everything, seemingly, occurs almost perfect.
In my dream, colors, pictures, moves are so kicking that one can hardly tell whether it’s reality or dream.
What makes my dream perfect is me, just me. No other one can replace me. And I’m satisfied with this part.
I live my dream.
I don’t want to wake up.
O’ clocks, go dead please!

Your Charisma Still Lingers Here

2010-06-04T13:32:00.000-07:00

Since a long time ago, I wanted to write a feature on Imam Khomeini. Yesterday, the day before the anniversary of his death, I and my friend, Saleh, had some time to go to Isfahan’s bazzar and took some photos. Interestingly, there are still some merchants in whose shops some photos of Imam Khomeini are installed. In near future, I will compile a feature to complement following photos.

* The title of this post is borrowed from a song of Evanescence.

Individuality is worth it all

2010-04-18T15:38:00.000-07:00

“Capital dwellers” is the adjective attached to us. The smoky Tehran, the expensive Tehran, the merciless Tehran, the lonely Tehran! Loneliness is as fashionable here as individuality. And I perhaps fall for this individuality; this fact that not all the time I’m being monitored and judged. This is why I don’t like smaller cities in which, it seems, everybody is obliged to control you. In which all the people find themselves entitled to comment on every petty issue of your life, your appearance, your mood and your secrets. And the smaller the city, the more meaningless becomes the privacy. And the stronger becomes the rivalry. And gossiping and talking behind others’ backs becomes more frequent. And the atmosphere becomes more intolerable. Right, Tehran is expensive, polluted, crowded, not that much moral-minded. I, however, never exchange the individuality I have in Tehran for the [seemingly better] life in other cities.

Source: Green Desert

All the President's Dreams

2010-04-16T10:16:00.000-07:00

A nice joke says that hedgehogs always dream of somebody giving them a close hug. A similar joke says that zebras always dream of taking a colorful photo.

In your opinion, what does Ahmadinejad usually dream of?

You have one week to participate in the game (either through comments or through Email) and the most interesting answer will be awarded 10$. Believe me, Ahmadinejad is not worth more.

A Dirge for an Old King

2010-04-06T12:43:00.000-07:00

O’ the old Cheetah,

Once you were the fastest in our county,
Preserving the order as a king, the mighty,
Wolves and foxes in our desert scared,
To me, your strength was the utmost beauty,

As opposed to those who called you wild,
I believed in your potency to keep the county, your child,
Happy and prosperous, not letting lions of neighboring woods meddle,
It took many lives, I know, but this was what we had to abide,

You didn’t let anybody stand, grow up,
For you had to be the one, front and up,
And your turn came, to get old, to fall,
Wolves and foxes, waiting; they run a coup,

O’ the old Cheetah,

What did you do to our county?

P.S. 1: Big thanks to a cyber friend.
P.S. 2: Any political interpretation is due to your crazy mind. :D

To You: Nagoya Oceans

2010-03-15T10:33:00.000-07:00

I was with them for almost 12 days. Regulated, disciplined, on time. In short, Japanese, very Japanese, conforming to all what I used to hear about and expect from them.

Nagoya Oceans Futsal Club represented Japan in AFC Futsal Club Championship 2010 which was held in Isfahan, Iran. And I was their liaison officer. Such an easy job, given their well-organized, reliable personal and team behavior.

Their tomorrow schedule was always ready the night before, detailed and practical. And when it came to act according to the schedule, they were on-time, or more exactly, caring about every simple minute. To them, 7:30 means just 7:30, neither 7:29 nor 7:31. And you know, to an average Iranian, 7:30 means a period as wide as 6:00 to 8:00. It took me almost a day to get accustomed to their systematic, timely behavior.

They were very conservative, and meanwhile very friendly. Only one of them, Murayama (supervisor), was a fluent speaker of English. Watanabe (club manager) and Miyazawa (interpreter of the Portuguese head coach) spoke decent English. And I made friends with all of the three English speaking ones, especially Miyazawa. And with the head coach, Jose Adil, who invited me to a delicious pizza on the last night I was with them. And with the photographer, who fixed my camera once I was absolutely frustrated. And with Muri, whose fantastic performance in the pitch and nice dance in the stadium won the hearts of spectators. And with everybody else, less or more.

I was excited when they won just to get sad when they lost. I was not only with them, but also somehow found myself a member of their delegation. Waking up everyday at the same time, exchanging ‘hello, good morning’ every day, walking together, and touring the city together. Even I practiced with them, though not physically. And when they failed to make it in the semi final against Al-Sad from Qatar, I was as sad as the Japanese. It was then that I told Miyazawa “when you are this sad and exhausted, I feel sad and exhausted as well.”

At the gate of Imam Khomeini International Airport where they were about to depart, when I said goodbye to each one, especially once someone took the last photo of me with Miyazawa, I was about to burst into tears.

Such a great experience. Such a near-Japanese experience. Such a great memory.

Murayama gave me a JFA T-Shirt and Miyazawa gave me his Nagoya Oceans sportswear. Such a nice, great, invaluable present and memory, to remain in my custody, in my heart, forever.

I miss you all, my friends.

Sweet Moments Gone

2010-02-27T17:42:00.000-08:00

It’s so easy sometimes, so simple, so everyday issue, that you just get impressed once it’s gone.

That’s when you find out how badly you needed it, grown accustomed to it, even though it didn’t last for more than a few hours.

Those sweet moments which you didn’t taste when you sampled.

Book of Law, narrative of an inherent conflict

2010-02-22T07:56:00.000-08:00

Book of Law is the latest movie of Maziar Miri, the young, promising Iranian director. The story begins with an Iranian scholar, Rahman Tavana, traveling with his colleagues to Lebanon to meet a group of representatives of Lebanese NGOs. There he meets a young, Christian interpreter, Juliet, who also owns a café in Beirut. He falls for her. In his next trip to Lebanon, he finds out that Juliet converted to Islam. In his third trip, he marries Juliet and they together come to Iran to live with Rahman’s family.

Almost all members of Rahman’s family (save a sister of Rahman, Kobra, who is the second good-guy of the movie next to Juliet) as well as the people around the neighborhood play an important role in the movie. They constitute a traditional Muslim society which is, in some respects, far away from original Islamic norms. The newly converted Juliet, who chose the name Amena, tries to educate them, challenging the traditional Muslim community to put aside what she finds non-Islamic. The salesman who sells expired dairies, the Muslim women who talk behind others’ backs, etc. do not hesitate a second to accuse Juliet of being naïve and unaware of ‘True Islam.’ Rahman’s family even use Juliet’s personal album including her old, not-properly-dressed photos to prove that they are better Muslims for their hair and body was never seen by a stranger. Indeed, they can’t bear numerous, harsh criticisms she makes based on the Book of Law, i.e. the Quran. Due to its long-standing experience of Islam, the traditional Muslim society believes in its authenticity to prescribe Islamic version of things. This is the most important theme of the movie.

The story of Book of Law indeed presents a cliché of contemporary art forms dealing with self-diagnosis of Muslim society. A non-Muslim converts to Islam only to find out that the Muslim society is not that Islamic at all.

The movie is idealist in the sense that it repeats an old theme, that ‘the original Islam is all good.’ And the storyteller gets pragmatist in one of the last scenes, when a Lebanese taxi driver preaches secular ethics according to which being good doesn’t have anything to do with the religion one chooses to follow. (No wonder that these statements were not translated in subtitles, probably a consequence of editorial pressures.) And maybe this idealism-pragmatism conflict is another indication of today Iran’s tough situation, symbolizing a transient nation which is still hesitant to give up on its traditional values despite all the setbacks such values brought about, the nation which still hopes to cure all the problems through radical reforms, getting back to True Islam.

Juliet can not tolerate all the inhospitality she faces in the family, in the society. In a so-called Muslim nation, she can’t adhere to original values of the Book of Law. She returns to Lebanon just to find Rahman getting there to find her. They are still in love with each other.

The last scene of the movie pictures an airplane taking off, carrying both Rahman and Juliet on board. But going where?

To Iran? Or to a dreamland in which you can be a true Muslim and enjoy all the benefits of original Islam, even if this dreamland happens to be a non-Muslim country? Rather a tough question, as tough as the choice some devout Muslims have to make.

My Dream School

2010-02-17T04:49:00.000-08:00

Managers of my dream school, only concerned with sharing their affections, traditionally reserved for their own kids, with orphans.

My dream school’s statute, comprised of only one article, no exception or discretion included in it. “Your only income shall be the peace you earn by serving the disadvantaged.”

My real friends, each of them, playing a role in my Dream School, established in the most disadvantaged neighborhood of the city. One of them, a civil engineer, prepares blueprints. Another friend, again a civil engineer, supervises the construction. A professor prepares the concrete and a businessman lays the brick. Our wives arrange for the lunch. In less than a year, the banner is unfurled.

Interesting is that we wouldn’t pay a penny for workers. More interesting is that we wouldn’t need to flatter investors.

My Dream School (or, Our Dream School, better said) welcomes all the children who face severe problems or miss their fathers. No need for mothers to hide the facts, for example, that the father is imprisoned. The more disadvantaged the kid, the more appreciated he will be.

Teachers of our Dream School devote few hours a week to receive a child’s happy smile, insuring their success, both here and in hereafter. A teacher comes from a public department, another from his office or company, the third from a university and the fourth comes right after participating in the cabinet meeting.

Hoping for a day in which the first bell rings in our Dream School, the sweet childish humming filling our sad, discriminated neighborhood.

Source

Veiled Feminism

2010-02-16T02:42:00.000-08:00

Feminism is of some common expressions known to almost every observer, namely claiming equal, indiscriminate access to sports, cultural and political opportunities, or the girls becoming less willing to get married. However, a subtle feminism does exist in which religious sections are involved as well. This subtle layer of feminism, which is indeed of a feminist nature but to which least attention is paid, is “women’s dissatisfaction with just fulfilling the role of a noble wife and/or mother.” This tendency demonstrates itself in the girls’ willingness to pursue higher education, acquire job opportunities or involve in social activities. Once such efforts replace women’s primary duty, i.e. playing the role of a perfect wife and an affectionate mother, it should be regarded an indication of a chronic problem.
For such women, devoting themselves to the husband and family is not satisfactory. They can not justify some Islamic traditions, such as the famous one, “the noblest strife of the woman is to treat and serve her husband the best.”

***

The author of above paragraphs, who blogs in Armankhahi (which roughly means Idealism), is an old friend of mine. He (yeah, I know, you expected the author to be a He) usually writes concise, clear-cut texts to express his ideas. You might find the above an indeed incomplete analysis of the current gender issues in Iran, or just a confession to an increasingly evident fact, i.e. that the Iranian women are no more satisfied with their traditional roles. The author tries to diagnose current status, while you may appreciate it. Choice is yours. Or ours?

Local Varieties of English: Isfahani Version

2010-01-24T12:32:00.000-08:00

I once read an article about local varieties of English, that some nations develop their version of English, incorporating some of their grammar and/or syntax elements into it. The most common type of localizing English, however, should be expected in dialects, such as the manufacturer of this danger sign who adapted the pronunciation of Danger to Isfahani dialect.

Note: In the original dialect of Isfahan, ‘e’ usually replaces ‘a.’

Province of Jurist

2010-01-24T12:26:00.001-08:00

By ‘Province of Jurist,’ the author has certainly meant Velayat Faghih, i.e. the fundamental principle of Islamic Republic of Iran’s political structure that reserves final word in almost all cases for the Supreme Leader, a notable clergyman. Velayate Faghih roughly translates into: premiership of the knowledgeable clergyman.

My diagnosis: The author opens Babylon Dictionary, searches the Persian term Velayat in it, and finds only one English equivalent for it: Province. (Note that Velayat in Persian means both premiership and residence.) He (she?) again searches the Persian term Faghih and finds Jurist for it. Period.

Innocence

2009-12-28T22:12:00.000-08:00

Ayatollah’s Dilemma

2009-12-14T00:58:00.000-08:00

It was almost 10 years ago, 1999, in which I was admitted to university. Ayatollah appeared almost frustrated on TV; his fans even more depressed, crying as though they had no other option. Sobbingly speaking, he said, “even if they burn my picture or tear it down, you should keep silent.” And the crowd burst into tears, frantically.

It certainly was a great development. The previously perceived sacredness seemed defenseless, at least temporarily. Whatever the reasons, Supreme Leader decided not to confront people’s angriness which demonstrated itself in publicly disrespecting him.

Perhaps Ayatollah used to think that his tolerance could work as a safety tube, sort of a painkiller that could help relieve some pain and calm down angry demonstrators. He was right in making sense of the role played by those kinds of acts. However, he certainly was not much familiar with Golden Rule of medicines: that painkillers can work no more than a limited period; and if the real cause is not to be cured, the patient shall need a stronger painkiller.

10 years later, 2009. In demonstrations of Student Day, some people burnt a picture of Ayatollah Khomeini, late founder of Islamic Republic. The scene was aired several times on national TV. Many religious lecturers around the nation decried the event. Many demonstrations were arranged in which scores of people demanded heavy-handed response to the perpetrators. Interesting enough was that a poster of Ayatollah Khamenei was also torn down in those demonstrations and its captured scenes were aired along with those of Ayatollah Khomeini. And almost nobody paid a special attention to that. Publicly disrespecting the Supreme Leader had lost its effect, kind of a dead painkiller.

One might argue that IRI strategists are far away from realizing the current world, the age of information, in which basing a political system on sacredness no longer works. Some others might speak of Ayatollah’s dilemma; that neither forgiving the offense nor cracking it down can do him a favor. In my turn to speak, I just silently wonder what the painkiller of 2019 might be.

Welcome back my homecoming queen

2009-11-15T12:40:00.000-08:00

Arab [leaders]’ reaction to Zionists’ aggression to Al-Aqsa mosque

2009-10-14T13:24:00.000-07:00

Note: According to Islamic rules, pig is an inherently unclean animal whose dirtiness can not be wiped away using water.

Source

Once there was a river here

2009-09-16T02:20:00.000-07:00

Update:

Location: Zayandeh Rood, Isfahan

Dealing behind the scenes

2009-08-29T14:01:00.000-07:00

It was almost ten days after disputed presidential election in Iran that I talked to a friend of mine. Massive rallies of reform supporters in Tehran and a few other cities had turned violent, many prominent reformist figures were under arrest and some demonstrators had been killed.

By then, it was almost clear that dissidents could not overthrow Ahmadinejad administration and fulfill their primary dream, i.e. annulling the election or convincing the regime that Musavi should take the power.

My friend had a point: if reform movement was about to give in, it either should achieve something big enough to make its supporters believe “it’s worth what we’ve done, now let’s give up;” or it had to come up with a justified reason to demand an end to demonstrations. In either case, their supporters needed a reason to quit.

The regime, however, was not ready to compromise, believing that it had the upper hand. Reformers had no winning card to take the regime to negotiations table. Hardliner propaganda machine upped the ante, trying to take advantage of the situation, even seeking for the trial of Musavi. Ultra-conservatives claimed that Musavi and reformist movement were responsible for the death of citizens and damages caused to public and private properties for they conducted allegedly illegal demonstrations.

Reformists’ struggle was seemingly bound to fail. They were under harsh criticism of hardliner centers for being connected to foreign powers, trying to destabilize Islamic Republic, and orchestrating a velvet revolution.

By then, there was a widespread rumor that many people detained during demonstrations were tortured and killed in prisons. What turned the page was a piece of official news: son of a top official died in prison.

Mohsen Ruholamini, who was arrested in pro-reform demonstrations, reportedly died in Evin prison. His father was an advisor to Mohsen Rezayi, a member of Expediency Council, general secretary of Justice and Development Party (a moderate reformist party) and a former member of an influential conservative party. Rafsanjani, Rezayi, Zarghami (head of IRI state TV), and parliament speaker offered their respective condolences to his father.

Mohsen Ruholamini was apparently tortured in the prison. His death triggered a wave of criticism of what was going on in prisons. In an important development, Mahdi Karroubi publicly announced that he had found information and hard evidences showing that some prisoners were raped.

Since the very beginning of Islamic Revolution, there had been rumors regarding rape and torture in prisons. Top IRI officials, however, always rejected such accusations. In one case, serial killing of intellectuals by some intelligence agents, the case of torture in prisons got public. Rape, however, was a redline.

At first, regime was reluctant to admit. Lecturers of Friday prayers in the country unanimously criticized Karroubi. They even said that ‘if he fails to prove his accusations, he should be lashed 80 times’ (an Islamic penalty for those accusing an innocent person of adultery and rape).

After a while, rape and torture reports got a momentum. According to Parlemannews,

“A journalist was arrested in post-election demonstrations. For he had been in contact with the office of a senior official [usual slang for Ayatollah Khamenei] since several years ago, he was set free after two weeks. When he paid a visit to that senior official, he was asked to take a seat. But he refused, telling that he could not seat. He said that he was repeatedly raped by stick.”

The hole was too big for the regime to cover. Ayatollah Khamenei ordered the closure of a ‘non-standard prison’ in Kahrizak. A judge was suspended and some agents are waiting for trial.

It seems that the regime finally agreed to a limited compromise. In a speech delivered this week, Ayatollah Khamenei said that reformist leaders were not agents of foreign powers. He added that those who caused death and loss, regardless of their organizational affiliations, should be tried.

This may not be what reformists longed to achieve. However, given the circumstances, it was a noticeable outcome. They were about to be put aside as some ‘non-insiders.’ Moreover, torturing and raping prisoners is a blow to a regime that finds itself the pioneer of morality and Islam. This shall be remembered forever.

Finally, reformists got to save their face and credibility. And the regime is assured that protests are not to be continued, at least temporarily. It might be a deal behind the scene.

Blood-Owners Rule

2009-08-18T00:12:00.000-07:00

In Islamic Penal Code, the concept of Qisas refers to ‘Eye for an Eye’ principle according to which the offended party has the right to seek for retaliation. In the case of murder, close keens of the murdered, called Blood Owners, has the right to ask for capital punishment. They also can set conditions to let the murderer live. Islamic Penal Code does not limit the conditions they may set, save that the terms must not be in conflict with other Islamic decrees.

In some cases, enforcing this law leads to disturbing situations. Following is an example of such an event. According to Baztab,

A woman who had murdered her husband got married to her brother-in-law to escape death penalty. Razieh, who committed murder when she was 15 years old, was taken into prison six years ago. She said she could no longer tolerate her husband.
Her account of the event is as follows.
“I was just a kid when I got married to him. He was a moody person and used to tease me. I had no relatives, and I was illiterate thus I could not work. Therefore I had to cope with my life. On the day of crime, I stabbed him with a knife while he was asleep.”
Parents of the late husband asked for capital punishment. During investigations, Razieh found out that she was pregnant. Since a pregnant woman must not be executed, she was taken into prison. She gave birth to a girl, and officials gave her another 18 months to breastfeed her daughter.
Meanwhile, community workers finally convinced her parents-in-law to let her live. They, however, set a series of conditions.
They asked Razieh to pay them 20 thousand dollars. In addition, they said that Razieh should marry their 18-years-old son. Moreover, Razieh shall not have any right to her daughter, her daughter shall not go to school, and her daughter shall marry once she is matured (9 years old). Finally, Razieh should live in the very room she committed murder.
To stay with her kid, Razieh agreed to their terms save the ban on schooling.
After a while, supervisory judges of the prison convinced her parents-in-law to let her live in another room and let her daughter go to school.
Ultimately, Razieh got married to her former brother-in-law and was set free.

Third Revolution

2009-07-24T20:37:00.000-07:00

Once there was a revolution in Iran, led by Ayatollahs, overthrowing Shah Regime and destabilizing the Island of Stability for more than a decade. That event not only led to a regime change but also transformed socio-cultural system of Iranian society. Ordinary people who had been directed toward a western life style during Shah Reign were then ready to embrace a fundamentalist, politically aggressive interpretation of Shiite Islam. Ayatollah Khomeini, charismatic founder of Islamic Republic, used to serve as a mentor for whose guides a better part of the society would sacrifice their belongings up to their lives. However, many moderate figures, including administration of Prime Minister Bazargan, were still active in then political atmosphere of Iran. Even though somehow isolated, they could affect some parts of the society and serve as a barrier to many radical decisions.

Almost one year later, there was the Hostage Crisis in Iran. It finally led to Bazargan’s resignation. Ayatollah Khomeini called the event the Second Revolution. He was right in the sense that Hostage Crisis helped radicalize Iran’s politics and put aside moderate figures. For years to come, the voice of hardliners was dominant in Iran.

After demise of Ayatollah Khomeini which coincided with the end of Iran-Iraq war, absence of a charismatic hardliner leader left some room for moderate voices to spread. Compared to Ayatollah Khomeini, the new supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, barely had the support of masses. In addition, technocrat, pragmatic administration of Ayatollah Rafsanjani, whose main rhetoric was Reconstruction, helped found a relatively strong middle-class whose main concerns hardly included those of founders of Islamic Revolution. The young grown up in that period of time, especially girls with their progressively loosening dress code, turned into the symbol of a generational gap.

No surprise that the new age did need Khatami, a reform candidate promising more freedom and less oppression. From the point of regime’s strategists, Khatami could serve as a safety tube, containing unrests, directing the discontent already available in the society toward less dangerous goals acceptable to senior officials of the regime. Presidents of Islamic Republic are usually supposed to serve two terms. Khatami was no exception.

Even though reform movement failed to bring about changes essentially needed to establish a western democracy, senior officials were reluctant to cope with it for another eight years. Had taken the power for another term, reformists and still-born civil society established in the age of reform could have turned into an existential threat. Moreover, reformists themselves paved the way for a new chapter to begin. The change masses demanded was not in parallel with what senior reformists tried to accomplish.

Khatami had to pass power to a new figure. A controversial election brought Ahmadinejad and Rafsanjani to the second round of the presidential election. Even though results of the first round were highly skeptical, Ahmadinejad beating his rival in the second round with a landslide was a clear sign of people demanding the change, again.

In his four years of presidency, Ahmadinejad convinced masses in rural and suburban areas that he should be the one. He gathered many supporters to whose tables were brought a portion of oil income. That fact led senior strategists of the regime to believe that the time was ripe for revenge.

Recent presidential election and its aftermath, whether a political coup or a failed velvet revolution, helped IRI officials put aside moderate figures who were mostly born in the age of Reconstruction and flourished in the age of Reform. In other words, this election helped radicalize Iran’s politics. In this sense, had he been able to send a message, Ayatollah Khomeini would have called Ahmadinejad’s reelection the Third Revolution.

Age of Ahmadinejad

2009-06-24T15:24:00.000-07:00

Few days before the election, I met an old friend. As an educated man with a sense of humor, and as a father of two young babies, he made a nice point regarding Ahmadinejad: “when your boy is peeing, don’t stop him. Let him complete his task.”

Ahmadinejad, Miracle of the Third Millennium [1], was a new phenomenon in Iran’s modern politics. As a demagogue, he is capable of convincing ordinary people not linked to intellectuals. This point could be easily observed in the results of the presidential election. Ahmadinejad barely had the support of intelligentsia, the educated people and experts. Rather, his main constituency was composed of rural, suburban and less-educated voters to whose tables were brought some of the oil revenues. Frequent visits he paid to provinces and the huge amount of cash his administration distributed among people were more than enough to convince ordinary people that he would be the one.

Considering pre-election events and official results, one can easily find out that there is a wide gap between experts and masses in today Iran. Lots of voters didn’t pay a minimum attention to the expert’s ideas and this led to the overwhelming victory of Ahmadinejad [2]. This might be a classic example of populist figures winning an election.

Let’s consider some of the examples of the gap between experts’ ideas and those of ordinary people.

In the term of economy, a better part of his supporters fail to understand that Ahmadinejad “is robbing our future to pay us.” With regards to oil income, most of the economists believed that we should follow the example set by Norway, i.e. turning oil revenues into a sustainable capital. (Many Arab countries followed that path.) Ahmadinejad, however, decided to share the cash with the people. It should be noted that, for instance, 50$ donated by the government means a lot to a simple farmer in a far-located village of Iran. However, this farmer can’t understand that deferring his gratification can lead to a more stable (and perhaps larger) source of income. (This is, again, a classic example of a traditional society compared to a modern one. [3])

In the term of politics, his fans can hardly realize long-term consequences of his policies. For example, many political analysts believe that “Ahmadinejad is the kind of enemy Israel likes to hate” [4] for he makes it possible for Israeli officials to justify some of their extreme acts. (As an instance, Israel publicly confessed to having nukes just few years ago for she thought she could justify it, at least partly, referring to Ahmadinejad’s policies and positions he publicly made.) However, many of the hardliners only support him as a symbol of resistance against Zionist regime and international imperialism.

In my opinion, Iran is experiencing populism, full scale. An important feature of this atmosphere reveals itself in paying no attention to the experts and intelligentsia. However, after a while, long-term consequences of populism will be made clear to masses and they will turn again to elites.

Societies usually need to experience populism. This is an almost inevitable part of democratization enterprise. And Iran is no exception to the rule.

Before the election, I used to think that the people were not still ready to swear by expert bodies for they were yet to realize long-term consequences of populism. I’m personally happy that Ahmadinejad won the election. It costs us a lot, true. In my opinion, however, better to experience it once and forever. Better to let Ahmadinejad complete his task.

Footnotes:
[1] A term used by a hardliner fan of Ahmadinejad, wife of his spokesman.
[2] In my opinion, even though there are some indications of limited fraud, Ahmadinejad won the election.
[3] Communication for Development in the Third World, chapter 3.
[4] A France24 commentator once used this phrase.

A Failed Velvet Revolution or a Political Coup?

2009-06-15T00:45:00.000-07:00

Official results of the presidential election in Iran were more of a shock to both parties, i.e. reformists and hardliners. Regardless of the massive turnout that set a record in the age of Islamic Republic, Mousavi, the most hopeful reformist candidate, only gathered around 13 million votes which were almost half the votes of Ahmadinejad. Karroubi, other reformist candidate, won the support of less than a percent of voters.

Reformists believe that the results were ‘engineered’, and their supporters have waged limited rebellion against the ruling administration in some metropolitan areas. Referring to several cases of intervention, misconduct and paradoxical results as well as reports of reformist observers, they believe that Mousavi was the real winner and ruling party fabricated the results. The day after the election, several reformist figures, including the brother of former reformist president Khatami, got arrested. Moreover, some other prominent people, including Mousavi himself, are taken into home custody. Since few days ago, there has been a massive blackout on information resources. SMS service of two main operators has been completely cut since the night before election. Several reformist sites, even moderate ones such as aftabnews.ir, are blocked. Ministry of Interior Affairs permits no demonstration. Riot police is present everywhere and senior officials such as Rafsanjani who were expected to intervene are nothing but silent. From this perspective, putting together puzzle pieces, one might come to the conclusion that the whole event resembles a political coup.

On the other hand, hardliners could hardly expect to beat reformists and their ‘Green Wave’ in such a humiliating manner – Mousavi and his supporters chose Green as their symbolic color. Conservative analysts maintain that Mousavi and his companions were arranging for a Colored (Velvet) Revolution. Before the election, reformist resources and media orchestrated a massive propaganda to make people and observers believe that “the Green Wave should win if the original voice of the people is to be heard.” Finding out that Ahmadinejad is bound to win, according to hardliner analysts, reformist camp decided to run away forward. Few days before the election, Mousavi declared that he would be the winner if the people are not cheated on. And on the day of election, while people were still casting their ballots, Mousavi participated in a press conference and declared that he is the winner for sure. When the official results got published, public opinion was ready to accept that “it’s a fraud.” Then, Mousavi stated that he would not subscribe to the results. Later on, some resources informed people that Mousavi is pressed to accept the results. Mousavi and Karroubi asked people to wage a wave of civil unrest. Encountered with somehow heavy-handed response, demonstrations went violent. From this perspective, reformists are trying to direct a Colored Revolution.

In my opinion, Colored Revolution in Iran is set to fail for Revolutionary Guards and some hardliners are ready to take every possible measure to crack down demonstrations. However, they are yet to act. It might be due to two possible, yet completely opposite reasons. From one point, they may believe that the current unrest is not that serious. From another point, they may find it so unstable a situation that even one hasty move could cause serious problems. The truth will probably reveal itself within few days. Just wait.

Propaganda Deed

2009-06-08T11:43:00.000-07:00

Upcoming Presidential Election in Iran

2009-06-02T18:41:00.000-07:00

Next presidential election in Iran not only matters to Iranians, but also, for good reasons, can affect the region and some of the global affairs. Since the political processes in Iran are almost unknown to foreign observers, it is worth publishing some information about would-be presidents of Iran. Four candidates are running for coming presidential elections in Iran:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, current fundamentalist president who finds himself bound to win.

Mahdi Karrubi, former reformist parliament speaker.

Mirhosein Mousavi, ex-premier of war time and supposedly most hopeful reformist candidate.

Mohsen Rezayi, former commander-in-chief of Revolutionary Guards.

Many analysts believe that Rezayi is not likely to beat his powerful rivals. Since he left Revolutionary Guards, Rezayi, who got his PhD in economics, has been trying to put on a political, intellectual gesture. In my opinion, he is the best speaker among current candidates, having detailed programs regarding politics, economy, etc. He tries to propose radical changes in some important issues. For example, he chose a woman, Dr. Boroujerdi (grand daughter of Ayatollah Khomeini), to be his foreign affairs minister, "just to beat Hillary Clinton," to use his own words. In addition, regarding Iran-US relations, he is to propose Change Package in which detailed sequence of changes are described that could help remove some of the barriers to better relations. He even said that meeting Obama in next UN summit is possible, given that some good things happen within next few months. Even though he is somehow associated with so-called tradition-minded parties (hardliners), Rezayi has seriously criticized Ahmadinejad. For example, he was quoted as saying "if the trend of current administration is to be continued, it would bring the country to the verge [of destruction]." In addition, he has objected what he calls Political Adventurism of current administration.

Mousavi was Iran’s last premiere in the time of Iran-Iraq war. (After the death of Ayatollah Khomeini, some changes were made to Iran’s constitution, one of which was removing premiership, leaving the responsibility of forming the cabinet to the president.) After the assassination of Rajayi, Iran’s second president, Ayatollah Khamenei won the presidential election and chose Mousavi as premier for his first term of presidency. After four years, Ayatollah Khamenei assumed power again for his second term. However, this time he was reluctant to choose Mousavi for they had many problems with each other. Many people, major commanders and politicians among them, asked Ayatollah Khomeini to intervene in favor of Mousavi. Finally, Ayatollah Khamenei, though still reluctant, chose Mousavi as premiere. When Ayatollah Khomeini passed away, Ayatollah Khamenei was elected Supreme Leader and Ayatollah Rafsanjani won the presidential election. Mousavi, once the most popular figure next to Ayatollah Khomeini, got forced to leave political sphere and has been silent since then. Now, major reformist parties support him as their candidate. Many of these parties have fundamental problems with him, but since they swear by him as the most hopeful option competing Ahmadinejad, a strategic alliance is formed so as to beat Ahmadinejad.

Karroubi, the only clergyman among current candidates, is not a strong character by his own. However, he played a significant role in reformist administration and it gave him the chance of winning an influential position among reformist factions. Moreover, after Rafsanjani and Ahmadinejad, he ranked third in the first round of previous presidential election which was barely expected of him. (It should be mentioned that he publicly objected the result, claiming that some inaccuracies and possible interventions were playing role helping Ahmadinejad go to second round.) In order to arrange for the next campaign, he formed a party, Etemade Melli (national trust). Now, a good team of experts, academics and reformist intellectuals support him.

Ahmadinejad; no need to explain. (I’m afraid if he is going to win. Bernard Shaw once said, “If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always be assured of Paul's vote.”)

Iran’s Deterrence Power

2009-04-08T06:15:00.000-07:00

This post is an excerpt of an interesting article.

*****

From a general point of view, it seems that Iran’s Deterrence Power is based on 4 basic principles:

1- Avoiding trusting international entities

Considering International Entities and Agencies as ‘means of International Imperialism to Conquer World’ dates back to the very beginning of Islamic Revolution. Iraqi Experience, however, has made Iranian military strategists even more determined not to trust such agencies. According to these strategists, Saddam’s regime for more than a decade cooperated with International Agencies responsible for monitoring production and maintaining its arsenal and these agencies neutralized Saddam’s military capabilities to a great extent. Finally, when they succeeded in completely inactivating Saddam’s arsenal, Bush administration waged a war on Iraq in the name of Weapon of Mass Destruction which never existed at all.

2- Deterrence out of Iranian borders

According to IRI strategists, another important lesson of Iraqi Experience is about encountering Stronger Enemy. They believe that Saddam’s strategy based on encountering occupiers inside Iraqi borders was bound to fail. To avoid similar failure, IRI strategists have maintained that in the case of an American attack on Iran, war zone will be determined by Iran. It means that in the case of war, the aggression will not be limited to Iran, but would include Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine, Gulf countries, as well as other places. That is because, IRI strategists claim, America has offered Iranians some kind of Potential Hostages in the region. In addition to Iran’s own military capabilities, there are some possible allies who would help Iran fight against US in other parts of the region. Even some non-Shiite groups might be eager to help Iran. And this point can help decipher why some statement made by Iranian Officials about Holocaust, Wiping Israel off the Map, etc. Such statements were welcomed by millions of Muslims who hate Israel and are frustrated by other Muslim rulers who ‘are not man of their words.’

3- Getting Ready to Take Maximum Risks in Worst Cases

Iran normally prefers no military invasion. However, IRI strategists believe that Iran should be ready to pay ‘every’ price to make the enemy suffer maximum loss. For example, Iranians are supposedly ready to embrace martyrdom, i.e. to fight to their last drop of blood. In modern wars in which modern capabilities can make patriotism fruitless, such statements may be underestimated. However, Embracing Martyrdom translates into ‘Taking Every Possible Risk’ and that is what, IRI strategists believe, US can’t afford at all.

4- Maximum Preparedness inside Iran

Maximum Preparedness not only includes arranging for Asymmetric War and Passive Defense but also requires eliminating Fifth Column. IRI strategists believe that Iraq’s failure in First Gulf War did not lead to overthrowing Saddam’s regime for a simple reason: there was no alternative to Bathi Government. Hence, as long as there is no alternative to IRI, even a military failure can not lead to regime change. That is why removing every possible alternative would be on IRI agenda in the case of American-led war.

Modern Application of Pleasure in Iran

2009-04-04T17:30:00.000-07:00

This post is an excerpt of an intersting article.

*****

Modern Application of Pleasure in Iran

Sexual Politics in Modern Iran, by Janet Afary, takes advantage of modern historiography methods and offers an interesting explanation of gender and sexuality transformation in political, cultural and social contexts of 19th and 20th century Iran.

Very foundation of the book is about sexual revolution in Iran which somehow began with Constitutionalism Movement, had ups and downs, and finally got accelerated in the age of Islamic Republic and compulsory dress code, i.e. Hijab.

This sexual revolution as well as transformation of the meaning and application of Gender and Sexuality is a byproduct of long standing interaction of Iranian society with Ottoman Empire, Russia and West, rise of democratic reforms as well as modern nationalism in Iran.

History of Sexuality in Iran

Sheikh Saadi, known as Morality Teacher, writes: "at the height of youthfulness, as it happens and you are very well aware, I had some sort of affairs with a gorgeous one, a boy."

Amir Onsorol-ma-Ali enjoins his son, Gilan Shah, that: "between boy-slaves and women, do not limit yourself to just one type, so as to enjoy both kinds," and "in summer approach boy-slaves and in winter go to women."

Moreover, Rumi, whose spiritual and mystique status is well recognized, explicitly uses bodily terms to describe sexual intercourse.

Today, however, we can never think of a morality teacher, father or mystique who, following example of Saadi, Amir Onsorol-ma-Ali or Rumi, confesses to homosexual affairs, describes such a relationship or explicitly uses sexual terms.

It's clear that all of the above figures, similar to today teachers, fathers and mystiques, were very well aware of Sharia and morality principles.

Another point is that the lexicon we currently use in Persian to describe erotic events is fundamentally different from the one used up to a century ago.

Gender, sexuality, sexual relationship, homosexuality and some other similar terms are all brand new expressions in Persian. Previous generations, however, had been used to thinking about and speaking about such subjects, and had had a rich lexicon to do so. Hence, is this lingual revolution just a matter of linguistics or, on the contrary, it reflects a comprehensive transformation of subjective and objective worlds of Iranians and Iranian Society?

Sexual Politics in Modern Iran is an answer to above questions as well as some other ones pertaining to transformation of sexuality and sexual pleasure in modern Iran. Here, Modern refers to something more than just contemporary or today.

Sexuality in today Iran is different from it in old Iran, for we have got modernized and modernity has fundamentally changed our understanding and experience of sexuality.

The most important characteristic of the book is its research method. Janet Afary, a well known historian who is mainly experienced in the history of past two centuries of Iran, tries to study modern sexuality and gender transformations with regards to establishment of modern medical, health, legal, religious and political entities in Iran.

In the first part of the book, she proclaims that before Constitutionalism Movement, homosexuality, polygamy, temporary marriage, sex segregation and extended families had been some usual manners that had never faced objection. However, rise of Constitutionalism Movement and agencies attributed to it gave rise to the question of Social Justice and some new regulations were gradually enacted that transformed sexual morale of Iranian society.

In addition, she explains that, for example, modern health in Iran undermined religious justifications for sex segregation, overturned religious understanding of Clean and Unclean, and gave rise to a new understanding of feminine body which granted her a new social role. Medical advancements regarding abortion and repairing hymen led to establishing some new regulations and had a lasting influence on sexual identity of and sexual interaction among citizens.

In addition, rise of police department made the body, especially feminine body, the field of cultural and political conflict. Therefore, Hijab, for the first time in Iran’s history, turned into a social problem and a concern for the government.

Modernity and New Order of Sexual Life

Probably most of the people believe that modernity is followed by more sexual freedom and life in the age of tradition had always been bound to legal and customary restrictions which had severely limited sexual pleasure. Janet Afary believes that such a perception is so naïve and illusive. Sexual Politics in Modern Iran restates that heterosexuality and monogamy, as the only legal, justified norm of sexual behavior, were not enforced by the tradition; in fact, these norms and their moral-legal dominance is a byproduct of modern age.

In fact, modernity in Iran undermined pluralistic and free tradition of sexuality and legalized a simple form of marriage and heterosexuality. For example, even though gay and lesbian behaviors were forbidden by the Sharia, before the advent of constitutional monarch and more exactly before Pahlavi Dynasty assumed power, such behaviors were accepted among various social classes and having intimate relationship and even screwing gorgeous boys was, to an extent, a common practice.

Referring to deeply rooted mystique tradition in Iran, Afary states that Love did not essentially mean an emotional relationship between man and woman and it would include homosexual intimacy as well. Hence, love and sex between persons of the same sex is considered a taboo just in modern times, which is far different from older Love Customs.

Sexual Politics in Iran narrates the transition from older Love Customs to Modern Sexual Economy of Islamic Republic.

Reader finally comes to understand that the tradition backing Islamic Republic is not a historical tradition, but a tradition founded by that political and ideological regime.

For example, even though Sharia had maintained that adulterers should be stoned to death, few examples of older regimes practicing this punishment are available. In the old times, not merely in Iran but also in whole mideast, one can rarely think of a ruler trying a mid-class woman accused of adultery and finally stoning her to death.

Visit Isfahan!

2009-03-29T14:16:00.000-07:00

You can explore Isfahan in my photo blog. I will update it every few days with new photo reports of must-see locations.

Its first post is about Flora Garden. Check it out!

Try not to be superficial

2009-03-21T15:05:00.000-07:00

This essay motivated current post.

Reducing social problems in general and women’s problems in particular to a simple dilemma, i.e. Islam, is the misleading theme repeated by those who fail to comprehend complexity of social phenomena. From their point of view, Islam has been and is a fixed set of rules imposed on society by an external power. Such an argument is flawed at least from two perspectives: it’s neither a fixed set of rules nor imposed by an external power. Few months ago, I explained about former flaw. Now let’s consider the latter.

From a secular point of view, religion is a matter of supply and demand. In other words, any religion that successfully spreads throughout a certain demographic area can not be just an external thing. It should be constructed internally and appropriately to meet some needs of the people. In other words, society itself creates a religion to heal some of its perceived wounds. Then, even if that certain religion is removed from society, as long as the society prefers similar cure to its perceived wounds, it would continue to prescribe very acts endorsed by the outlawed religion. This time, however, such prescriptions would be made under a brand new name.

Let’s be a little more specific. A society may be eager to keep family a solid, unaltered foundation. Honor-killing may be considered, due to various historical reasons, an acceptable way to do so. Hence, the people expect any new religion to support such a well-established mean. That’s why honor-killing enters any new religion the people might choose to practice, and that is exactly why it would remain in the society even if that certain religion gets outlawed. Honor-killing is socially acceptable in some areas for people find it a cure to a perceived wound.

Above view is supported by some evidences, one of which is that people who do not practice a certain religion may share many beliefs with other people in their own society. That is why some people who do not practice any religion still resort to honor-killing; for honor-killing is originally a social issue not a religious one.

From above point, the best way to eliminate social problems is to educate the people, i.e. to make them rational compared to modern norms. That would make them reconsider their demands, which consequently results in a change in what the religion supplies to the society.

In practice, Iranian example may testify to above analysis. Education led many people to demand equal rights for men and women which consequently led some Ayatollahs to find some sort of justifications to reform religious rules. The process continued up to a point that some state rules were changed and some others are expected to change within years.

Religion, one might argue, can play a negative role by inhibiting education process. Yeah, that’s possible and indeed has happened frequently throughout history. In the age of information, however, that can be next to impossible. One just needs to join Global E-Village in order to overcome barriers to his/her education.

Help us find an ARTE documentary to save some Iranian e-Journalists

2008-08-25T07:17:00.000-07:00

Almost 4 months ago, a Persian website broke a piece of news: "ARTE satellite channel featured a Dutch documentary which documented Iran Traffic Police Forces' bribery, whose scenes were gathered through sophisticated hidden camera methods." As expected, that piece of news was published so widely among Persian websites.

Administrators of the original website did not provide a sample of the documentary neither did they refer to an authentic source for it. After a while, Iran's Traffic Police (NAJA) sued them. Now they have to bring an authentic source for that piece of information to the court. The problem is that their original source had been a word of mouth from a Swiss man whom they can't locate anymore. Now they are trying to find a clue to that documentary.

At the first glance, it seems that the documentary (if it really be a product of ARTE) should be Deutsche, not Dutch. In addition, original information reveals the name of producer as Van Versen, though this spelling might be misleading thanks to lack of a standard transcription procedure.

So, it's a rather complicated story! That would be a big favor to them if the original documentary is found or some authentic information about it may be isolated. Help us do that.

My Latest Academic Degree

2008-08-12T04:00:00.000-07:00

Last week Iran's Interior Minister provided a fake doctorate degree for MPs (read more here, and a sample of his fake degree may be found here). An Iranian blogger has asked others to prepare similar degrees. Here is mine, big thanks to Ardeshir Tayyebi.

French Tourists in Isfahan

2008-07-31T03:40:00.000-07:00

French tourists with an antique car, escorted by police, exploring Imam Square in Isfahan.

Read, in the name of thy Lord and Cherisher

2008-07-29T23:49:00.000-07:00

He was troubled by all the injustice of Mecca.
Slavery, the mistreating of women, greed, gambling, the sacrificing of babies, and the reliance on idol gods made of wood and stone. So as he did every year, he came to the cave. Suddenly, He was surrounded by light.
When he looked up, he saw the Archangel Gabriel standing before him. He was speechless.
"Read" said the angel.
"I don't know how" was the reply.
Gabriel repeated his command three times. And each time the reply was the same. And then Gabriel taught him.
"Read in the name of your Lord the creator. He created men from a clotted blood. Read, your Lord is the most bounty who taught to use of a pen. He has taught men what he did not know."
And then Gabriel vanished.

From: Muhammad, the Last Prophet.

*****

Some of Persian bloggers have decided to publish 27 posts appreciating today (27 Rajab, anniversary of the beginning of Muhammad's career as a prophet). Here you can find a complete list of them. Above photo was taken from here.

Jundullah Killed 2 More Captives

2008-07-27T23:35:00.000-07:00

According to BBC, Al-Arabia TV Channel states that insurgent Judullah (Army of God) group killed 2 more captives from 16 soldiers who were kidnapped last June in southeastern Iran. Thus the number of soldiers killed by Jundullah reaches 6. However, Iranian officials doubt current and previous claims of Jundullah regarding killing the captives and call it 'psychological war' and 'rumor'.
Al-Arabia TV Channel, located in Kuwait, reported on Saturday that Jundullah (which is active in southeastern Iran) called the channel to reveal that two more soldiers were killed. Jundullah spokesman threatened that "if Iran fails to release 200 of its jailed members, they would kill 2 soldiers every week."
However, it seems that Iran has not taken Jundullah's claims and warnings seriously. Gholamhosein Mohseni Eje'ei, Iran's Intelligence Minister, rejected recent claims and called them 'mere rumors.' He was quoted as saying: "God willing, all of the captives are alive and the claims regarding their martyrdom are not verified. We continue our lobbying and efforts and hope that they will be released as soon as possible."
Meanwhile, an Iranian group headed by Mahdi Hashemi (who is in charge of State Ministry) went to Islamabad to negotiate with Pakistani officials over the fate of captives. No details are revealed except that Pakistan has promised cooperation.
The latest kidnapping happened when Pakistan handed Abdolhamid Rigi (brother of Abdolmalek Rigi, head of Jundullah group) over to Iranian officials. He had been jailed for about 1 year in Pakistan.
Jundullah claims that it is fighting for the cause of Baloch ethnic and religious minority. Iran calls it a terrorist group. Up to now, tens of army officers, statesmen and civilians have been killed in violent campaigns of the group.
[Note: most of kidnapped soldiers were not employed army officers but just some youngsters who had been offering their compulsory military service.]

Just Ahmadinejad can do it

2008-07-23T08:00:00.000-07:00

by: Sadegh Zibakalam

I do firmly believe that Iran-US relations' most significant transition which is to emerge is due to the presidency of Mr. Ahmadinejad. Truth is that having diplomatic relations with US is more of a taboo in Iran which may only get broken by a tradition-minded, conservative figure. No one may come to bring about a state of détente, negotiate with US and normalize Iran-US relations, save Ahmadinejad himself. We have not yet forgotten McFarlane event (when Imam was alive) and Mr. Hashemi's efforts to revive Iran-US relations; however, conservatives' powerful hands impeded those efforts and McFarlane event came to standstill. In the period of Mr. Hashemi's presidency, Mohajerani (then advisor to Mr. Hashemi) published a column in Ettela'at daily regarding Iran-US relations, which was much more diluted compare to current expressions of Mr. Ahmadinejad; but conservatives' reaction was so tough that he got forced to publicly apologize. Even when Mr. Khatami, in an interview with Christian Amanpour (CNN correspondent), said some relatively fine things about US, psychological pressures of conservatives forced him to utter some harsh words regarding US just few days later in Imam Khomeini's mausoleum. I think that Ahmadinejad is the only person who may bring about a state of détente. During his presidency, this potential vision has evolved into a practical one. He easily speaks of taking photos with an American commander and his deputy in Iraq, and more easily states that 'if we receive any formal request regarding opening US consulate in Tehran, we will consider it seriously', and such stances do not lead to any reaction from either media or others. I believe that Mr. Ahmadinejad's powerful proponents in the regime make him bold enough to freely speak of having relations with US and even march toward bringing about a state of détente and normalizing the relations. Other side of the coin is US. Current evidences suggest that Barack Obama may win presidential elections. However, I doubt it, for I think that 'Silent Majority' of US voters, who constitute 20-30 percent of voters, have not decided to vote for whom and will decide just few nights before final elections, and they are more likely to vote for McCain only to avoid an African-American finding his way to White House. I hope this is not going to happen. After all, if Obama is to become next US president, vision of normalizing relations with US will be much brighter than ever.

*****

Sadegh Zibakalam is a leading reformist author and professor of political sciences in Tehran University. This paper was published last week in Shahrvande Emrooz (today citizen), leading reformist weekly.

Prisoner Swap

2008-07-15T10:25:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow, a prisoner swap is expected to happen between Israel and Lebanese Hizbollah, in which Israel will receive two soldiers, Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, in return for releasing Samir Kantar and four Hezbollah prisoners and returning the bodies of dozens.

Two Israeli soldiers are presumed dead. I hope that they return alive. It's in favor of all parties.

Update: my hope failed.

Wise Word

2008-07-12T01:28:00.000-07:00

It's said that a former Japanese foreign minister once said to his Iranian counterpart: "US is like a wild buffalo. You have stuck to her horns, while we try to stick to her breasts."

Ecosystems and Peace

2008-07-08T09:04:00.000-07:00

This was a comment to a question: Any other ideas or stories out there about how environmental collaboration in the Middle East can lead to peace?

*****

Ecosystems (un)fortunately don’t appreciate political borders. When a border happens to separate two people even for a long period of time, it certainly fails to stop eco-interactions.

You mentioned sewage system and air pollution. There are certainly many more examples of this kind. For example, when two nations share a lake or jungle, they have to come to understand that the safety of this ecosystem is dependent on a collective effort. Caspian Sea is an example; or Nile may be a more telling story which is somehow associated with the life of many people in various African countries. When people learn that they should cooperate so as to save the ecosystem in addition to improving their own lives, one may say 'Ecosystems fortunately don’t appreciate political borders.'

However, the story of shared ecosystems is not an all-good one. For example, Hamoon wetland in southern east of Iran is enlisted as an 'endangered ecosystem', for building several dams on Hirmand River (the main supplier of water for Hamoon) in Afghanistan as well as recent droughts have turned this area of about 600 thousand acres into desert [source]. Some experts believe that Hamoon Wetland will be a fiction after this summer, unless some heavy raining helps it survive. If this piece of land turns into desert, Iran won't be the only victim: the desert will be expanding to east threatening Pakistan and Afghanistan, a big desert (instead of wetland) would certainly lead to reduction in rain in neighboring areas, etc.

Thus, one may conclude that ecosystems essentially need long-term planning and strategic perspectives. And short-termism, as a relatively new phenomenon in contemporary management, is a grave mistake, regarding Nature as a whole. This is why one might say: 'Ecosystems unfortunately don’t appreciate political borders.'

So, environmental collaboration would only lead to peace if we come to recognize some key measures such as sharing benefits of ecosystems with neighbors, mutual respect for mother nature, paying attention to long-term planning, and probably most important issue is that: Nature is not a weapon capable of defending a nation; rather it's more of a static grenade that will turn the whole area into dust should it be exploded.

Ecotourism in Iran

2008-07-02T13:07:00.000-07:00

This post was a comment.

*****

Ecotourism is a relatively new idea in Iran and I’m afraid if there is not an organized effort to promote it right now. National Ecotourism Committee is established, though it might take some time for it to run national-level projects. And some non-governmental sites try to introduce possible ecotourism spots, such as this one.
Meanwhile, there are some established procedures for ecotourists: many travel agencies offer special eco-tours, for example to northern parts of Iran (Gilan and Mazandaran provinces, a semi-mediterranean climate) or Yazd (desert ecotourism).
However, professional ecotourists constitute the main source of ecotourism information. For example, we (I and my wife) have decided to spend two weeks in summer in a northern village. I asked several people, and they offered a relatively detailed description: possible destinations, prices, availability of house/room for rent, some pics, etc.
People are eager to spend some time out of metropolitan areas. Therefore some local ecotourism destinations have come into existence. For example, you may find several villages out of Isfahan (our city) which are relatively well-equipped for a 1-2 week stay. Villagers are increasingly getting aware of this possible source of income, thus try to make a better destination.
I hope that while Ahmadinejad is busy with politics, local efforts provide a proper infrastructure within a decade or so.

Tradition of Holy Prophet: Distinguishing Content from Form

2008-06-25T02:19:00.000-07:00

When I published previous post in Mideastyouth, somebody called Rayed Al Sunni posted a comment:

In our Islam we know if you love Mohammad or religion the sign of love is to follow it not to celebrate in Birthday Mohammad didn’t celebrate for that. Islam didn’t do like this to celebrate in someone.we celebrate for E’ad Al Fater and E’ad Al Ad’dha.

Here is my reply to that comment, which constitutes basis of Ijtihad in Islam:

*****

I do certainly agree with you that we as Muslims have to adhere to very tradition of Holy Prophet.

However, the very term Tradition, to me, means something close to this: following very measures that Holy Prophet set as True Islam. In other words, there had been two distinctive dimensions to Holy Prophet's deed: Content and Form. Our actions must be conforming to the Content, but not necessarily to the Form.

For example, we have repeatedly heard that Holy Prophet donated bread and date to the poor. It's one of his deeds, which includes Content (i.e. being kind to the poor) and Form (i.e. donating some certain materials, including bread and date). We have to imitate the content (be kind to the poor), but not necessarily the Form (just donate bread and date). Now, let me ask, if somebody happens to donate Pizza, in your opinion, he is far away from Holy Prophet's tradition? I don’t think so: he "is kind to the poor", thus his act is conforming to Holy Prophet's standards, even though he does not follow the very 'Form' Holy prophet had been used to.

So there is a certain set of Objective Measures, or Contents, to which we have to subscribe. But there are too many forms which may assume those very contents. Some of these forms have been common and usual in the time of Holy Prophet, and consequently he practiced them. Some of them were not common in the time of Holy Prophet, and consequently he failed/refused to practice them; however it does not forbid us to practice them.

Therefore, I don’t think that we have to imitate every act that Holy Prophet did, and avoid every single thing he either failed or refused to do. And there is another reason to it: it's practically impossible.

Again, I do agree that the Forms we decide to practice should be conforming to the measures set by holy prophet. For example, the tradition of Holy Prophet was to show his happiness for Eids, i.e. Holidays. We may come to use some new Forms to show our happiness, but not the forms which may be in conflict with His Tradition (such as dance and drinking alcohol).

So, after all, Holy Prophet orders us to be kind to our mothers. Is there any problem if we dedicate a certain day every year to our Mothers? And is there any problem if we use birthday of a great woman, daughter of Holy Prophet, to do so? A stone and two birds: expressing our kindness to mothers (as the Holy Prophet ordered us) as well as his family (again as he ordered us).

God Bless Mothers

2008-06-24T09:13:00.000-07:00

According to Islamic lunar calendar, today is the birthday of Fatima, daughter of Prophet Muhammad. In Iran, we celebrate this day as Moms Day. Here are 3 pics of Mother Statue in Isfahan. God bless mothers.

Ayatollah Montazeri clarifies his position on Bahai faith

2008-06-17T15:26:00.000-07:00

Question:
Your Excellency,
In one of your [previous] answers to [the questions regarding] Bahai sect, pointing out that Bahai faith is not considered a legal religious minority for it lacks a divine scripture, you stated:

"However, for they are citizens of this country and have a right due to belonging to this country, they have the right of citizenship."

Following your response, some of the followers of Bahai faith abused [it] and made significant claims, and it's even said that your pre-revolution opinion about them has changed [into this newer version]. Please kindly clarify this issue and your point about 'right of citizenship'.

*****

Ayatollah Montazeri's Answer:
Blessing and peace
My opinion regarding Bahai sect is still what I did believe in since pre-revolution years and has not experienced any change. However, due to Quran stating that

"Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice" (60-8),

and due to Imam Ali's letter to Malik Ashtar (a sincere companion of Imam Ali, appointed by him to govern Egypt) that

"Maalik! You must create in your mind kindness, compassion and love for your subjects. Do not behave towards them as if you are a voracious and ravenous beast and as if your success lies in devouring them. Remember, Maalik, that amongst your subjects there are two kinds of people: those who have the same religion as you have; they are brothers to you, and those who have religions other than that of yours, they are human beings like you",

the humane rights of those who do not follow any heavenly religion must be respected.
'Right of Citizenship' is a general term, and its limits should be defined according to public customs and the constitution of which the majority are approving. However, if any person is trying to be the enemy of country's people, or cooperate with external enemies [of the nation] and their cooperation is proved in a credible court, they must be punished. And their citizenship is not a barrier to the law being enforced. And attention should be paid so as the youth do not get trapped by their malicious propaganda; and if doing business or having companionship with them works as a mean strengthening their position, it should be avoided.
God-willing you will be successful,

25-Khordad-1387 (14-June-2008)

*****

Source: Comments to a post in Radio Zamaneh. Note that the source is not that reliable; however, since the issue is of a relatively high importance, I do expect several other sources to publish it as soon as possible.

Update: Here is a reliable reference from the official site of Ayatollah Montazeri. the first 3 fatwas are about Bahaism, including the previous one published earlier in MEY and this newest one. And there is something in between them repeating the same theme.

Religious Procession

2008-06-06T11:47:00.000-07:00

According to some historical accounts, tomorrow is the anniversary of death/martyrdom of Fatima (holy daughter of Prophet Muhammad). According to wikipedia:

For the few months that she survived following the death of her father, Fatima found herself indirectly at the center of political disunity. Differing accounts of the events surrounding the commencement of the caliphate exist which were the cause of the Shiite and Sunni split. The majority of Muslims at the time of Muhammad's death favored Abu-Bakr as the Caliph while a portion of the population supported Fatima's husband, Ali. Fatima courageously defended Ali's, fiercely opposed the election of Abu-Bakr, and had violent disputes with him and particularly with Omar (who was finally appointed as second caliph by Abu-Bakr).

Following his election to the caliphate after a meeting in Saqifah, Abu-Bakr and Umar with a few other companions headed to Fatima's house to obtain homage from Ali and his supporters who had gathered there. Then Umar threatened to set the house on fire unless they came out and swore allegiance with Abu Bakr. There isn't consensus among the sources about what happened next.

Some Shiite historians hold that Umar called for Ali and his men to come out and swear allegiance to Abu Bakr. When they did not, Umar broke in, resulting in Fatima's ribs being broken by being pressed between the door and the wall causing her to miscarry Muhsin which led to her eventual death.

Here I’m not to judge the history, but just to report a procession commemorating the event. Such processions carry a symbolic weight and I try to explain some of the symbols included in photos. They usually include flash-backs and flash-forwards between associated historical events as well.

*****

A flag containing some information about the group that directs the event; it reads: "Mother of the Heaven", Community of the Lovers of Imam Mahdi.

*****

One of the groups of people who joined the procession; White, as usual, is the symbol of goodness.

*****

Funeral of Fatima; many observers take photos or record the event, like me.

*****

Green is the symbol of being a descendant of holy Prophet and Red is a symbol of cruelty; thus these are the soldiers who took Ali (the handicapped one with green turban) to the mosque in order to swear allegiance to Abu-Bakr.

*****

The door of the house of Fatima; red spots are a sign of her miscarriage, and black shade is remembering of the door being burnt.

*****

Above parts together;

*****

Quran, mirror, well and palm; symbolizing a simple Arab house of the past.

*****

This episode is mostly associated with Karbala incident, in which Hussein (son of Fatima) was defeated and beheaded for he failed to swear allegiance to Yazid. After the incident, Hussein's family and children were taken captives and brought to Damascus.

*****

Reciting religious chants, along with necessary, mobile equipments;

*****

The house of Fatima, with her behind the door;

*****

Sons of Fatima mourning for their mother; nobody rests in the coffin.

*****

This man is distributing water. Water always plays an important role in Shiite ceremonies, for Yazid's army decided not to provide water for Hussein's companions during the final days of Karbala incident.

*****

A part of the scenario;

*****

Playing instruments;

It's economically efficient to donate 500 million dollars to Lebanese Hizbollah

2008-05-28T21:54:00.000-07:00

According to roozonline.com (Iranian, reformist e-journal), a pro-IRI analyst was recently quoted as saying: "with an oil price of about 120$ per barrel, Iran earns 340 million dollars a day, and 125 billion dollars annually… if we conduct any trouble in Lebanon and if this happens to increase oil prices by 3 dollars per barrel, a sum of about 3 billion dollars will be added to our annual income. Therefore it's economically efficient to donate 500 million dollars to Lebanese Hizbollah."

Minorities in Iran

2008-05-25T04:59:00.000-07:00

Here is my comment to a post in MEY about Minorities in Iran, which tries to maintain that Islamic Republic of Iran is systematically and deliberately persecuting religious/ethnic minorities.

*****

Some of the details you mentioned in this post are probably incorrect or exaggerated (namely gang-raping Zoroastrian girls and ban on music, respectively). In addition some improvements have been made in recent years, for example in the case of 'Bill of Retribution' which finally made the blood money of a non-Muslim equal to that of a Muslim. Moreover officials usually shut their eyes to some of the laws passed by authorities, for example about liquor or pork; you may easily find them in Christian-dominated districts (last week prices of Isfahan: a pork-burger, just 4 dollars).

By the way, I generally agree that minorities (either religious or ethnic ones) are being systematically mistreated in Iran. However it should be noted that socio-political phenomena often follow a continuous pattern throughout both history and region. Therefore if one focuses on one certain episode while ignoring the broader historical and regional contexts, his conclusion is susceptible to flaw.

Firstly, with regards to broader historical context, I have to mention that such discriminations are usually a legacy of the past. (This, however, does not mean that IRI did not contribute to them.) For example about Shiite-Sunni conflict, a balanced view has to consider the events of even 7 centuries ago, even including Safavid-Ottoman wars. Long standing conflicts and lack of dialogue have made such harsh sentiments among Shiite people toward Sunnis that even if IRI decides to remove legal bans, social discrimination continues to exist. And though such 'harsh sentiments' does not usually turn into violent acts, they often translate into political, systematic discrimination thanks to lack of a democratic temperament in Iran (neither socially nor politically). To an extent, same analysis applies to Bahai faith.

Secondly, with regards to broader regional context, it should be noted that regional or even global interactions somehow affect the issue of interest. For example, people rarely distinguish a Jewish businessman from soldiers who allegedly shot Muhammad al-Dura. Or when they hear of rumors/stories of Shiite being persecuted in Saudi Arabia, they can hardly endorse a Sunni mosque in downtown. I know that this is not fair. The solution, however, does not flow from the upward.

Art of Simplicity

2008-05-20T03:27:00.000-07:00

Back from a 2 day conference on Media & Communication in Tehran (below photo), on our way to train station, I and some of my friends were speaking about the topics of conference. The discussion led to a debate on different philosophies of communication. Right at this point, hearing the terms 'philosophy' and 'media', taxi driver asked us: "so, from your view, what is the philosophy of Nancy Ajram?" He was apparently a fan of the Arab singer.

This interruption, though seemingly naïve in the first glance, was deep enough to make me think about it for a while. All the professors we meet in such conferences, with all the tribunes they have, can hardly communicate their message(s) to public audience as effectively as Nancy Ajram does. More surprising is that Nancy speaks a different language, and her success in Iran is mostly due to her well-directed, story-telling video clips.

What is the secret to effectively speaking to public audience? I recall Hanibal Lecter in 'the Silence of the Lambs', saying: "first principle is, Claris, simplicity." Be simple and easily understandable, and people will follow you and sympathize with you as a real element; be complicated, and you will become the make-believe part of the story.

One may claim that 'simplicity' is the exclusive profession of Art. I, however, think that Simplicity is itself an Art; an art that many enlightened figures and thinkers unfortunately lack. People's day-to-day problems are simple, and they expect simple answers for their problems. But enlightened thinkers, who may know the solution much better than others, use complicated words to communicate an even more complicated thought. Here appears a gap between people's demand and thinkers' supply. And in Iran, Ahmadinejad is an example of those who take advantage of this gap. He speaks in a simple manner, and is easily understandable. He offers simple solutions (though his solutions may practically turn into nightmares). And in this sense, Ahmadinejad is an artist. This is why that taxi driver, that fan of Nancy Ajram, had hung a picture of Ahmadinejad in his car.

*****

Conference, under the auspices of Youth National Organization

Ayatollah Haj-Ali Akbari, Head of Youth National Organization

Practical guidelines for homo***uals who are about to visit Iran

2008-05-17T04:05:00.000-07:00

Here is a funny excerpt of "Practical Guide for Tourists", a series of guidelines for those who are about to visit Iran:

Note: I had to replace 'homosexual' with 'homo***uals', because Iran's intelligent filters block almost every page which has this word in its addresses.

On the current tension in Lebanon

2008-05-15T12:59:00.000-07:00

Here is my comment to "Mullahs’ Whim in Lebanon" which claims speaks of Iran's role in the current tension in Lebanon and Arab countries' reaction to it.

*****

Sustainable stability may never be achieved unless a balance of power comes into existence. In the world’s new order, it was Superpower’s duty to maintain the balance of power. However, right now the only Superpower’s position is frankly in favor of Israel: it has decided to side with Israel, whatever the reasons.
On the other side of the battle, Hizbollah is probably the only armed group which may balance the power struggle with Israel in the Mideast, at least in a psychological level. So, to my view, the American-induced decision of Lebanese administration to destruct this power balance is what might be called an act of destabilizing.
Let me make it clear: I really believe that an armed party is more of a nightmare to the political interactions of both the country and the region. When ‘guns’ find their way in political conflicts, they mark an end to the peace. BUT it’s almost naïve to believe that Hizbollah is merely the product of Iranian/Syrian masterminds. Hizbollah finds its roots in the wrong policies of the US in the Mideast.
Another point is Arab countries’ reactions (mostly that of Saudi Arabia) to the current conflict. I think that Arab countries prefer to have Hizbollah under their own control. In other words, they like the Hizbollah, but not an Iranian-driven Hizbollah. They, however, will not side with US to end the life of Iranian-driven Hizbollah, for this undermines their position against Israel. Thus I think that such reactions are just to remind Iran that “Ana Sharik” (I’m a partner), and Arab leaders don’t want the currant tension to lead to a real confrontation with Iran.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, what if Israel attacks Iran and you are elected as president of the USA?

2008-05-10T08:02:00.000-07:00

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinto

US Presidential Candidate

Your Excellency,

In one of your recent campaign interviews you stated that: "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran. . . . In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them" (Interview with ABC).

This is not different from President Bush's stated policy towards Iran. The logic of threatening a total obliteration of Iran, possible only through a nuclear holocaust, is based on the "right of power", not the "power of the right".

As you may know, chapter I, article II of the United Nations Charter states that:
"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

Regardless of any hypothetical attack on Israel, the United States is legally bound not to threaten Iran or any other country. In addition to the UN Charter, the US constitution prohibits such threatening policies. Article IV Clause II states:

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

As an Iranian, I feel compelled to ask you some questions. First, why are you threatening "the Iranians"? Second, if Israel attacks Iran and you are elected as president of the USA, what would then be your policy and position?

I do not agree with the rhetorical statements and foreign policies of Dr. Ahmadinejad, the President of Islamic Republic of Iran. However, while the military capability of Iran to attack Israel is questionable, Israel's capabilities concerning the conventional and non-conventional armaments to attack Iran is beyond any doubt.

With respect

Ebrahim Yazdi,Secretary General, Freedom Movement of Iran and

Former Foreign Minister, Islamic Republic of Iran

May 6th, 2008
*****
Ebrahim Yazdi was the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the interim government of Mehdi Bazargan until 6 November 1979, when he, along with the rest of the Bazargan cabinet, resigned in protest of the takeover of the United States Embassy by the Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's Line.

Source

President Ahmadinejad and smoking revival

2008-05-04T08:48:00.000-07:00

Last winter, Iran’s Health Ministry in cooperation with Police Forces tried to stop all traditional cafés from serving Qalyan (water pipe) to the customers. It should be noted that two general type of Qalyan have been available in such places: Traditional Qalyan which contains pure tobacco and dates back to several centuries ago, and relatively newer Fruit Qalyan which contains fruit-flavored tobacco. Officials of Health Ministry were determined to at least stop Fruit Qalyan, claiming that its tobacco is of a lower quality and the chemicals used for flavoring the tobacco are highly hazardous. By the way, this act was somehow associated with a broader plan aiming at banning public smoking.

Police forces warned all of the café owners to stop serving Qalyan (or any other kind of smoke) or they would be prosecuted. Some café owners tried to resist, who were finally fined and their shops were closed.

Since Qalyan was the main source of income for such cafés (which used to serve tea, Qalyan and few traditional snacks and foods), most of them experienced a rapid decrease of revenues so that many of them decided to close the shops.

Few weeks later, President Ahmadinejad directly ordered Ministry of State (who is in charge of Police Forces) to abolish the crack down. Since then Qalyan is again available. Yeah, that day was “the re-birth of café owners of Iran” as the below poster states. This poster is available in many traditional cafés, expressing the very thanks of café owners to “beloved, popular president” of Iran. It reads: “thank you, thank you!”

Misunderstandings and Lack of Dialogue

2008-04-22T04:40:00.000-07:00

Though many people try to pretend otherwise, I strongly believe that there is not an active, fruitful dialogue between Shiite and Sunni Muslims. Why is it so? As I noted in an earlier post, there is a pile of false beliefs about the either side which make reconciliation difficult to happen. For example, many Sunnis think that "Shiite believe that today Quran is a distorted one not equal to one descended to the holy prophet", which is an absolutely wrong accusation.

The problem, however, is not just limited to false beliefs, for false beliefs may be easily removed by educative information. Indeed, there are some real problems. Let me elaborate on one example. Some Shiite sects have had a long standing tradition of exaggerating about the status of Shiite Imams, the infallible descendants of Holy Prophet who are believed by Shiite to be the righteous guides of Muslim community and true successors of Holy prophet. Those who exaggerate about Shiite Imams often justify their act with a saying attributed to Imams: "descend us from the status of being God, and say whatever descriptions you may ever desire about us." It should be noted, however, that many Shiite scholars cast doubt on the authentication of this quote and other similar ones. After all, this is something with which Sunni Muslims could never get along.

Yesterday, a friend of mine asked Jooya Jahanbakhsh that why we are so addicted to make an idol out of saints? Jahanbakhsh made a brief, yet informative analysis of the matter. He said: "such problems usually occur when dialogue happens to transform into a form of monologue. As a historical example, Sheikh Mofid and Sheikh Saddugh, both regarded as supreme scholars of Shiite school of thought, lived in the same time around 6th century AH (14th century AD). One of them, Sheikh Mofid, taught in a Shiite seminary in Baghdad. The other one, Sheikh Saddugh, taught in Qom. Since Sheikh Mofid was very close to Sunni seminaries, he had to be careful and rational: every single issue may turn into a hot dialogue and debate. But Sheikh Saddugh, located in Qom, was far away from Sunni scholars, thus failed to practice dialogue, i.e. there was no objection to his statements: he was the sole religious authority in northern Iran. The consequences are very clear: works of Sheikh Mofid tend to be more rational, and those of Sheikh Saddugh tend to be more romantic. Sheikh Mofid used to place a high value on reason, while Sheikh Saddugh appreciated intuitive understanding of the religious resources."

Let's review the above analysis: Lack of dialogue paves the way for lack of reason, thus fostering romantic, intuitive interpretation of religion, which may not be easily justified by reason. Therefore, a heavy pile of misunderstanding comes into existence.

Though it may initially seem that misunderstandings work as an impediment to dialogue, they are originally the effect of dialogue being absent in religious atmosphere. What a terrible loop of errors!

*****

Jooya Jahanbakhsh is a distinguished seminary student in Isfahan with a background of studies in Islam's history, whose clerical grade is equal to PhD, i.e. an Ayatollah he is. He has published several papers and some of his books are yet to be published.

Bahai bombers in Shiraz?

2008-04-13T13:17:00.000-07:00

Two nights ago, an explosion in a Hussaynieh (religious center) in Shiraz, one of Iran's largest cities hosting second largest community of Bahais in Iran, killed at least 10 and injured more than a hundred. Few hours after the attack, I received a bunch of emails suggesting that explosion was the result of a bomb smuggled into the Hussaynieh so as to frighten the people who used to hear 'anti Bahai propaganda' there. In other words, such analysis implied that Bahais should be held responsible for the disaster.

Last night, however, police declared the most probable scenario identified by investigations: all around the country, many exhibitions feature War Memorials, including showcased maps, samples of remaining war materials (mines, guns, etc.), and martyrs' photos and handwritings. And in that Hussaynieh, ceremonies as well as anti Bahai speeches were held along with one of these unsafe exhibitions, a rocket of which might have been exploded unexpectedly and the rest of the story. Police, however, stressed that this is not the final result. Meanwhile, deputy of state ministry in national security affairs was quoted as saying that "Shiraz explosion is certainly accidental."

As I know, there is not even a simple case of Bahai terrorist (or just even violent) act in past decades, though some argue that bloody conflicts with majority Muslims (with attacks from both sides) followed the advent of this sect in Iran. By the way, whether this contemporary mildness is the result of a historical evolution or, as opposed to above mentioned historical accounts, just the continuity of the past trends, I feel that today Bahais are not a danger to the security/safety of Iranian society. Therefore they may live their life as do other minorities (not only Sunni Muslims, Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians, but also Sufis and even few Sikhs who live in Iran).

By the way, I have not heard of any official spokesman accusing Bahais of being associated with this event. On the other hand, I received many emails accusing Bahais of this 'crime'. With regards to the fact that email plays the role of modern graffiti, i.e. the media of unheard voices, I have to wonder why such a strong Bahai-phobia does exist in Iranian society.

What Young Iranians do in their free time?

2008-04-01T10:57:00.000-07:00

Introduction:
Few days ago, a young Swiss boy asked me several questions about young Iranians, including how they spend their free time, how girls might get in touch with boys in Iran, etc. Here is my foreword and answer to his first question: how do young people spend their free time in Iran?

*****

Foreword:
Residents of various parts of Iran will probably answer such questions in many very different ways. Though some common elements are likely to be found in all of their answers, some factors, including local traditions, geographical specifications and financial status, affect the answers.
With regards to traditions, I should mention that for example in metropolitan areas, most notably in Tehran, it's generally easier for the young to find a friend of the opposite sex, especially if they happen to be university students. Universities in my country bridge the gap between traditional society in which the parents live and modern one in which the children aspire to live. Finding a friend of the opposite sex is only one example of a series of freedoms offered by universities to the young.
With regards to geographical specifications, for example, my city, Isfahan, enjoys a beautiful river with many parks around it, which make it possible for the youth to spend their time in them. In some other areas, for example in northern west of Iran, the weather is so cold during the winter that people can hardly spend their free time during the cold season (which sometimes extends to half of the year) outside. Therefore, they are likely to invest in some suitable options such as cinema or café-net (I will explain this phenomenon in later parts).
And finally with regards to financial status, this factor affects the hobbies the young choose in 2 ways: first, well-to-do families are usually more liberal, offering their children a higher degree of freedom. Second, having enough money, the people might afford more expensive options for their free time.
The question "how young Iranians spend their free time" seems to be the an important one whose answer would cover other questions to an extent, thus I would try to provide a comprehensive answer for it, and then briefly answer other questions.

*****

How do young people spend their free time in Iran?
A: National TV
Iranians are obsessed with TV. Official statistics reveal that some serials, including drama and especially comedy serials (which are usually planned for 90 episodes and broadcast every night during a full season), attract 60% of the population. Iran's National TV broadcasts 6 channels in the national level, a recently launched English News Satellite Channel (called PressTV), in addition to some provinces broadcasting provincial channels.
6 national channels are called: Channel One (general), Channel Two (general), Channel Three (mainly focusing on Youth and Sports), Channel Four (with a scientific-cultural focus, sometimes broadcasts original English documentaries of BBC and other famous channels), News Channel (24/7 news channel), and Quran Channel. Channel Three is perhaps the most interesting one to the youth.
B: Satellite Channels
In spite of satellite receivers being legally banned, the regime seems reluctant to crack down those who exploit satellite receivers. Some non-official reports indicate that in metropolitan areas, up to 40% of households have access to satellite channels. 10 years ago, 'satellite receiver' was supposed 'evil' by most of Iranians, but today people are somehow used to it.
Let's classify satellite channels in two classes: Persian channels, and non-Persian channels.
With regards to Persian satellite channels, most of them are Political ones launched to oppose Iran's regime, but they can not compete with National TV, thus fail to attract a fair amount of viewers. In addition to political ones, there are some other channels such as PMC (Persian Music Channel) which are dedicated to broadcasting music clips. Since such clips are banned in National TV, PMC has turned into one of the most favorite channels of Iranians.
With regards to the other class, in Iran, English is ranked above other foreign languages in terms of the number of people who try any second language. In addition, English is a compulsory part of schools curriculum since 7th grade. An average Iranian, however, is not familiar with English enough to take advantage of English satellite channels. Then, the only foreign satellite channels interesting to Iranians are porno, fashion and wild life ones.
C: Internet
The youth are eager to break the mold and cross the boundaries set by either the traditional society or the regime. The public atmosphere, however, is not ready to cope with the youth who might allegedly betray the very values of the nation. Therefore, the youth resort to private atmosphere so as to satisfy their needs.
Internet is a good example of such private worlds. One might easily find out that the cyber Iran is far different from, and probably not comparable with the real Iran. In a western country, web is generally supposed to facilitate the real life. But to the young Iranians, web brings a far different meaning: it is supposed to help the youth get rid off the real life and its limitations.
What do I mean by 'limitations of real life'? Dress code, boys-girls relations, porn, fashion, etc. are some examples of these limitations, but the real limitation is far more general than these examples. Some sociologists believe that there is a wide gap between first generations of post-revolution Iran and today generation, i.e. Iran has experienced a kind of rapid cultural shift, and the new generation finds it difficult to express itself in the real world dominated and ruled over by old generations. Therefore, it seeks to express itself in the cyber world. Between all various web features, 'chat' and 'weblog' are the most interesting ones to young Iranians. Due to these reasons, café-nets (originally cafés providing internet services along with coffee and tea, but today only internet providers) have mushroomed in big cities.
D: Cafés
There are two kinds of cafés in Iran: traditional and modern. Modern cafés are almost similar to European cafés, serving various kinds of non-alcoholic drinks (coffee, tea, soft drinks, lemonade), foods (pizza, vegetarian dish, snack), cakes (fruit, caramel, chocolate cakes), etc. On the other hand, traditional cafés serve just tea, Qalyan (water pipe: a kind of traditional Iranian smoke) and few traditional foods. Generally speaking, traditional cafés are cheaper and attract more young Iranians.
E: Parks, Mountain Parks
Parks are also a well-known destination for the youth. In addition, some nearby mountains are equipped to serve as a park: camps, rest rooms, barbecues, play grounds, etc.
In addition, in almost all of the big cities, some parks are dedicated to women so that they can freely spend their time while not being forced to wear Hijab (Islamic dress code). In these parks they are allowed to practice some activities which would be considered indecent otherwise, such as sun bathing.
F: Parties
Young people frequently arrange parties, but the scale and type of the party depends on several factors. Single-sex parties, including just boys or girls, often for birthdays, may be held very easily and families get along with them. But if some are to invite both girls and boys, or include alcoholic drinks, they have to accomplish some problems. Most important of all, police forces crack down such parties if they happen to include drugs or sex, or if the neighbors complain about.
G: Educational Programs
Several institutes offer educational programs, including language, computer, art and occupational courses. Young people, especially girls, express a lot of interest to these programs and choose them for their own free time.
H: Trips
Trips are possible from 1-day journeys to 1-week or even more ones. For religious people, some holy mosques or the graves of saints constitute a suitable option. Wealthy families usually own gardens out of the city, or villas in the coast of the sea, and spending a day or night in them is a common choice.
It should be noted that some certain areas in the coast are dedicated to women so that they have fun freely.
I: Sport
In addition to specialized clubs, many areas and parks have chess tables, skate grounds, ping pong tables, etc. Billiard clubs are also a luxury option. Swimming pools are available with some hours booked for women.
Virtually, almost all kinds of sports are available to young Iranians. But it should be noted that as expected, girls are supposed to submit to dress/moral code. This code, however, is not a definite one throughout the nation. For example, though people in bigger cities are getting used to girls biking for fun or transportation, smaller cities are less likely to observe the girls doing the same stuff.
J: Hanging Out
Just do it!

Traditions, to abandon them or not... that is the question!

2008-03-22T07:22:00.000-07:00

Foreword:
Few days ago, an Iranian blogger posted something about the 'useless', 'baseless' or even 'harmful' traditions in eastern societies, comparing a tradition of Sri Lankan people with a mostly Muslim one. I commented on that post. Today, Rasha, an author in Mideastyouth, posted something about traditions. Here is my comment to Rasha's post, which is relevant to that Iranian blogger's post as well.

*****

Lets suppose that there is a tradition which is of no certain 'practical' use today, yet it does no harm to our cause as intellectuals, i.e. our common sense does not rule it out (as Nissim would argue). Do we have to set it aside?

Though some of the traditions, such as honor killing, are against the very essence of reason, some others have been of some use in the old times and nowadays play a symbolic role. For example, Iranians usually sprinkle a cup of water behind the pilgrim or the beloved one who is about to leave the city. The roots of this tradition back to the ancient Iran, when Persians used to worship several goddesses, one of which was Mitra, the goddess of Water; and this 'water' would be to request Mitra to support and protect the passenger. Yet, over centuries, several other features were added to this tradition: we put some flowers in the cup, as a symbol of nature and freshness; we put a mirror by the cup of water, in which the passenger would look and is a symbol of meditation; and else.

Such symbols play two important roles: first, to remember us of the past; Second, to differentiate our culture from that of others.

With regards to the second role, I'm not about to put a positive value on what we do or what we are as Iranians... I'm just saying that in the age of Globalization, keeping such symbolic traditions shields us against cultural globalization, which often translates into aggressive Americanization that is aimed at eliminating cultural diversity, whether deliberately or not.

By the way, I would agree with Rasha's main idea that one should investigate these traditions so as to ensure that they are not a barrier to the way of progress. I just wanted to emphasize on the role of neutral traditions.

Who is Iran's Obama?

2008-03-17T08:09:00.000-07:00

Foreword:

Shahrvand Emroz (Today Citizen) is the only Iranian weekly dedicated to reformist cause, and probably the most professional journal of today Iran.
Mohammad Ghouchani, chief editor of Shahrvand Emroz, is a popular columnist as well as a well-known reformist figure whose articles attract a lot of attention from almost all political parties in Iran. Here is a translation of last part of his editorial in the last published volume of Shahrvand Emroz, entitled 'Who is Iran's Obama?'
Interestingly, most of Iranians have a high opinion of Obama. Conservatives compare Ahamdinejad to Obama, a comparison which is not that irrelevant, especially in terms of utopian promises and slogans. On the other hand, reformists think of Obama as a reformist figure. By the way, it seems that, to Iranians, black Obama means more of a utopia; and probably a lost utopia.

*****

Who is Iran's Obama?
In the age we are going to embrace, every nation should seek for its own Obama: professional, fulltime politicians whose only preoccupation is politics, who are not afraid of [political] defeat, and who know very well how to play in the political system while being ready to break [ill-defined] structures [if necessary]. There are some prominent political figures who play a good game within the current structure, but their ambition is so limited. [On the other hand,] there are many ambitious figures who fail to follow the rules of the game. Obama [even] if got to surrender to Hillary Clinton, will not ever revolt against his party. And even if got to lose the election to McCain, will not revolt against the whole system.
America has never committed anything more notorious than what she did in Vietnam, yet Vietnam veterans are still the super-heroes of Americans. This by no measure means that Americans respect a bunch of war criminals; rather they oppose the military policy of their administration while defending their [patriot] representatives, i.e. their soldier (not their chief of staff). This sweet contradiction is what leads the democrat, anti-war Hollywood to ask US soldiers in Iraq to announce the final results of Oscar 2008, though directors of US movie industry [generally] oppose the Iraq war.
In countries such as Iran, one needs 'Medals' of national honor so as to be able to enter the political ground. This phenomenon is not unique to Iran. John Kerry and McCain are also veterans. If being republican or democrat translates into being loyal to the US Revolution and Constitution in US, being Conservative or Reformist translates into being faithful to Iranian Revolution and constitution in Iran. If being a Vietnam or WWII veteran is of a high importance in US, fighting Iraqi army is supposed to be important in Iran.
Iran, 30 years after its revolution, observes a generation who has not fully experienced the Revolution and War. Young democrats in US are of a similar position. Obama, from this new generation, finds his way into the political ground; the generation which should offer its respect to the Revolution, War and Republic, though in order to prove its political qualifications, it needs something more than just its political resume.
By the way, Iranian conservatives have surprisingly found their George Bush; and now, it is Reformists' turn to find their Obama. We have a full year (*) to find this 'Iranian Obama'.

(*): 15 months are left to Iran's next presidential election.

Thousands of billions of US$ for war on terror...

2008-03-12T23:43:00.000-07:00

George W. Bush has spent thousands of billions of dollars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but terrorism still exists if not gotten stronger. I'm wondering what would have been likely to happen if US administration had spent this huge amount of money in constructive projects so as to bring some hope to the region? I'm not saying that this alternative could have made it impossible for Bin Ladans to rise again, but it could have eliminated the support ('market share' of public opinions) they enjoy today. George Bush adopted a counter productive strategy, I think.

Iran-US direct talks... how US generals think of it?

2008-03-10T05:45:00.000-07:00

Today Pentagon Channel broadcast a briefing in Iraq in which two US generals were answering media correspondents. One of the Arab reporters asked US generals of the next round of security talks with Iran on Iraq issues, and the general responded: "that is not a dialogue between US and Iran; rather it is a direct talk between Iraqis and their Iranian counterparts and we participate in it trying to elaborate for Iranians how they could help Iraqis in security issues."

Note:
Pentagon Channel
Hotbird, Frequency: 11096000, Horizontal, Symbol Rate: 28000

The man who had no weak point

2008-02-21T01:25:00.000-08:00

Imad Mughnieh got killed; the man who, according to David Barkay (a former major in unit 504 of Israeli military intelligence who was in charge of Mughniyeh’s file), had “no weak points, no women, money, drugs – nothing” to endanger him.

I don’t know how he got trapped or who won the sum of US$25 million dedicated to his head (dead or alive) by FBI. Israel denies responsibility, though there are some evidences which suggest that this regime might have been a determinant to the attack, including the number of ‘Israel’s enemies’ killed by car bombing since Dagan was appointed to direct Mossad in 2002. Hizbollah vows to retaliate and promises ‘an open war’ if Israelis are eager to embrace this kind of war.

I wonder what would have been likely to happen if (late?) Sharon had been assassinated in New York with Hizbollah denying responsibility. Not so hard to imagine the consequences of such an event when we consider that Israel devastated a country in response to so-called kidnapping of two of her soldiers by a movement which fights a legally-defined occupation, whatever the intentions of that group.

Iran determined to fight AIDS

2008-02-08T22:57:00.000-08:00

Dr. Mohammad Reza Jahani, Vice President of 'Committee to Counteract Drugs', announced that two condom machines would be installed in poor districts of Tehran. These machines would serve sterile syringe as well.

Multiple use of the same syringe is believed to be number one cause of AIDS infection between drug addicts. Beforehand, sterile syringes were to be distributed in prisons where drug addicts used to share one syringe. This is part of a comprehensive effort to fight AIDS. This effort included a plan to produce introductory materials for high school students, describing AIDS and ways to avoid HIV infection. Use of condom was introduced to students as well, and Ayatollahs in Qom (the city located in south of Tehran and home to the most powerful and conservative Shiite clergies) appeared to be approving of the plan.

Dr. Mohammad Reza Jahani added that Iran is the main route of drug smugglers transporting opiates from Afghanistan (number one producer of opium) to Mideast, Turkey and Europe, and this fact contributes to the higher risk of addiction in Iran.

Source: Isna (Persian)

Period.

His Undeniable Charisma

2008-02-04T00:36:00.000-08:00

No wonder why AFP refers to his undeniable charisma (Click for source of pic).

*****

Footnote:
Ahmadinejad, during nearly 3 years of his presidency, failed to fulfill some of his well-known slogans, such as those mentioned by Elinor. One might even doubt if he really were determined to do some of those slogans, i.e. they were just some slogans to win the election.

But, it's worth noting that Ahmadinejad distributed a very huge amount of money between people, a fair part of it distributed in non-metropolitan populations; this would lead to a short-term convenience for people though followed by a long-term inflation. He built (or at least began to build) several hospitals in small cities which have been mostly neglected areas during previous administrations; he paid visit to almost every part of this country, while some of these people have not ever graced to meet a provincial governor during previous administrations; to conclude, he has done several things (either real action or just propaganda) to win the hearts of the people out of metropolises… and, to my knowledge, he has been successful to reap some short-run benefits (in the terms of increased popularity and else) in the expense of long-run national benefits (for example, during his current term, the amount of money in this country got almost doubled, an unprecedented event which will cause a great damage to the economy of this country in the coming years).

Matter and Mind

2008-01-26T07:29:00.000-08:00

One of the most important barriers to the way of democracy (i.e. a kind of democracy developed by the society itself, not that kind of Instant Democracy claimed by US) in Iran is that several advocates of Civil Society & Democracy bear such a suffering background which not only makes a fair part of people (especially intelligentsia) suspicious of them, but also undermines efforts of sincere activist who honestly swear by Democracy.

Their suffering background might be classified in 3 important categories: Economic Corruption, Political Corruption, and Moral Corruption. Surely I'm not saying that corruption is the exclusive attribute of democratic movements in Iran, and do admit that all those three kinds of corruption might be found in other parts of the political movements/parties as well. But here I want to elaborate why some people have every right to think that Democracy is just a slogan exploited by some groups to fulfill their (possibly illegitimate) goals.

(I) Economic Corruption (both perceived and real)
In a society whose people suffer disastrous unemployment and growing inflation, and very often it happens that 'breadwinner' loses its very meaning since the worker does not earn enough to cover the interest of his debts leave alone bringing some bread to the household, Economic Corruption (not only real corruption, but also perceived one) is the most important determinant of shame. (Remember Confucius: "In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of.")
Liberalization of Economy during Rafsanjani administration, followed by reformist Khatami who had a bunch of Right Wingers as the theorists of his economic strategy, led to a wider gap of poor-rich which made many people believe that "Some corrupt hands are exploiting our natural resources (most importantly, Oil Revenues)."
Many rumors about the wealth gathered by some officials, as well as evidences indicating unbelievable amount of money some others grabbed (such as luxury home of Karbaschi, former mayor of Tehran and a close buddy of Rafsanjani) set the scene for Ahmadinejad's election. Ahmadinejad, compared his house with that of Karbaschi in several occasions as well as his TV campaigns, telling the people that "I'm not that corrupt."
Note that though some exceptions do exist, most of the clergymen still live a simple and low-level life following the tradition of Grand Ayatollahs. For example, Ayatollah Khomeini, founder of Islamic Revolution, rented a house in Tehran in his return to Iran, and lived there till his death. This might be indicative of clergies' fair understanding of an issue directly associated with their popularity.

(II) Political Corruption
You claim something and your resume shows the opposite; isn’t it enough to believe that you are a liar?
Example: some of the prominent figures of democratic movement had been previously engaged in allegedly abusive activities related to Intelligence Ministry. Akbar Ganji, known to the world since going on hunger strike few years ago in an objection to his prison term, and a prominent democrat activist now touring Europe and America in a cheap political show, is a good example. He had been a high ranking official of the Ministry, and some say that reintroduction of some old methods of torture in hidden prisons is associated with this man.

(III) Moral Corruption
In the over-traditional society of Iran, having an affair with many mistresses has been enough to end the political life of some well-known figures and isolate them forever!

With regards to current democratic movement in Iran, let me say: "Those who matter don’t mind, those who mind do not matter."

Full Stop.

Supreme Leader supports Parliament in dispute with Ahmadinejad over a bill

2008-01-21T06:12:00.000-08:00

Iran's parliamentary procedure requires each bill passed by MPs to be submitted to Guardian Council, which consists of several Ayatollahs as well as lawyers, and its approval is a must for enacting the bill of interest. This council checks every bill to be consistent with both Constitution and Islamic Jurisprudence. Approved by Guardian Council, President is legally required to implement the bill.

Last week, in an unprecedented event, Ahmadinejad rejected the approved bill and sent a letter to Iran's Parliament Speaker, Gholamali Haddad Adel, informing the parliament that 'the bill passed by parliament is in conflict with Constitution', implying that he would refuse to implement it.

Therefore, Parliament Speaker sent a letter to Supreme Leader and asked of his opinion or decree in this case. Supreme Leader's office informed the parliament of His final say: The government must follow parliament's bills.

*****

Moral Result: Probably Iran's Supreme Leader is going to set a line between him and radical administration of Ahmadinejad.

Abolfazl Sepehr

2008-01-20T16:11:00.000-08:00

Due to the respect every Iranian feels obliged to offer to the Martyrs of Imposed War, who sacrificed their lives to protect our country against tyrants, and thanks to Pichak who introduced these files, I suggest you to download and listen to these media of Abolfazl Sepehr (persian narration)...

File 01

File 02

File 03

File 04
File 05
File 06

File 07 (Unknown Soldier... very sad)

Ashoora

2008-01-18T14:47:00.000-08:00

In the first 10 days of Muharram (1st month of the Islamic Lunar Calendar), we (Shia/Shiite Muslims) mourn over the martyrdom of our 3rd Imam, Hussain Ibn Ali (peace be upon him). His martyrdom took place about 60 years after the death of Holy Prophet, in the desert of Karbala (today, in Iraq), on the 10th day of Muharram which is known as Ashoora. Today, is Ashoora.

Creative Cartoons

2008-01-10T14:40:00.000-08:00

A very busy schedule in addition to a one week vacation to Mash'had, caused this stop in posting new things here. To my own surprise, I'm still alive!

*****

If you are interested in some creative cartoons, here is an option: Claybennett Cartoons! I would be eager to suggest you to take a look at these ones:

Mideast Conflict (above)

Welfare Programs vs. Welfare

Invasion Checklist

Bush Perspective

Security

a New Revolution; is it feasible?

2007-12-23T12:25:00.000-08:00

Following a post in MEY, a series of comments were exchanged that one of them is worthy of being posted here.

Eric said:

There are some fundamental questions regarding fomenting a “new revolution” that will see overthrowing the existing regime in Iran. Since the actual rulers of Iran currently are religious figures, would these revolutionaries overthrow them? Is there that much of a secular-minded movement existing in Iran, and if not, could it even come into being? Would the armed forces support such an uprising? It would be natural for the current regime to accuse any serious movement of this type of being agents of the US and Israel. How would such a movement refute these accusations, and could it survive them?

And, here is my answer:

*****

These are some answers to your questions, obviously based on my experience of this society, and not necessarily true answers or applicable to the society as a whole.

Since the actual rulers of Iran currently are religious figures, would these revolutionaries overthrow them?

If you mean denouncing the religion itself, the answer is this: Absolutely No. today there are some new trends of religious life (close to mysticism and etc.) on rise between some youth, which shows that people are still bonded over religion, though they might hate the political (ab)use of it.
If you mean removing religious figures from power, that is an option, and another option is finding some moderate religious figures… suppose that a sudden regime change happens in Iran; do not get surprised if you read some day in news headlines that ‘Khatami: new president of Iran’ (Khatami: reformist president before Ahmadinejad)!!

Is there that much of a secular-minded movement existing in Iran, and if not, could it even come into being?

Iranians, even some devout ones, are increasingly getting used to a new model of religious life which saves the religion in private and follows social norms in the public. if you call it a ’secular-minded’ movement, yeah! Congratulations! That is happening!
But this movement is almost based on personal experiences, not on some social or philosophical grounds. The ‘personal experiences’ of the people are converging to the point of secularism: they feel that it is better to let everybody live his/her preferred life.

Would the armed forces support such an uprising?

Not, at all. Two major parts of armed forces are: Artesh (classic army) and Sepah (Revolutionary Guards). The latter is a fanatic supporter of Regime, in all levels of its employees (anyone to enter Guards should pass several examinations, and a full investigation would be done to ensure that he is also a fanatic supporter of the regime). Sepah, as well as country’s ministry of intelligence, enjoys a supervisory role over Artesh.

It would be natural for the current regime to accuse any serious movement of this type of being agents of the US and Israel. How would such a movement refute these accusations, and could it survive them?

People usually don't care much about these matters, I think. Its very usual to hear a sentence like ‘God may forgive Shah, he was a better ruler’ from everyone who faces/hears a trouble somewhere in this country (troubles ranging from getting a permission from municipality to the holes of the roads, to the price of bread, to the earthquake news, to weather forecast!), and that means that people would embrace every person (even Shah) who might help them make a better life.

Controlled Torture: American style of Interrogation

2007-12-07T08:55:00.000-08:00

A series of blows to Bush administration happened during the past week. In the last one, Washington Post and Guardian reported that CIA destroyed videotapes showing use of harsh interrogation techniques, including Waterboarding (simulating drowning), against Al-Qaida suspects. Here is the beginning and the end of Guardian’s article:

The CIA destroyed video evidence of the coercive interrogation of al-Qaida operatives held under its secret rendition programme in order to shield agents from prosecution, it was revealed yesterday. The decision to destroy two videotapes documenting the use of waterboarding against Abu Zubaydah and another high value al-Qaida detainee was made in November 2005 - as American media were just beginning to focus on the existence of the secret CIA prison network... The footage would have clarified what practices such as waterboarding and sleep deprivation - both of which a gravely wounded Abu Zubaydah was subjected to - involve.

Another daily calls it ‘Simulating drowning in a controlled environment’! I don’t know how exactly they practice it, but let’s assume that they use supercomputers to control the amount of water which enters the lungs of the accused person. Then, if the person dies due to a bug in the programs coded to control the process, that would be just an accident, yes?

Also, I think that ‘amputation in controlled environment’ is not much different from ‘simulating drowning’: “let’s cut some fingers, and then order professional medical stuff to repair it.” Whatever reason they suggest to justify Waterboarding, one might use that very reason to justify Controlled Amputation.

What about rape? Less painful and more productive.

UN should pass a resolution to set limits for being shameless, I believe.

“States of the Arabian Gulf” or “Arabian States of the Gulf”... That’s the question!

2007-12-06T05:59:00.000-08:00

(1)
The cultural heritage of Persia, both before Islam (as an Empire) and after it (as an important actor in the Golden Age of Islam), means a lot to Iranians. Indeed, that is a part of their (i.e. our) ego... and a source of conflict, as well.

(2)
In the context of philosophy of language, professors usually emphasize on the semantic value of the names. In that way, ‘name’ is just a sign used to refer to an object. But psychologists’ rule of thumb is this: The more important the (role of the) object (in the life of the person), the stronger the (psychological) effect of its name.

(3)
A person (usually) inherits his father’s family name. Sometimes it happens that Mr. X is eager to change his family name to Mr. Y. If Y is not taken yet, Mr. X may freely take it here in Iran. But if there is another family using Y as their family name, Mr. X should get their permission (from the oldest person of that family) to be able to legally change his family name to Y. This example might show how we (as Iranians) are bonded over names which belong to us.

(4)
‘Persian Gulf’ might be just a name which locates a place on the map, but it means part of the heritage of Persian Empire to Iranians. Therefore it is a very sensitive issue, here in Iran... and a source of conflict, as well. It was not a long time ago when National Geographic used ‘Arabian Gulf’ for this piece of water, and Iranians got united, at least in the cyber world, to change the mind of that magazine’s directors. This name, Persian Gulf, has turned into a national symbol of Iranians. Many Iranians believe that there are some hands which try to change this name... and whoever tries to change this name or supports any other name, is supposed to be betraying Iranians’ culture and history.

(5)
Few days ago, President Ahmadinejad participated in a meeting with some Arab leaders. What made this event a very important one for Iranians was a board in the meeting’s room, on which an Arabic sentence was written: “مجلس التعاون لدول الخليج العربيه”. At the early moments of the event, many people were misinformed that this sentence meant “Cooperation council of the states of Arabian Gulf”, and a very strong wave of criticism surrounded Ahmadinejad and his administration. Many people said that he shouldn’t participate in the meeting, and even some of his enemies accused him of neglecting Iranians national symbols and pride. But, after a while, the true translation of that sentence was published, which calmed people: “Cooperation council of Arab states of the Gulf”. ‘Persian Gulf’ is still untouched or at least less-touched, many believe.

(6)
Ahmadinejad was lucky, very lucky. Participating in a meeting bearing ‘Arabian Gulf’ name was more than enough for many Iranians to run several rounds of demonstrations against him. But, if the true name of the meeting was ‘Arabian Gulf’, could he avoid participating in it? I don’t think so. I even doubt if he could feel the danger.

Got a problem? Send a letter to Ahmadinejad.

2007-12-01T23:18:00.000-08:00

Nobody expects bureaucracies, especially in developing countries, to work in an ideal manner. When it fails to fulfill its duties, you might resort to the high ranking chiefs as the last possible option. When somebody goes directly to the headquarter to complain and ask for help, a responsible chief should be careful not to undermine the whole system but to use this opportunity to identify holes within the system and repair them. He might sometimes intervene in the process to solve a problem individually, but that must not turn into a common practice. A by-product of this act might be increased popularity of the chief and increasing number of those who directly go to headquarter before trying other options. A stupid chief would let this positive-feedback continue until the whole destruction of system. And Ahmadinejad is obsessed with this dumb idea.

As the mayor of Tehran, he practiced direct-talks-with-people over and over. In these direct talks, people could communicate their problems. And he used to order resolving the problem. Since such orders were usually in the form of writing these things in the margins of the very page a direct-talker brought to his office and finally signing the page, it was briefly known as ‘signing’. Many people warned in that period of time that a chief should remain a chief, not to turn into a ‘signature machine’.

Assuming power 2 and half a year ago, he, aware of the positive consequences of these acts in terms of popularity and more power, continued the practice. In every visit he paid to different provinces, hundreds of thousands of letters were sent to the president, asking him for help. Many people ask for financial support, and very often it happens that they receive a reply from president’s office with about 50$. Since the president is not able to support all his people, such helps are insufficient in amount and random in frequency.

A very good example which shows the deficiency of this practice happened when he was to enter a stadium to give a speech. Before getting there, a disabled person on wheelchair, apparently a causality of Iran-Iraq war, asked the president for help. He needed a car and Ahamadinejad instantly ordered to give him a car. He entered the stadium, offered the speech, but before getting out of that place some of his guards told him that many other casualties are waiting outside the door to ask president for brand new cars... and Ahmadinejad escaped from an emergency door.

Recent developments: Hamed Talebi, a reporter who follows Ahmadinejad closely, reports that if you go near presidential palace these days, you will see some professionals who have pen and blank papers and can write a very good letter for you, a letter which provokes Ahmadinejad enough to solve your problem. At least, this has provided some new jobs for the jobless... got a problem? Send a letter to Ahmadinejad!

On the history of Hijab/Hijab Crackdowns in Iran

2007-11-27T10:16:00.000-08:00

Introduction:
A friend of mine asked of some details of Hijab story in Iran. This post was developed as an answer to that question.

*****

Many decades ago, when the first Shah of Pahlavi Dynasty was in power, a ‘Compulsory De-veiling’ was put on the official cultural agenda. That Shah made it an obligatory duty for every woman to leave Chador (Iranians traditional Islamic Hijab) aside and ‘become modern woman’. That was not a successful strategy: the very traditional society of then Iran resisted it.

The second Pahlavi (the famous Shah you have heard of, who was a strong ally of US and suffered the Islamic Revolution) made a better choice: step by step cultural changes, through showing a new modern model of life which included many symbols of American Dream. Cinema and other propaganda tools helped that thing happen quicker. It was an effective strategy, and during a period of about 2 decades, majority of people either gave up on strict traditions or at least got used to a new model of life which tolerated those who did not follow strict Islamic codes. It doesn’t mean, however, that traditionalists and fanatics were rooted out: they did exist, but enjoyed almost no power. It is still kind of a surprise to me to see how many un-veiled women participated in those pre-revolution demonstrations against Shah.

After the Islamic revolution overthrew Shah Regime, a wave of Islamization raged the country. A Revolution, even the Iranian Revolution which succeeded with not so much slaughter and murder, is a chaos in the first place: Revolution tries to restructure the whole social order, and therefore causes a transient situation to happen in which time there might be a temporary dominant order shaped by revolutionary caused or else. Whatever the origins of that revolution were, during the final stages of Shah Regime and early stages of post-revolution acts, it turned into an Islamic one. The masses expected Islam to bring a full-scale justice to their society, and Islamic Values happened to play the dominant role in that period of time.

But I do strongly believe that the same way first Pahlavi failed to force people to give up on Islamic Values, Islamic Regime also failed to convince people to accept strict Islamic Values. With regards to those un-veiled women who demonstrated against Shah, the revolution didn’t convince them to embrace Islamic Codes; it just forced them to do so. And in the case of social changes, force just makes a petty transient change, if any.

When Saddam attacked Iran, officials had to urge people to go to fronts (you know, ‘human waves’ were the most effective weapon Iran had against Iraq’s modern army), and deploying religious intentions was the best way to do so: some Islamic values such as martyrdom and sacrifice were exalted. What supplemented this official agenda was the fact that Iranians were not ready to treat Saddam’s army the same way the French treated Germans. Patriotism and Islamization got correlated. Then, a second wave of Islamization happened to intensify the first (originally revolutionary) wave.

End of that war and the death of Ayatollah Khomeini (the very charismatic leader of revolution) coincided. Hashemi Rafsanjani became the president and a wave of Liberalization happened in the name of Reconstruction. Take a look at my other weblog post: “Post-war presidents of Iran”. 8 years of liberalization, followed by 8 years of political reformism, and then the surprising election of Ahmadinejad happened to influence all equations.

In that 16-years-period of Liberalization and Political Reformism, some new freedoms were awarded to people. Those freedoms were more culturally than politically, and Hijab turned into a symbol of change. Some people, especially some youth, tried not to obey Strict Hijab Codes: long coats women sometimes wear in Iran instead of Chador got smaller and smaller, tighter and tighter, and some new colors replaced the black and dark colors which traditional and religious women usually prefer to use. Those who do not wear a complete Hijab are called Bad-Hijab.

But, as pointed above, it didn’t mean that traditionalists and fanatics didn’t have any share of Iranian society. Some wild guesses (from the statistics obtained in different elections) might suggest that roughly 10% of people are loyal to traditional and strict values. And their representatives and political parties dedicated to fanatics enjoy a much bigger share of political power in Iran. Those liberal-minded officials, who preferred a more liberal society, had to sometimes take some actions to satisfy these fanatic groups. As the ‘fashion’ & ‘leaving Hijab aside’ turned into symbols of cultural change (especially within youth), seasonal Hijab crackdowns (forcing people, especially girls, to follow stricter codes) turned into something usual. These crackdowns are:
(1) Seasonal: they happen in spring and summer, when girls want to adjust their clothing to hot weather!
(2) Limited to big cities.
(3) Not so harsh: such actions usually include just oral instruction, and in some cases temporary detentions. When somebody is arrested, a close kin (father, etc.) should go to police station and the person as well as that kin should sign a paper which says they would never violate regulations anymore.
(4) Random: these crackdowns are not continuous and do not cover all parts of the city in the same time. Police officers usually choose few locations to run the action, for example some crowded squares or malls, randomly choose some bad-Hijab people and do it.

In some extreme cases, if the arrested person violently resists officers or is too-bad-Hijab, they could be introduced to courts. But the spokesman of Iran’s Judiciary System publicly announced that there are no laws requiring any punishment for bad-Hijab people who are not too-bad-dressed.

Ahmadinejad unexpectedly assumed about two years ago. Though masses generally voted in his favor seeking financial benefits and cutting the perceived corrupt hands which supposedly exploit country’s resources, his election helped fanatics get the upper hand (albeit not the final say). The cultural consequences of his election to some extent appeared in web-filtering, cinema and dailies’ censorship and a harder Hijab Crackdown. But new round of crackdowns was just a bit harder than previous experiences, not so much. I saw some clips published on web about a woman with blood all over her face who was injured by some police officers. Yes, that is true, but I think it was not done deliberately.

Generally, I think that officials are well aware that in current situation, with regards to foreign pressures as well as internal problems (including high rate of unemployment and inflation, which grew worse during past years despite the highest oil revenues of whole history), any harsh pressing in this case might cause full scale chaos, which might threaten the very existence of Islamic Republic regime.

I invite you to visit this report... such things are still ongoing behind (and even sometimes in front of) the scene.
“The children of the revolution: Young Iranians are pushing for change”

Experimental Sciences and the Existence of God

2007-11-21T04:16:00.000-08:00

Note: some philosophical debates included here.

‘Who is God’ was a post in MEY, of that author, Nissim, who is trying to make a practical use of Common Sense in order to make the world a bit better. As usual, this big phenomenon called God, stimulated many people to comment on the subject, both Atheists and Theists... and again I failed to keep myself from the discussion.

In such debates, it is very common for people to ask/wonder if there is a ‘Proof’ for the existence of God. Honestly, I don’t know if there is such a flawless proof. But, besides my obsession about Incompleteness Theorem of Kurt Gödel (footnote), I want to share another point here: Experimental Sciences are inherently unable to prove anything.

When a guess about the function of an observable phenomenon happens to explain it better than other guesses, it turns into a theory. But this theory (a) neither ensures prediction of future experiences, and (b) nor is able to prove that it is the best possible guess. The latter (b) means that probably we may find out later that this theory has already failed to cover some aspects of past occurrences neglected in out first assessment of the phenomenon and the guess related to it. And the former (a) translates into the fact that we can never gather all the causes which might influence phenomenon.

Then, what do Experimental Sciences do? They provide evidences for us to conclude what is more likely to be true. Since examples usually make a better sense, let me say that: using all those Mechanic Theories, some engineers fabricate an airplane and say: “as we know, this device is more likely to fly if guided in a proper way, and will land safely if directed by an experienced pilot. But for sure, nobody has ever guaranteed that it would work, for there are lots of already unknown causes which might affect the behavior of this device and let it fail.” This statement is obviously from a deterministic point of view, from that point which believes every effect has a cause. Those who do not believe in causality as a universal rule, they have a much harder time speaking about the probability of something, for probability is only valid when causality is considered a rule.

One might argue: “yeah, one day we may be able to conclude all possible causes, and that day, we may prove Experimental Theories: Since we know all the possible causes, we may exactly predict the next stage or behavior of every conceivable phenomenon, and that is called Proof.” But an answer is that if some possible causes decide not to reveal themselves to us (whatever the reason), we can never conclude them. Therefore they are able to return/appear at any given time, influence current phenomena and consequently theories, and refute them.

Finally, seeking for an Experimental Proof for anything (including the existence of God)... that is called Mission Impossible.

Footnote: Incompleteness Theorem of Kurt Gödel states that in every system of logics, there is at least one true statement which will never be proved; also, there is at least one false statement, which may never be refuted.

God, Modern Science and our understanding

2007-11-20T03:07:00.000-08:00

Another debate happened about God, in which Omid, in order to show our weakness in understanding the God's nature, referenced to a famous example: Box example.

Imagine you are in a box. You want to believe there is something outside the box. You do believe it... But all your conclusions and theories are based off what you know, and all of what you know is based on your experiences in the box. So the tools you use to quantify something outside the box are inherently futile.

Appatently, the above comment has something to do with science... and here is my comment to that of Omid:

I enjoy the way you get into discussion; it bears an evidence of your academic thinking. About your comment: with regards to the famous example of Box, you are to an extent true and to another extent wrong.Firstly, you are right. Modern science, following its very essence which takes into account just observable phenomena, has nothing to do with those possible objects which may do exist outside of Box. Pay attention that ‘observable’ is equal to ‘measurable’ in this sense, and when a thing is not measurable, that is out of the league of practical sciences. ‘Pain’ is a good example: very observable, but not subject to a quality measurement. (Reference: “Developing Nursing Knowledge: Philosophical Traditions and Influences” by Beth Rodgers => Chapter 5)Secondly: you are wrong. Before going a step further, pay attention to the fact that there are 2 general grounds of results derived from science: Synthetic and Analytic. Without getting into the complicated glossary of philosophers, let’s suppose that some of these results are based on experience and some of them are not based on experience.About that part of the results which are based on our experience, there is an extensive debate that whether they do apply to objects outside of the Box or not. Following the skepticism of Hume (which reduces Causality to a daily habit, not a rule; etc.) leads to an even worse condition: we may not apply these results to the objects inside of the Box.For those results which are not based on experience and do not bear any limitation, they will apply to any object, whether inside of the Box or outside of it. For an example, check the Incompleteness Theorem of Kurt Gödel.Now, a very important question arises: is modern science capable of setting some limitations on the nature of God? Or, on the other hand, on our understanding of God? That’s the mark, try to hit it!

Ahmadinejad made a new statement/mistake

2007-11-11T22:07:00.000-08:00

In the second round of his provincial visits, Ahmadinejad met the people of Southern Khorasan, East of Iran, and as his usual manner, preached them about the advent of Imam Mahdi, Savior of Shiite tradition. This time, as his usual manner (again), he made a great mistake in choosing the proper words to elaborate what was in his mind. He said:
“The scene is fully set to greet that glorious event; a day in which all the prophets, martyrs and good men will come and help [the savior]. Some people might assume these things just a joke; that is because there is no [real] belief in their hearts: They are modern Satanists and idolaters. They pretend to be intellectuals, but their understanding of the world is less than that of a GOAT.”

Source (for exact words): Farsnews

The End.

Post-war Presidents of Iran

2007-11-09T05:48:00.000-08:00

You may directly go to the Part II of this post, if you are not eager/patient enough to read some details of Iran’s contemporary politics.

Part I: The Story

Few months after Ayatollah Khomeini, late founder of Iranian Revolution, consented to UN Security Council Resolution 598 (which ended Iran-Iraq war), he passed away out of severe illness. Since many prominent figures of Iran’s revolution got assassinated by opposition groups in the early periods of establishment of Islamic Republic, and some other got marginalized during post-revolution events prior to the death of Ayatollah Khomeini, Ayatollah Khamenei (then president of Iran) and Ayatollah Rafsanjani (then parliament speaker of Iran) were the most important active political actors of then Iran. Ayatollah Khamenei was assigned to the leadership of Iran, and Ayatollah Rafsanjani got chosen as president for a 4-years-period. No rivals, no real competition.

Rafsanjani became the president of post-war Iran. He began reconstruction, and after 4 years, people chose him again with a fair vote. Pragmatism was the central part of his general strategy and approach, and technocrats got significant positions in his administration. Rebuilding infrastructures was his number one target, and ‘Dam Building’ turned to the symbol of reconstruction. In the case of cultural and political matters, he usually tried compromise. Limiting the power of extremists was also a part of his agenda, though due to post-war conditions he was not much successful in this case.

According to Iran’s constitution, one is allowed to claim presidency no more than two consecutive terms. Then, after his 2nd term of presidency, a real competition happened. The candidate of so-called traditional parties [i.e. those parties which were closer and more loyal to original values of revolution and the example set by Ayatollah Khomeini], who was believed to be the definite winner, lost the election to reformist candidate.

Khatami, reformist candidate, gathered 20 million and 22 million votes in his 1st and 2nd presidential elections respectively, which meant a significant win. His main promises in either campaign were defending the freedom of speech, establishing rule of law, spreading the influence of people’s vote in different parts of the system, protecting individual freedoms, etc. Many intellectuals believed that Khatami was aimed at helping Iranian society get closer to international community, giving up on some radical slogans which did much harm to the cause of Iran. The core ideology of reformist ideologues was that political reforms constitute the basis of any further reform, either economic or cultural or else.

After Khatami finished his 2 terms of presidency, an exciting competition happened. Many candidates participated, including:
- Ayatollah Hashemi (ex-president), with his well-known resume, also with some modifications in his behavior and slogans supposed to be necessary to attract the youth.
- Dr. Moein, reformist candidate and a key member of Khatami administration, believed to be more decisive and more liberal as a pro-reform actor (compared with Khatami).
- Ayatollah Karrubi, the ex-reformist parliament speaker, known to ordinary people for his famous slogan during presidential campaigns (assigning 50$ monthly to every Iranian, if he could win), and known to intellectuals for his ability to deal with Islamic Regime as a pro-reform actor (usually including compromise).
- Some candidates of so-called traditional parties, including Dr. Ahmadinejad as the most fanatic one.

As expected, none of the candidates could gather more than 50% of votes, extending elections to second round. Ayatollah Hashemi and Dr. Ahmadinejad went to the next round. For the second round, reformists officially supported Ayatollah Hashemi (in spite of all the criticisms they had previously expressed about him) to defeat Ahmadinejad. By the way Hashemi meant ‘lesser of two evils’ to some reformists, and ‘father or even caretaker of reformist movement’ to some other reformists. In an astonishing event, Ahmadinejad got around 13 million votes and Hashemi finished with less than 10 million votes.

Ahmadinejad had promises mainly focused on financial subjects, cutting dirty & corrupt hands which exploit national resources, and bringing the revenues of oil to the (dinner) table of people. He repeatedly stressed out that ‘original revolutionary values must be revived’. In the visits he paid to different provinces before elections, he used to meet war casualties [some of them with sever condition, for example those who were affected by chemical weapons, still live in special wards] as well as graves of the martyrs of Iran-Iraq war. Wearing Chefyeh [i.e. an originally Arabian cloth, similar to a scarf, which people use to cover head and neck in summer in southern provinces of Iran; for the same reason, Iranian soldiers extensively used it during war. After 8 years of Iran-Iraq war, Chefyeh turned into an important symbol of those who had sympathy with the values of war, especially martyrdom] was a straightforward message to all. Whatever the rational of his election, Ahmadinejad marked a significant breakthrough for fanatic supporters of (original values of) revolution.

*****

Part II: Moral Result of Story

Choosing pragmatism/technocracy (Hashemi), political reformism (Khatami) and finally revolutionary extremism (Ahmadinejad)... does it show a drastic change in the way Iranians reason? Not necessarily. I think a simple theory might explain the whole event (at least to an extent): people, in lack of real political parties, resort to every possible option just to make an improvement in their day-to-day life. Note that Iranians don’t care what reformism or extremism might mean to the rest of the world. Unfortunately, they also pay no attention to the by-products of each option [i.e., given that an option makes life better is come ways, other outcomes of it might make life worse in other ways]. This is the first logical conclusion of the whole story. We may even be able to extend this theory to the Revolution itself.

Second logical conclusion might be that Iranians have not found out what is in the root of their problems. In the process of election, people face many important questions, including ‘Is a political reform required to make any further improvement’. Choosing Khatami means ‘yes’, choosing Ahmadinejad means ‘no’, and changing the mind from this to that means ‘I don’t know’.

The third logical conclusion in which I strongly believe is that before establishing full-scale democratic infrastructures (including real political parties) which can guide and manage the political life of the society, granting free-election right to the people might come to be the worst nightmare of the country.

New Scholarships awarded by IRI

2007-11-05T23:49:00.000-08:00

For Iranian Graduates who hold a bachelor or master degree:
As you well know, Ministry of Science, Research and Technology is to choose new candidates for scholarships this department awards every year to some of the outstanding students. As an example set by the previous administrations of Hashemi and Khatami, the ministry is (said) to put the name of some figures closer to the ruling party in the final list of qualified candidates.
Despite the fact that there may be enough evidence approving of the whole story, high ranking officials in the ministry reject such rumors and claim that ‘all those interested may submit their CV through ministry’s website’ and ‘political matters may never affect the result’.
As said above, this is not something unique to the current president, and the story may go back even to the Shah regime, though some people strongly doubt it and claim that scholarships in that period of time were more due to scientific eligibility than this time.
But I strongly urge everybody to submit their CV and also post anything new they know to reveal if the officials are not sincere in their claim.
Do not laugh please; you might think that this would be a complete waste of time, but remember that the history will be based on documents, god willing albeit!

Halal Food

2007-11-02T11:57:00.000-07:00

This post's story is about Revolutionary Guards of Iran. If you are not patient enough to get the point of this post through step by step introduction I set here, you may go directly to part (iv).

*****

(i)
Today, Halal Food (i.e. foods or drinks allowed to be used by Muslims) is to an extent a well known term which belongs to Muslim tradition and means to them what Kosher means to Jews. According to the Islamic jurisprudence, meat obtained from some certain animals is not Halal (including dog, pig, predators, rabbit, etc.). Also alcoholic drinks are not Halal. ‘Not Halal’ in Muslim glossary is equal to ‘Haram’ (i.e. Illegal foods and drinks). Any food which comes into contact with these Haram things would be Haram.
For meat, there are some additional conditions which should be met in order to make the obtained food Halal. For example, Fish is only Halal if it dies out of water. Also a person who kills a Halal animal (like cow, camel, etc.) should follow some certain guidelines: the animal should be killed in the name of God, head of the animal should be directed toward Mecca, etc. No need to mention that water, vegetables (most of them) and things of this kind are considered Halal. Note that if a person is likely to die out of hanger, he may use any kind of food and nothing is forbidden to him anymore.
In addition to Halal and Haram, there are three other kinds of foods: Makruh (i.e. you would better avoid this type of food, though it is not Haram. For example: meat derived from donkey), Mustahab (i.e. you would better use this type of foods, though it is not compulsory. For example: use a little salt before and/or after main dish).
Wait a minute! For sure, I’m not going to describe the details of such Islamic laws in this post. There is another thing I prefer to mention here.

*****

(ii)
As said above, there are four types (or classes) of foods with regards to their origin and/or the way they are processed. This is a very physical approach to food, and as you well know, religions usually consist of metaphysical features as well as their physical aspects. And Islam is not an exception to this rule. Islam invites people to pay attention to the soul of food as well as its body (i.e. ingredients). From the point of Islam, foods with regards to their souls are also categorized in four classes: Mustahab (encouraged), Halal (normal), Makruh (discouraged) and finally Haram (forbidden).
There are many interesting examples in this field. For example, when a cow’s milk is only enough to feed its calf, people are discouraged to use its milk.

*****

(iii)
Sometimes the money (which pays for food) matters, not the food itself. Therefore a food might be physically Halal, but spiritually forbidden because the money used to buy this food was Haram (like whatever things obtained through gambling or usury). Here, income plays an important role, and when we speak of income and money, we must refer to the Economic Policy of Islam.
Though some elements of Islam’s economic policy (for example: forbidding usury and gambling) are well-defined/well-known, its general approach to Economics is somehow vague. Almost every Muslim scholar has his own understanding of the subject. Ayatollah Shahroudi, head of Iran’s judiciary system, says that Islam believes in a Free Market strategy and doesn’t allow government to interfere in market’s internal and inherent mechanisms. Albeit there are some exceptions to this general rule, though these exceptions are very rare. An example of these exceptions is hoarding food in the time of famine. In this case, government might use force (even sword/gun) to feed the people.
According to the Muslim Tradition, a case which makes a food spiritually discouraged is when people are reduced to pay something and food is obtained from that money. An example of this case might be this: somebody is in need of something you have, and you require him to pay double. Ayatollah Memar Montazerin, a popular local clergy in Isfahan (usually those clergies not connected to regime are still much popular in society), adds another example: most of the municipalities’ income is of this kind (people go to get permission to rebuild their homes, and municipality usually requires them to pay a fair amount of money).

*****

(iv)
Few days ago, I met an old friend and he told me a story which came to me as a surprise. He said:

There is a mosque in our neighbor. There is a charity in that mosque and I work there voluntarily few hours each week. We gather donations (either money or food) and help poor neighboring families. It was about 3 years ago that we reorganized the whole office and bought a computer to make the most of our activities.
As you well know, there is a Bassij [i.e. a Militia supervised and supported by Revolutionary Guards] center in every mosque. One year ago, Revolutionary Guard Office of Isfahan announced that it would offer every Bassij center a new modern printer, and they did so. Then, the Bassij office of our mosque gave us that printer they had received: we got a brand new printer, though it was not of a famous trademark.
After 9 months or so, it got broken. There are three or four centers in Isfahan which are dedicated to repairing printers, and we took the printer to one of them. Manager of the center looked at the printer and laughed. We asked why he laughed, and he said: “few months ago, a cargo of electronic devices (including printers and else) was to be smuggled to Iran [i.e. the owner wanted to import them without paying obligatory tax and duty. Iran is very decisive against smugglers]. Naval forces of Revolutionary Guards found the cargo and confiscated it, then distributed the devices in the country, between their local offices and also between some charities! Your printer’s trademark shows that it was a part of that cargo!”

Whatever the reason (even fighting smugglers), this behavior is not Halal. This kind of ‘income’ for a country is at least discouraged, if not forbidden. And, it will spiritually damage the so-called religious regime, I think.

Selling A Vision of Hope

2007-10-29T20:58:00.000-07:00

Nissim Dahan is another good man who is thinking of a solution to solve the mideast conflict. His ideas is following in brief:

Over the past two years, my wife and I founded a project called Selling a Vision of Hope. We like to think of it as a strategy for success in the Middle East, and as a way of promoting peace there. The basic approach includes: Selling a Vision of Hope, Sustaining a Vision of Hope, and when necessary, Fighting for a Vision of Hope.

Take a look at his website, or read his post in Mideastyouth. My comment to his post and idea, is following:

*****

Nissim:many people tried to propose some ideas, either new or reviewed old ones, to solve the problems now underway in mideast, as well as to avoid the upcoming disasters.but good intention is something, practicality is another. for example, few months ago a nun was reported who used to offer catholic prayers in the morning, and muslim prayers in the evening (maybe timings were different, but the whole case was something like this), and claimed to be a Catholic Muslim... she wants to do a good to humanity, but has misunderstood the core problem.how can we find out whether a new idea is practical or not? just ask of the Road Map it suggests. as long as theory does not turn into practice, at least it would have no good effect... and the worst case happens when theory makes some bad effects in practice, though you dont want such a thing to happen.

the core idea of your plan is true, and almost the only truth: Bring Hope to The People. I admire it! but I feel that the ideal situation you portray here is somehow based on a Globalized understanding of the world in general, and this region in particluar. if we (here in the mideast) were the members of a global village, your plan would be pretty effective. but unfortunately we are not, and we are less likely to become such a thing in near future. Common Sense of Arabs tells something, Common Sense of Jews tells another, Common Sense of Iranians tells a third thing, and Common Sense of Bush administration tells nonsense (they are not mideasterns, but they changed the mideast dramatically, though much of their initial plan didnt happen in this region). you may add to this list many other common senses which dont seem to be converging at all. if the common sense was a consensus amongst all involved parties, there would be no problem, and this region would be called a sample globalized village.apply your model on a smaller community, for example current Iraq, and you will see all these problems again.then, understanding all the problems you have, if you are serious to develop a Road Map for your plan...I will pray for you!

Cup of Poison

2007-10-15T13:22:00.001-07:00

Once I read in an article about the Modern International Politics that in a Newtonian system of politics, i.e. a democracy, each nation’s strong and weak points are clearly visible to all sides; then, in the case of conflict, each nation exactly knows its own limits and maximum possible benefits it can achieve in the struggle. That way, war can be easily avoided.
When a non-democracy (i.e. a country of which there is no accurate estimate of power) there exists in the above equation, the whole debate changes. Clearly the non-democracy, usually the weaker side, tries to pretend being stronger than what it really is, in order to take advantage of the situation. If the conflict of interests ups to an extremely high level, around the threshold of war, weaker one finds itself in a very dangerous status: on one hand, it can avoid war; on the other hand, it may be fully devastated. The stronger the other side, the more scaring would be the case for the weaker side. Here, weaker side starts sending mixed signals: it shows some signs of compromise if the other side is ready.

*****

During the 8 years of war with Iraq, Iranian leaders would always insist on this slogan that “we will fight to the last drop of our blood, to punish Saddam and free the Iraq.” Many young volunteers died for the sake of that holy war, which was in the name of Imam Hussein (the symbol of martyrdom for Shiite).
But when late Ayatollah Khomeini found that it wouldn’t be possible anymore to fight (with all the support Saddam had from westerners, the economy of Iran being a full bankrupt and the Iran’s army loosing the war to the re-empowered army of Saddam and all of his WMD), he almost gave up on all those fanatic slogans, wrote a letter and accepted the ceasefire… he said: “I drank the cup of poison”.

*****

The tradition of ‘drinking the cup of poison’, which politically means ‘compromise’ in the glossary of extremists, plays an important role in their understanding of the world. (Though right now Iran seems to have the upper hand in Persian Gulf,) US administration should understand that IRI leaders would never commit suicide if they find the act they are doing is suicidal. Compared with suicide, drinking ‘a cup of non-lethal poison’ and keeping the power is a more rational choice, I think.

Inherent Unsolved Questions of Democracy

2007-10-07T23:41:00.000-07:00

There was an interview with an Arab Atheist in mideastyouth. There, she claimed:

"I do not try to teach it to others or to say that this is how you should be thinking. That would be a very hypocritical thing for me to do since I’m the way I am mostly because I am anti-collectivism and I hate people who bully others into believing certain things or forcing them to live life a certain way."

my first comment to that post:

though going with the flow might be the easiest thing one chooses to do, I cant do it right now. minorities always claim the same: putting “humanity, morals, human rights, tolerance, things like that” above all other things. but when they assume power, the hypocrisy shows up; or it is better said that the inherent unsolved questions of a democracy gain focus.
how do they ban islamic hijab while claiming to be sincere advocates of freedom? this atheist might say that she is against that, but that wont solve anything.

Esra'a replied:

Firstly, who is “they”? It’s a huge generalization. Not all minorities are the same, especially if the minority in question is not competing for any form of power.
Secondly, I don’t see how your argument is at all relevant. Sara did not personally ban the Islamic hijab and I’m pretty sure she does not support it. That’s something that happened in Turkey and to an extent in France, she lives in Kuwait. Why is this relevant? If you read her entire interview, you’ll see that she supports whatever personal decision a person makes as long as they were not bullied or pressured into believing it.
All she is doing is not submitting to the pressure of the majority. I do not see anything hypocritical at all in her responses, or in her view. She is not even trying to claim any form of power, otherwise she would be actively promoting and preaching her views which she clearly does not.

my next comment:

that is not very hard to understand, Esra’a. the ban on Islamic Hijab is precisely consistent with and conforming to the principles of a secular regime, and any one who claims otherwise either doesnt know what a secular regime is or cant reason. same applies to the publishing of danish cartoons humiliating prophet muhammad: anybody who is to support freedom of speech in its original meaning, should support that act.
now, ask so-called Atheists of their favorite government, and that would be a secular-liberal one for sure. then, opposing such acts (french ban on hijab, publishing danish cartoons, etc.) would be the most insincere thing they can do: they inherently support such acts… and you can find very easily what would happen if they assume the power: hypocrisy will be uncovered.

Ahmadinejad in Columbia University

2007-09-25T14:12:00.000-07:00

Breaking news: Iranian state TV is supposed to air the event tonight. I'm very eager to know how much of the program is going to be censored. if all the program is aired... I dont know what may happen!
*****
More to read:
Transcripts of the event (beginnig by Mr Ahmadinejad's Speech)
Another Transcript (containing Mr. Bollinger's Introduction)
Washingtonpost's remarks (makes a fun of Ahmadinejad)
Jerusalem Post ("Ahmadinejad grilled in Columbia Q&A)
NewyorkTimes' report (just read)
*****
As an example of his mistakes, Ahmadinejad infromed the audience in Columbia University: "In Iran, we don't have homosexuals like in your country". Provided that following videos are available to many westerners, what do you expect them to think about him?

Out of Iran
the persecution of homosexuals in the islamic republic of Iran (Broadcast on the CBC’s Sunday Night, Feb.18.2007)
part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAzMuHyg8Eg
part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QMcfSuJkMo
part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUZiMCsNNcQ
*****
One sentence to Mr. Ahmadinejad:
Mr. President, if you dont know the way you should appear to westerners, don't insist on it, plz.

Evolution of Iran-America relations

2007-09-24T15:57:00.000-07:00

While exploring a phenomenon, either social or political (with regards to the subject of this post), the researcher may have many different approaches available to study the subject. For example, one may try to find the set of the causes which shape the public opinions in either side; another person may try a SWOT analysis to predict the future; and a third researcher may focus on the possible butterfly effect of an unpredicted factor (like Ahmadinejad, whose election and acts were unpredicted, while he is still unpredictable because a simple pattern in his behavior is yet to be identified by either politicians or psychologists).
Monitoring the ordinary people in my society and exploring the contemporary history of Iran, one may find out that an evolution in the Iran-America relations is underway. The most important feature of this evolution is that it is happening in the side of people, not governments (unfortunately politicians rarely –if ever– have the necessary capabilities for an evolution).
Note: I don’t know much about Americans, but let me hope that the thing now ongoing in Iran is also happening in US.
If I were supposed to choose a name for this so-called evolution, I would name it: ‘towards a realistic understanding of the other side’.
This process in Iran might be completely different from US, with regards to various factors including but not limited to: sources of misunderstanding in each side, how much people are prepared to change their minds in different issues and give up on their false beliefs, how much regimes (and mainstream media which distorts almost every piece of news) let people understand each other, how many realistic resources of information are available to each side (including such cyber-exchanges which may provide a better source of information compared to their mainstream media counterparts), etc. One of such characteristic differences might be this: while most of the Iranians have a fair good grasp of natural resources of US, there are many Americans that even don’t know Iran has beautiful jungles and landscapes! Yeah, this may seem worthless, but I strongly believe that such small pieces form a big puzzle together. Also the pace of change might be different in each society; same things may be listed to justify this as well.
Enough theory; where is evidence? Let’s have a closer look at a revolutionary concept in post-revolutionary Iran and how it evolved throughout a period of about 3 decades: Hating America.

*****

We (as Iranians) hate America, or at least we keep hearing everyday that we should hate it. “Why should we?” Immediately after revolution, even asking such a question might seem insulting to many people in Iran. Roksana Bahramitash, an Iranian scholar in Canada, gives the answer: “It was too early for many Iranians to forget the CIA-engineered coup of 1953, which returned the Shah back to power.” That coup overthrew Mossadeq, who nationalized Iran’s oil industry and is still regarded by many (except some hardliners) as a national hero. Some years after the end of Iran-Iraq war, due to entrance of many youngsters who has no direct experience or even any idea of American tyranny (either real, or just perceived by elders), providing an answer to this question became more important.
Yeah, many books, articles, interviews, etc. were prepared to shed a light on the history of America’s interventions in Iran, either in pre-revolutionary Iran or in post-revolutionary Iran (in events like: provoking Saddam to attack Iran, supporting Saddam and letting him use WMD against Iranians as well as Iraqi Kurds, attacking an Iranian civil airplane and killing all its passengers by 2 missiles, etc.). The next question arose: “Whom exactly we should hate: Americans, this or that US Government, America’s political system, or America as a whole?”
The proper answer to this question at the early stages of revolution (if anybody had ever dared to ask) would be “America as a whole, including its citizens”, for the only Americans observed by Iranians were those engaged in Shah’s activities in Iran. But after about 15 years, an evolution had happened: the new generation would never accept the previously valid answer. Then, IRI propaganda machine excluded ‘Americans’ from the above answer and focused on American government and political system. This was because the new generation not only had a new perception of Americans (a common idea in that time which was the basis of new generation’s perception of US was this: every society has ‘good’ and ‘bad’ members), but also had found out that ‘people should not be held responsible for every single act of their governors’.
The latter was due to the experience of Iranians themselves: in a quasi-democratic situation, Iranians had to choose between limited options for different positions (like president, MPs, etc.); consequently they found out that though they choose A, they can’t be approving of all of his activities and behaviors as a whole. The Iranians’ experience of a quasi-democratic regime helped them understand how world works, and it was a step further toward ‘a more realistic understanding of the other side’.
Fortunately, the evolution didn’t stop. “We chose Ahmadinejad for he promised some economic reforms. Yes, we know that he is repeating his anti-holocaust rhetoric. He might be wrong in this case for we know that Jews suffered a lot in that damn war (and even there is a new serial in TV which narrates Jews’ problems in WWII), but we may choose him again if we find him successful in economy”. Some are contemplating: “if such a weird thing may happen in our country, it may also happen in other countries. That US president might be very hostile against us, but he might have been very good for his own people.”
There are enough signs to prove that this process won’t stop here. Free access to western media helped many people to understand why US (and westerners in general) may sometimes have every reason to be suspicious of Iran’s programs and acts: “when he says that ‘Israel should be wiped off the map’, then he says that ‘we need nuclear capability’, every reasonable creature might conclude that he needs it to do that! But I may still vote in his favor, because he has done many good things: building some new universities, providing the poor and needy with Justice Shares, fighting or firing some of mafia figures, etc.” Don’t you see this as another step towards a more realistic view?

*****

Some may argue that such things happen mainly within intelligentsia and educated people. I do admit, with only one modification: ordinary people tend to pass the path left by intelligentsia. Many of these changes were not so common when they happened within intellectuals, but after a while, they became popular. ‘Time will solve all the problems’, albeit if and only if we let it.

Quasi-Democracy

2007-09-24T15:41:00.000-07:00

In a post in Mideastyouth, Omid (a Bahai author) said that "Iran is a quasi-democracy". Gary (another author) said that " I’m certainly not an expert on Iran, but I seem to recall that the government approves all candidates, rejecting those it doesn’t like. I would summarize that as simply undemocratic, basically a trick of dictators to hold onto power. Correct me if I’m wrong." Here is my comment to describe what a 'Quasi-Democracy' is:

*****

Intellectuals of the Iranian society are trying to push the idea of a democracy further and further, but the ordinary people are confused: they can’t understand what the ultimate solution to all the problems they have in their life is. That is why they vote for a reformist candidate (Khatami, who tried to make a more democratic situation in Iran) this year, and vote for Ahmadinejad (a full-option hardliner, upon whom people trusted to make a better economic situation) few years later.When ordinary people go with the flow of intellectuals, they make a high pressure on regime, and regime approves/allows more democratic candidates/movements. When the people are misguided by someone like Ahmadinejad, the regime gets more hardliner for it already has all the support it needs. (Keep in mind that this regime would do any necessary compromise to keep itself on power. I’ll write something about this issue and post it in mideastyouth, as soon as possible. This is a fact, though sometimes westerners may have every reason to fail to understand it).
That is a kind of Quasi-Democracy, isn’t it?

Is it Immoral?

2007-09-17T16:26:00.000-07:00

Jahanshah Rashidian, posted something new in Mideastyouth. The main idea of his new post is this:

German-Iranian Trade is immoral: Because of totalitarian character of the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI), trade with it, apart from foods and medical goods, is immoral. it helps the regime to survive and to further tighten its noose round people’s necks.

Here is my comment to this idea:

As long as you don’t define “morality” properly, this whole debate is flawed.
Need any example of this Flaw? Clarify your position on China: the people of China are so politically oppressed due to many reports, and many of their basic human rights are denied. But the country is so developing, and many believe that if it were not for the sake of this (oppressing) regime, people would be in a very bad situation. Suppose that a democratically elected regime could never achieve such progress: Now, is it moral to (for example) topple Chinese Government?
I think this is not so easy to answer. Apply the case to IRI regime. If this regime were successful in economy (which has not been), was it moral to topple the regime?

What do you think?

FBI and Usama Bin Laden

2007-09-06T16:08:00.000-07:00

Though I try not to use 'copy & paste' as a method to fill the blog, the following comment of RandallJones (posted in Mideastyouth) is worthy of reading:

*****

Are you aware that the FBI’s webpage on Osama Ben Laden does not mention 9/11? See: Bin Ladan's page on official site of FBI. Why wouldn’t an attack which killed 3,000 people be specifically mentioned? Journalist Ed Haas’ investigates this,

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202)324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

See complete article at http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html

Divine Will (II)

2007-09-04T21:59:00.000-07:00

A very busy week I had, sorry for delay. Let’s go a bit further with the current point.
Lord is a believer in “an omnipotent God” who “can do whatever acts he desires”, but unfortunately it is not likely to solve the problem. Remember the main point which fueled our whole debate: existence of different, inconsistent and even contradictory understandings of that Divine Will. How can we justify such a thing? Lord gives his own view: “God did his best to tell us his Divine Will, and if there are different views and understanding, he wanted so.” Then, the main point is left untouched; Hurray!
Let me paraphrase the case: Indeed, I was aimed to find a reference authenticated by God as the original understanding of His Divine Will. Here, Lord proposes another alternative: if there are different views and understandings, it is possible that God wanted it so.
Therefore, with regards to the fact that God sent us his messengers and revealed many verses in order to make a religious structure for our lives, first of all we should find out if God prescribes a sole definite code for our lives, or just gives us some clues and then wants us to act based on our understanding of that clues which may make many different or even contradictory structures? In other words, there are two possible maps:
(I) There is a precise Code which God and Religion means it and we should try to find it, though some times we may misunderstand it (if this misunderstanding happens while we do our best to find out that Divine Will, God may forgive us); and God's code includes instructions for every simple task of human's life, i.e., in any certain time and place, God has a Will which is Unique and we have to find it.
(II) God has ordered some principles on which we should build our understanding, and from which we should try to derive a kind of Code, and different people may conclude differently, i.e. God has not (meant) a Unique Determined Code.
A simple example may show the difference between above maps more precisely: somebody concludes that right now, ‘A’ (an act, behavior, etc.) is allowed, while the other finds it forbidden. Map (I) tells us that not both of them are true, for God’s code is unique and covers all aspects of human's life: one of them is true, and the other is wrong. Map (II) tells us that it is possible that both of them are true at the same time, on the basis that God has probably not determined a definite Code for A and has left it for people to decide which is true themselves. You know the idea behind ‘Straights Paths’ of Dr. Soroush which is somehow based upon this ideology.
Let me clarify the stand of advocates of Map (II) a bit more: they say that God has a determined code for just few things like Prayers, Fast, etc. In other areas (especially when it comes to some features of contemporary life like economy, geography, etc.), God has left it to the Wisdom of Crowd. People should make trial and errors and step by step develop their own systems of life.

*****

Dear Lord!
In either case, almost all scholars do agree that an ordinary person is not able to find out the path, for he/she first of all should think of all such matters and then decide about them. The only things that Quran has for everybody (and there is no need for an interpreter to find out them), is prescribed principles of Islam, things of this kind:
1- There is a God, who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and unique.
2- There will be a day of doom, the last day, Day of Judgment.
Etc.

Good Luck

Sun vs. Earth

2007-08-26T21:31:00.000-07:00

(This post doesn’t have anything to do with politics)
A famous belief states that ‘Earth revolves around the Sun’. It also stresses that the other statement (‘Earth revolves around the Sun’) is totally false.
Something is wrong with the above belief, I think. Suppose that Earth revolves around Sun, and suppose that Sun is observing the movement of Earth (and probably enjoys it). This observer (Sun) will find the Earth moving in a path similar to this diagram (E=Earth, S=Sun):

Earth starts its journey from point 8, after 1/8 of year is in the point 1, after 2/8 is in the point 2 … and at the end of the year (8/8 of year) Earth is again in point 8. One year finished.
Pay attention: in point 1, S finds E at west; in point 2, S finds E at northern west; etc.

*****

Now, let’s watch the whole process form E’s point of view: in point 1, E finds S at east; in point 2, E finds S at southern east; etc.
If we want to make another diagram from E’s point of view, it would be something like this:

It seems that if an observer is located in Earth, it will find Sun revolving around the Earth. On the other hand, if the observer is located in Sun, it will find Earth revolving around Sun. Therefore one may conclude that the famous story of ‘E revolves around S is true, S revolves around R is false' is true only when we consider other planets which revolve around the Sun, not Earth.

*****

Gotta my point? Is there any problem with above justification?

Divine Will (intro)

2007-08-22T19:49:00.000-07:00

Note: Since our debate about Islam’s position on Jews led to a much broader discussion about Quran itself, this post is named ‘Divine Will (intro)’ to cover the very basis of our later arguments. This post works just as an intro to the subject, and gives some hints on our next posts.

*****

I hope you have read Lord’s new post. Ideas he has developed in his new argument open the door to a very broad discussion about Quran, about which there is an extensive body of different views within Islamic scholars and various schools of thoughts.

Also Fariborz contributed to that post of Lord, though his commentswere taken word by word from a Sunni site. However, those comments also matter.

Let me ask few questions to clarify what subjects are in the root of all the different views about Quran. Read the following questions, contemplate them, and try to find your own answer to them, whether as a Muslim, or just as a believer in God, or as a nonbeliever. Also it should be noted that these arguments, with few modifications, would apply to all holy scriptures, whether Quran, Testaments, or else.

1- When God tried to reveal those verses to Muhammad, there was a Divine Will, but was that will in the form of a human language? How did Muhammad understand that Divine Will? As you well know, while translating a text from source to target language, very often it happens that the will of original author gets lost. Is the process of revelation immune to such failures?

2- Let’s suppose that God revealed some words, and He meant exactly what those words meant. Here another problem arises: Whose understanding of those words is closer to that Divine Will? Indeed you agree that the same words, particularly the words similar to Quran verses (which are full of metaphors, etc.), may mean differently to different people. Even if we suppose that the people of then Arabia must be our reference in this case, did they all have the same understanding of those words? The same problem, again.

3- Is today's Quran equal to the Quran revealed to Muhammad? Indeed there are different versions of Quran, called Qera’at (which means: readings); but some Muslim scholars believe that these differences, believed to be caused by different dialects of the Arabs, are so insignificant that don’t show any difference in the whole meaning of disputed verses. Another point is that some people doubt the way that Quran was gathered and claim that there is a possibility of flaws in that process.

4- Suppose that we solve all the above questions, and finally establish an original understanding of The Divine Will with very simple statements which may mean just in one way to all the people. The next problem rises when we ask of the role of ‘Reason’ in applying those rules to the contemporary society. Indeed this is not a new story of 20th century. Roots of such debates back to few centuries after Holy Prophet’s death (Footnote 1). I have too many things to say about this 4th subject, but leave them all for future.

hope that this intro was useful.

Good Luck

Footnote 1: Let me refer you a simple story of history which helps you get the point better, and leave rest of the matter for later posts. As you well know, Asharite used to believe that reason is incapable of discovering the will of God when this will is not strictly and frankly given to us; and they had some followers in between Shiite. It is said that one of the Shiite Imams wrote on the coffin of his deceased son: “Ismael, rest in God” (Ismael was his son’s name), and an Asharite follower of that Imam, wrote “Ismael, rest in God” on the coffin of his own deceased son, though his son’s name was Muhammad, not Ismael. This was because they did not identify any role for reason in understanding the Will of God.(Note that for Shiite, 12 Imams are supposed to be infallible like the Holy Prophet himself, and their deeds and words provide a source for Shiite Jurisprudence.)

Quran and Jews (II)

2007-08-20T05:41:00.000-07:00

As our discussion about Ethics ended unexpectedly, we started a new route concerning the position of Islam and Quran on Jews. It started with Lord's reference to a verse of Quran which states that the worst enemies of Islam & Muslims are Jews. I gave an explanation of that verse, based on some interpreters' ideas. In his recent post, Lord posed several questions which may be formed into 2 main arguments: one concerns the very basis of interpretation of Quran; and the other asks of my own attitude towards Jews & Zionism, which he finds contradictory.

*****

Let me begin with second problem, which seems much easier to answer. 3 simple principles may describe my view in details:
a) Not every anti-Zionist person/movement is necessarily anti-Semitic.
b) Still, anti-Semitism is in the root of some anti-Zionist movements.
c) I think that Quran seems to be against political movements of radical Jews, not against Judaism itself.

*****

Now, let's consider the case of interpretation of Quran. You are completely true when you say: “Quran is not just for interpreters, it’s for everyone, everywhere and every time.” But notice that:
1) This Book was revealed in the context of time and a 25-years-history.
2) The language used in Quran is somehow mysterious, full of metaphors, etc.
3) Quran does not give a detailed explanation of its content, and Tradition (Word and Deed of Holy Prophet) is a proper mean to understand the exact meaning of some verses, in addition to the fact that even the details of some important practices of Islam (like daily prayers) is not given in Quran.
This way, interpretation is sometimes a mean to get the meaning of the verse, not sub-layers of its content.
Lat me clarify this position (behind which there is an important philosophy) a bit more: Some of the Muslim scholars believe that when we open Quran and read it, we should pay attention to the fact that this Book was revealed 14 centuries ago to the people of then Arabia, and every word/phrase of this Book had a special meaning to them. We have to understand ‘that’ meaning, not the contemporary meaning of a word/phrase. 2 factors are important here:
* The meaning of a word/phrase itself: As you well know, a special Term or Word in for example Persian may mean differently to people who live in different cities. You may dig the history of Persian Literature and find that there are many words which their meanings were somehow different in the Iran of 100 years ago. The same applies to other languages. Then, Language evolves throughout history, and words may get different meanings during a period of about 14 centuries.
* The socio-political context of the verse: Suppose that we are watching news, and it states that “2 criminals executed in Iran.” Then I say: “Thugs!” You may know from the previous chats we had that I am a fanatic fan of the current regime, then, ‘thugs’ refer to the executed criminals. On the other hand, you may know that I am strongly against the current regime, and I think that they execute opposition leaders under the name of ‘criminals’, then you know that my word refers to the leaders of IRI, not to those executed. This example shows what I mean by ‘socio-political context’.
This way, an interpreter’s role is sometimes to tell us what a word had meant to the audience of Muhammad (PBUH). One interpreter says that Yahud & Sons of Israel had completely different meanings to those people. If this idea is true, we should consider it.
I hope that this post helps you get my point better.
Good Luck

Religion and Civilisation

2007-08-19T16:31:00.000-07:00

This post may be assumed as a complementary to the previous post. This new one, suggests a new idea about the interact of Religion & Society in the way towards Civilisation.

My main audience are possibly those who state that Religion is the sole cause of every single problem in the society.

*****

The more I contemplate the society in which I live now, the more I understand that (for most of the people) religion is just a name attributed to a system of values prefered by them. I mean, in a semi-free society, people do modify the religion and make new traditions out of it in accordance with their own needs and preferences; and one may trace such a process throughout history. Even Islamic Scholars (whether Mufti or Ayatollah) sometimes contribute to this process, either delibarately or undelibarately.

this whole story convinces me to accept that if there is any problem in the society right now, its primary cause is the people who either didn't recognize their own problem or didn't try to solve it through modifying the religion (by making new traditions, not changing the whole religion).

there may be an important objection to the above argument: that the religion may be intolerant of modification. probably true, but this is not what I see in my society's history (espicially its recent one). yes, Islam would never accept giving up on daily prayers, but prayers or fasting are not something which could be considered as 'the sole cause of every single problem'.

I put forward just an example, which convinces me that Islam may be compatible with every good thing you may imagine in an enlightened age: There are very pious, and at the same time very tolerant (with regards to international norms) people around me. they are so good examples to show that being intolerant of others is not a problem with the religion itelf, but a problem of those who practice it.

the same analysis may be applied to other problems: not seeking scientific profress, not refering each problem to expert of the related field, etc.

(Good News: some intellectuals are trying to provide Islamic basis for tolerance... yeah, they are working hard here in Iran, and I'm sure that they will win! and their win, will be the first round of a series of changes, God Willing!)

In addition, as you well know, there are many benefits with keeping a Religion, which I leave it's debate for later.

Good Luck Again

Scientific Fundamentalists

2007-08-17T15:05:00.000-07:00

Fariborz (an author in Mideastyouth), who is used to getting mad by watching 1 pic or 2 movies (sample 1, sample 2, sample 3, sample 4, sample 5, more coming soon!) and then stating some propositions which sometimes most professional scholars of the filed hesitate to admit, posted another story of his craziness. This new story is called “religion is the enemy of civilization”.
For those who have not read & are not eager to read Fariborz’ post: there is an old question in the core of his argument: “What percentage of current world religion’s adherents have thought about their religious symbols like God, prophets, books and so on? let me tell you, for most of them even thinking about this topic is taboo!”.
In a comment to that post, somebody called Yaman had written: “… Really, this is quite stupid…I am an atheist myself, but I have not made a religion out of it. Apparently you have.”
Umm, excellent! Does it seem mysterious to you? Read the following article to find out how an ‘Intellectual View’ (like what Fariborz claims to have/seek) may turn into a new 'Fundamentalist Religion':
“Scientific Fundamentalists” by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach: Part 1, Part 2.
Good Luck ;)

Quran and Jews

2007-08-10T13:12:00.000-07:00

[O, Messenger!]Verily you will find the Jews and the pagans the strongest among mankind in enmity to the believers; and you will find that the closest to the believers in friendship are those who say: “we are Nasara [Christians].” That is because among them are learned priests and devoted monks and they are not arrogant [against the truth].
Quran, 5-82

My friend mentioned the above verse in his weblog and asked of others’ idea that why God revealed such verses against Jews. Here is my explanation.

*****

Once Islam appeared, Mohammad’s position was strong enough (due to his grand father’s and uncle’s support, who were prominent figures in Mecca) to keep him away from the persecution by pagans, but his followers suffered a lot in the first 10 years of his career, when he was in Mecca.
As you well know, since the very beginning of its advent, Islam recognized followers of 3 religions as ‘the people of the book’, who were Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians (there was no Zoroastrian in then Arabia). These people had the right to still practice their faith, but after Muhammad immigrated to Medina and established a Muslim Rule, ‘People of the Book’ were supposed to pay a tax called ‘Jezyeh’.
In that time, Muhammad signed several peace agreements with other tribes who didn’t convert to Islam, asked them not to help pagans in war against Islam and on the hand undertook to protect their rights.
Indeed, Muslims rarely had any problem with Christians, for they (due to their principles and faith, which is known for being kind and tolerant, and also for their religious leaders, who are known for leaving joys of the world and just paying attention to God) were not used to get involved in ruling.
But Jews were else. In one of the most important wars of Pagans against Muhammad (called ‘Trench War’, for a trench around the city of Medina helped Muslims get rid off the great army of enemies), it was a Jewish tribe who provoked Pagans to begin war; and while Medina and Muslims were surrounded by the army of Pagans, another Jewish tribe (one of those tribes who were living inside Medina and signed a peace agreement with Muslims) betrayed Muslims and started a civil war. Actually one may trace the conspiracies of some Jews against Muhammad and Islam, back to the time when Muhammad was in Mecca and Islam was just a newborn.
Keep the above history lessons in mind, and let me refer you to a quote by an interpreter of Quran, who said once that: “Quran has 2 words for those who follow Moses: one is Yahud and the other is Sons of Israel (both of them equal to Jews). Whenever Quran uses the latter it means Jews in a general sense, but when it uses the former it means a special group of Jews, a group who are seeking for political and ruling power and even in some cases are not obedient to their own prophets”.
In this sense, according to the fact that Muslims had few problems (if any) with individual Jews who were living in the Muslim society, and the other fact that the only People of Book which made problems for Islam was Jews, one may conclude that what that verse is saying, and what Quran is dissatisfied of, is the Political Jewish Movements, not Jews themselves.

12 Iranian Thugs Executed - an unfair report

2007-07-31T14:40:00.000-07:00

There was a post in Mideastyouth about some executed thugs in Iran. Indeed, a very one sided report of the event it was. Here is another report of the whole thing. Which report is more accurate? Probably none! Here you can see a different view, and finally, choice is yours. Note that I’m not here to support executing of them, but that post depicted the event as “executing some people whose punishment was much excessive, not comparable to their crimes” which was far away from the truth.

Since few months ago, IR Police (NAJA) enforced a series of missions, which were first known as ‘Hijab Crackdown’, but it was not limited to Hijab issue.

Another phase of those missions was dedicated to capturing some local criminals. Everybody who has an experience of living in some certain districts in large (or even small) cities of Iran, for sure has heard of (or even encountered -god forbid) these Local Criminals, called ‘Lat’. its enough to know that some of those executed ones, most of them Lat, had up to 10 rapes in their rich files, in addition to theft, beating, threatening, etc.

Note that these local criminals don’t work as single ones, but work as a local group. There is a very well designed hierarchical system in each group: a leader called ‘Gonde Lat’ (Major Lat) at the top, and many minor Lat who follow the orders of the leader. The final aim of each minor is to become a major and form his own group. Minors and Majors usually carry very big knives called Qameh with themselves, and do not hesitate to attack others if they can/please.

Many young boys and girls were raped by these groups, and the victim or his/her family did not dare to report the case to the police, for the group threatened them to do worse to them.

Therefore, it is very unfair to label them as “socially and economically marginalized people who are mostly derived from poor classes and confront all unfair aspects of the society”, for these words obscure the truth. I think that capital punishment was a fair penalty for some of them, even if they were brought to court in for example US in front of a jury.

The other uneven statement in that post was this: “Even if these executed 12 Iranians were thugs, they are the products of the 29 year policies of the Islamic regime.” Such criminals, either as single doers or as groups, are not special to Iran. In addition, one may study the development and historical roots of such groups and find out that they existed even too many years before the establishment of IR.

If one is devoted to opposing IR, its better to avoid telling lies or ignoring facts on the ground: this is the very same mistake that IR propaganda system does when it comes to oppose US, Israel or anything else.

I think if the writer were eager to oppose those executions, he would better take the position of Abazari (a famous Iranian sociologist, assistant professor in Tehran University) who didn’t deny the fact that executed ones were really criminals, but opposed such crackdowns for “these kinds of reactions wont solve the social causes which made these criminals. many countries have had the same experience: after such activities, the very social patterns under which these criminals came to existence will not disappear, therefore these kinds of criminals will be reproduced, and as a consequence of these crackdowns, criminals in their next advent will turn from single-cells/groups to networks-of-criminals, called Mafia. In that case, Police won’t be able to do a thing to them.” (from his statements in a seminar in Tehran university).

Abazari added an example of our own country: “many years ago, such crackdowns were used against prostitution. after a while, prostitutes (due to demand and supply rule) got reproduced, formed networks, and now you may even find some underground agencies in Tehran which provide girls for their customers by a single phone call, while Police is not able to do anything because these networks have become so strong.”

Ethics - 1st Approach - Part A

2007-07-27T17:48:00.000-07:00

Preface
(I)
A friend, who seems to have had a good grasp of philosophy (at least as a student), posted something about Nietzsche and Plato, and the way they think of morality in the society, so to speak, "Priority of Nobles over Slaves". I asked him why and how he got convinced of such a thing, and he posted some explanation of the idea.
(II)
For the last 2 days, I was thinking of a new idea to write about. Um.... how is a simple discussion about the above subject? this post, and probably few later posts, will be dedicated to this matter. then, if you are eager to follow the debate, read his 2 posts before you continue: his 1st post, his 2nd post.
(III)
As you (and I) well know, too many philosophers and intellectuals have discussed such matters throughout history, and a very extensive body of science does exist about such debates. Here, I just want to forget every other possible resource which may help me oppose my friend, and give my mind a workout!

*****

I think that one may criticize your idea in 3 ways:
1- Behavioral approach: there are differences between humans and animals, with regards to their behaviors. Such differences make it necessary for them to have different order and rules in their societies.
2- Causal approach: why such moralities did happen to exist? How were they created? Was it just the claim of slaves, or even nobles might have some benefits in such a moral system? This may give us another hint. Yeah, throughout history, strong and weak people came to understand that they should agree on some rules for the society, because this trade-off would make more opportunities for each one.
3- Historical approach: this method may be somehow similar to what I propose in 2nd approach, but I prefer to pay a special attention to it. Suppose that right now, we remove any morality from the earth, and let each man/woman do what he/she can/please. Again, after a while, rationality of human kinds will lead them to agree on some basis/rules for the society, which can be called a Moral System.

*****

Within those 3 approaches, I think the 3rd one is the strongest. But, in this post, I will follow the 1st approach, and just half of it: to show what those differences are.

*****

Let me begin with the very basis of your claim: "the law of nature". If we suppose that the Mother Nature is the sole source of inspiration, then one might ask why you do follow its rules just every other time? I mean, why do you get inspired by Mother Nature just when you find these natural rules conforming to your pre-determined theories, and leave them when they come to oppose your idea?

Do you want any example to show this flaw in your debate? Here is my example:

Deers would never ask Lions to follow 'Animal Rights'. Lions, when feeling hungry, go and kill one or more deers and, yeah, devour their flesh in a family party. On the other hand, you can hardly find a normal Lion which kills Deers just for it feels more powerful. You know, when Lions are full, they and Deers may go to the same lake/spring to drink water. I remember from those "Wild Life Shows" that in this case, Deers may even get close to Lions, for they know that just hungry Lions would attack them.

you may come with this idea that Lions don’t root Deers out, for they want Deers to still stay on the earth, reproduce, and provide Lions and their next generations with enough food.

Here I pose my main argument: Humans behave in a very different way than Animal. Many things and acts they (humans) do, just never would enter the mind of an Animal. For example, in Human's history, we can find too many events to show that when a man feels powerful, he may kill too many others just for his joy.

There are other things, which we can never find even one of them within animals: very often we see wealthy people who enjoy seeing poor sweating for just a piece of bread, and make it harder for them to get that piece of bread just to enjoy more.

Consider the rate of Suicides in every society. Is it something Normal & Natural, in accordance with the laws of Mother Nature? Do you know any other species in the earth which commits suicide when it comes to feel highly depressed? What causes some people to commit suicide? Isn’t it sometimes the behavior of more powerful people?

If you think that my clarification of the differences between humans and other species (I mean: in their behaviors) is still foggy, let me know, and I will try to make a better explanation, with more examples and evidences.

But if you approve of these differences, I will go a step further and try to say why such differences make me to believe that there should be differences between them in the context of social order and rules.

My semi-final-conclusion:
If People are naturally different from Animals (which I think it is so), then the rules governing each one's society should be different.

Anti-Semitism vs. Anti-Zionism

2007-07-23T07:47:00.000-07:00

As you well know, there is not a good attitude to Israel within Muslim societies. Here I don’t want to enter this debate, explore the roots of the problem or propose any solution; but I want to focus my attention on something which came to me as a surprise.

I used to believe that all of those Muslim analysts, who oppose Zionism, don’t offend Jews as a whole (i.e. are not anti-Semitic). Now I'm not that sure of this idea. You may want to know why; if so, follow this post.

Since about 7 years ago, by the beginning of my university studies, I was obsessed with Mideast conflict. Reading the articles and analysis of both sides (if we assume that there are only two sides in this conflict, which may be rather simplistic) and following the news, was part of my routine program. You know, there are too many groups in Iran (mostly, if not wholly, related to hardliners) which are bonded to this subject, and I have attended some of their seminars, meetings and workshops.

As said above, most of the anti-Zionist analysts (either in Iran or else) claim that they respect Jews, but the only thing they can never stand is Zionism. Yeah, it may be possible in theory, for we see even some Jews (some orthodox ones) who oppose Zionism. (Again, this is not my aim to judge if they are sincere, if such a thing is rational, etc).

Meeting some of these so-called Iranian anti-Zionist analysts helped me get a better grasp of their actual beliefs. Yeah, one may refuse to state his innermost feelings and thoughts in a public seminar, for reports and reporters may make many problems. Then when you get into the depth of his mind, you may find something completely different from what gets out of his mouth. Without referring to any special figure or case (for it may make problems), now I think that anti-Semitism is in the root of some of these anti-Zionism movements.

How can we find such an argument in their statements? It's not that complicated. Though they first claim that 'respectable Jews also do exist' and divide Jews as being 'bad' or 'good' (a completely black and white view indeed), after a while they (either implicitly or explicitly) state that 'if a Jew is a True Jew, he/she is bad'. Believe it or not, I saw some of them who even try to find a historical pattern of conspiracy done by (true) Jews to eliminate Islam. This kind of conspiracy theory is what I call anti-Semitism.

Tourist Friendly City

2007-07-19T02:47:00.000-07:00

Isfahan is one of the most attractive cities in Iran. Almost all those who enter this country to take a visit from historical sites, spend at least few days in Isfahan.

In addition to its rich history, a river called ZayandehRood contributes a lot to this city's beauty.
But an important feature of a modern city is missing in Isfahan: it is not tourist friendly.
What do I mean by being (or: not being) 'tourist friendly'? I mean:

1- If you get lost in this city, you can hardly find English speaking fellow who might help you.

2- There are not enough restrooms, etc.

3- Detailed maps of the city: what a dream!

4- Not enough English signs in the streets or bazaars to help you find your way.

& etc.
Yeah! Those who visit the city as a tour and have tour-guide may enjoy the trip, but the problem is that indeed a relatively good proportion of these tourists are backpackers: they do not hire tour-guides because it may cost them a lot.
Then, what is the solution?

Very simple: a NGO may be very useful in this case. Suppose that an organization is established in order to register boys and girls who know English enough to serve as a free-tour-guide, and then introduce them to tourists who come here. This way, youth may have a good opportunity to practice English, while tourists may visit some hidden beauties of the city free-of-charge!