The Myth of Secular Inevitability: Iran, Islam, America, Israel and Palestine

Not surprisingly, in the days since Iran's election fiasco, Western media have attempted to fit the events inside the Islamic Republic into a convenient framework.  I call this the myth of secular inevitability, or the legend of liberalization.  (Because it is an ahistorical and metaphysical claim, kind of like "science").  Of course, we all attempt to understand events around us -- especially chaotic and uncertain affairs -- in a language and in the framework that makes sense to us and that appeals to us.  Nevertheless, in the case of Iran, this is extremely dangerous.  I have said before that the incumbent, Ahmadinejad, is quite popular.  A significant proportion of the Iranian society supports him and elements of his agenda, separable from his person.  Nevertheless, a large chunk of Iranian society chafes under the controls imposed by certain elements within the Republic.  Of course nobody can predict what's going to happen in the next few days or weeks - but let's pretend.

It's fun.

Let us conduct a thought experiment however and assume that a favorable outcome emerged after a second election.  "Favorable" means the candidate I believe would be better for Iran, Mir Mousavi, wins... he's also the candidate that Western media is overwhelmingly behind.  Shockingly to some of my readers, that does not imply full convergence or agreement.  Nor does that imply I believe blindly that Mousavi will necessarily win a second election for certain; I am simply saying that we assume, for the sake of this thought experiment, this Mousavian outcome.  Would this mean that Iran becomes a secular Democratic Republic?  Would this be a more favorable outcome for the United States, Israel and their policies in the region?

No.  It would not.  Iran will remain an Islamic republic.  The majority of Iranians support a prominent role for Islam in their national and political identity.  It is highly unlikely that the Islamic Republic would be changed in such a deep way as to negate its Islamic character, which is popular and institutionally deeply entrenched.  Like most Muslim countries, religion plays a role in the articulation of modern, democratic governance in the Iranian system -- perhaps the most significant role, as it is the legitimating principle: Islam, throughout most of the Muslim world, represents a significant source of law and outlines the ideals, norms and ambitions of hoped-for political culture.  In other words, the myth of secular inevitability does not apply.  Just as a minority of intellectuals among the American liberal elite and in Europe, except by a greater majority there, believe(d) that modernity would mean the end of religion, so too should we dismiss the idea that Muslim countries in general or Iran in particular are looking to become carbon copies of Western modernity.  This is neither possible nor, in the eyes of the overwhelming majority of the peoples of the Muslim world, ideal.

More significantly, a victory for Mousavi actually represents a greater threat to an imperialist projection of American power and influence in the Middle East.  For President Obama, Mousavi would be a more favorable candidate to conduct negotiations with -- but Obama's reading of the Middle East, and his awareness of the decrease of American power there (and more generally), is not the reading many American pundits and politicians adhere to or aspire to.  I think there are some in Western media who are (self-)deluded into believing that a more liberalized Islamic republic would mean a more pliable Islamic Republic.  I would actually argue the opposite.  Assuming a second election went smoothly and Mousavi became president, we would see Iran develop further, with a more open political culture, a stronger public mandate and more transparent and therefore more effective government.  That Iranian government would not suddenly become a Western lackey.  Iran has accomplished too much, and Iranians are on the whole too independent, to allow themselves to be put in such a position: Khatami's attitude, for example, to Palestine, to the Middle East and to American hegemony is not a happy parallel to most Americans'.  He just has a nice smile and a smarter style about him, nor does he stuff his religion down his peoples' throats.  In fact an Iran under Mousavi would be more able to develop nuclear power on its own resources and more likely to dictate stronger terms against the United States and Israel's interests in the region in any negotiations.  Just because the president is Mousavi instead of Ahmadinejad does not mean that suddenly Iran would also abandon its allies in the region, namely Hamas and Hezbollah.* 

In fact, Iran would probably gain allies in the region and power in the region.  Good for Obama?  In a way, yes.  But also tougher for those who support a right-wing or even hegemonic vision of the Middle East, wherein they decide what goes and what doesn't.

With a ruler perceived to have more of a mandate, and one who is less prone to saying stupid and frankly offensive things every other time he opens his mouth, it is harder to isolate Iran -- and harder to create a perception among Sunni governments (that is, dictatorships) that Iran is a threat to their power and their privilege.  While, yes, in fact that Iran would be actually more threatening to them, because it would be more democratic and more open and therefore more attractive, it would again be harder to isolate and marginalize -- and would probably become even more popular among the masses of the Arab and Muslim worlds in so far as it would represent an independent power, with rising ambition, and yet with a less oppressive and suffocating government.  Just as Turkey, under the Justice and Development Party, became a more open supporter of Palestine, a more popular regional player and a more prominent player in the Muslim world, so too would Iran find greater success in the pursuit of a position commensurate with her capacity in the Middle East and in the Muslim world.

Some people should be careful what they wish for -- they may not get what they expect they would.  (Of course, you can throw this whole 'thought experiment' out the window, assuming the instability spreads, no happy compromise can be reached, and an internally divided Iran becomes harder to deal with and finds it harder to pursue its ambitions, domestically and regionally.  That would be worse for President Obama, and would represent the ideal outcome for the advocates of sustaining American empire in the region -- as Iran is one of the few countries in the region with an independent perspective; Turkey is, broadly speaking, another.  Syria is too small to count.  Pakistan would be Iran if Hezbollah were seizing neighborhoods around Tabriz and then getting carpet-bombed.)

Additionally, today is my birthday.

----

* Am I the only person who finds the idea that the regime has imported Hezbollah to do its dirty work not only implausible, but racist?  Among Iran's tiny secular elite - many of whom I have met, and found to be insecure wanna-be Europeans, there is a virulent strain of racism, what Dabashi describes as an inability to believe that one is actually part of the Middle East and in fact looks the part.  Considering that the regime itself is composed of Iranians, why wouldn't the regime's own police and other security forces be capable of violence against Iranians?  What was the Shah, a Belgian? [Many people around the Shah wish they were].

Comments

[Mohammed Husain]

Very insightful piece Haroon. The West supports Mousavi, but only because he opposes a greater enemy. But everyone forgets that Mousavi himself, on his own, would be no friend of the West. In his campaign video, he calls for a return to the values and attitudes of the early days of the Islamic Revolution. "We have strayed," he says, "from those lofty ideals."

Interesting, also, is the way that all candidates appeal to Imam Khomeini as a source of legitimacy for their own vision. Mousavi shows in his video, a segment where he is sitting next to the late Imam as he reminisces about the glory of the early days. I don't think Westerners in siding with Mousavi, take this side of him very seriously.

I think the framework of secular inevitability imposes identity politics onto candidates even when they are not there. Though the extent of personal freedoms is a real issue in Iran, on which there is significant disagreement amongst candidates and segments of society, Mousavi isn't exactly going to legalize blasphemous speech and pornography, the usual suspects used when pointing to a clash of civilizations.

[Mohammed Husain]

Salaam Haroon,

Speaking of liberal inevitability and secularization narratives, have you read Charles Taylor's A Secular Age?

I've started it, on pg 130 or so, but the work is massive (close to 900 pgs). I don't know if I'll ever finish. But I think its very relevant. Taylor tries to trace the changes that occur in latin Christendom from 1500-2000, that give rise to secular society. In a way he provincializes secularism, by taking it off its universal pedestal and imposing on it the same historical analysis that so many love to do on religion. Very useful and also insightful, for anyone critiquing liberal inevitability.

[Haroon Moghul]

Taylor's work: Just finished reading it for my comprehensive exam reading list. I loved it, I have to say; the kind of book I feel I will return to time and again. It is massive, but so worth the effort.

Your point on Khomeini is a deeply significant one: The ultimate point of reference is still the Revolution. That means it is still politically legitimate to a great degree. My fear is that the current situation slides into a kind of insoluble semi-violent confrontation both within and without the regime, which would help no one... and potentially drain the IR of its legitimacy but offer nothing to replace it with.

We'll see in the next few weeks.

I have recently been reading Ashis Nandy; have you read Intimate Enemy?

[Haroon Moghul]

You cited "personal freedom": Do you think Mousavi would undo ruling on hijab? Let it lapse? Be less strict about it? I feel as if the issue of personal freedom, and increased political criticism (as opposed to religious), is an issue that reformists favor. But by and large they hew to a similar view of the world as the more hard Islamists, albeit less extreme in its rhetoric (and application) and far more nuanced in its articulation. That's what Western media's missing.

[Sayyed Muhammad Naqavi]

Anyone who has read the constitution of the Islamic Republic would know that that power rests only with the Supreme Leader and not the President.

[Mohammed Husain]

Ashis Nandy....No hadn't heard of him till now, but from a quick google search he seems fascinating.

"My fear is that the current situation slides into a kind of insoluble semi-violent confrontation both within and without the regime"

I think that is everyone's worst fear. Babak Yektafar of the therealnews.com (video at: http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=3875&updaterx=2009-06-17+12%3A39%3A01) says: "But I was checking some of the conservative sites in Iran, for example, not ultraconservative, but a type of conservative that has been critical of Mr. Ahmadinejad, and they say there that if any of these candidates, including Mr. Mousavi, as one shred of evidence that indicates there has been irregularities and coups, they would be more than happy to showcase it and go after it." That's an encouraging sign. We can only hope that evidence is presented, investigated and the issue is resolved transparently through a recount or whatever to peoples satisfaction. But like you said we'll have to wait.

As for Mousavi and the hijab. I don't think he'd have the political capital to do such a thing even if it was on his agenda. I don't know if there's a turning back on the hijab law in Iran. He'd create a lot of enemies for himself, and it might be political suicide. I think what he would do is just relax its enforcement. That's what Khatami did, and I don't see why he'd take a different course of action. There are probably more pressing issues he'd have to expend his political capital on anyway.

He has mentioned that he'd diminish the role of the ershad (moral police), so I think that was his way of saying he'd relax enforcement of hijab and other such things.

[Mohammed Husain]

This clip on MemriTV of Khamenei I think is interesting with respect to a partial recount: http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2146.htm

[Sayyed Muhammad Naqvi]

Here are a few of the things that we’ve “learned” the last few days about the Iranian elections and their aftermath:

— 3 million people protested Monday in Tehran
— the losing candidate, Mir Hossein Mousavi, was put under house arrest
— the president of the election monitoring committee declared the election invalid on Saturday

These are just a handful of data points that have been shooting around the Internet, via Twitter or the opposition-friendly blogs. And all have been instrumental in building a public opinion case against the Iranian government for undercounting the support for Mousavi.

The problem is, none of them appear any longer to be true. The crowd was in the hundreds of thousands, most newspapers reported. Mousavi’s own wife said he wasn’t under house arrest Sunday, and Monday he appeared in person at the protest. And if the president of the election monitoring commission has gone over to the opposition, no serious reporter has reported it.

Also courtesy of the blogosphere, we have two sets of “real” vote counts “leaked” from the Interior Ministry; one set had Ahmedinejad getting 28 percent, and another gave him 13 percent. These are just a few examples I was able to come up with quickly.

Andrew Sullivan, who has been leading the charge in the U.S. to try to get us all to wear green and support the opposition, says that “[t]his event has been Twitter’s finest hour.” One of his commenters tells him: “You are gathering information from a myriad of sources and putting it out there for a cohesive message. CNN, NY Times, et al are merely running an article about ‘thousands’ of protesters. Its a canned message from just a few stale sources.”

But instead, it looks like the Internet is the medium for a lot of unfounded rumors by a lot of (understandably) passionate people in Iran. This is a chaotic situation, and rumors flourish in that environment. I’ve been there: I remember spending a morning in Iraq, during the war, trying to track down confirmation that Tariq Aziz was killed in a hail of bullets trying to run a roadblock while attempting to flee into Kurdistan. Everyone was convinced it had happened. Later in the day he gave a press conference to demonstrate that he was still alive. In Serbia in 2001, as word began to spread that Slobodan Milosevic was going to be arrested soon, a crowd gathered in his backyard, and rumors spread several times that Milosevic had killed himself, or that it was the CIA who was going to make the arrest.

But in the pre-Twitter age, those sorts of rumors petered out quickly if they weren’t true. If they were true, then journalists found out about them and reported them as fact. Now, the latter is still happening, which is why the journalists in Tehran now are writing pieces with considerably more nuance than what you see on blogs. But the former isn’t true any more – rumors can have a longer lifespan on a network of sympathetic blogs, Facebook postings and Twitter feeds.

At this point, we don’t know if there was election fraud or not. The AP has a story describing the current state of play on the fraud allegations (the speed of the announcement is now the main point of debate), and although the evidence for fraud is all in the beginning of the story and the evidence against is at the end, it’s a pretty balanced look that probably isn’t going to convince anyone to change their mind. So no need to rehash the arguments here.

None of this is to excuse the behavior of the government after the election results came out. Or to diminish the bravery and courage of the people who are out in the streets in Tehran getting beaten. But what if it’s based on a lie? A Twitter-fueled, mass delusion of a lie? That the one third of people who voted for Mousavi convinced themselves, via a social media echo chamber that selectively picked rumors and amplified them until they appeared true, that they in fact represented two thirds of the country? And then tried to bring down the government based on that delusion? Maybe it’s not the case this time. But doesn’t this entire episode seem to show how such a thing could happen? And then what?

[wake up]

"But what if it’s based on a lie?"

Remember Rex Cinema? That turned out to be a lie. Didn't much matter, and it helped hasten the end of the regime.

The arrests of journalists, reporters, opposition figures (not just Mousavi), and moreover, the DEATHS of multiple people by Basij murderers, is that a lie?

You don't need to be Twitter fueled to believe the "mass delusion" that there is massive repression, arbitrary government, and dictatorial tendencies in Iran.

So, to answer your question: It makes absolutely no difference. Because this movement started *before* the elections, it started in 1999, and 1997, it started, frankly, in 1979 or even 1963. This movement is the one that has been calling for true democracy in Iran since 1906. Mousavi is a figurehead, the leader of this movement is the people.

You don't get it, Naqvi. Because to you, if Khamenei says it, it's true. You have no capacity for independent thought. Ali Shariati would spit on you. I'm pretty sure even your beloved Khomeini, whose granddaughter has been arrested in the past few days, would have some harsh words for you.

[Sayyed Muhammad Naqavi]

Bismihe ta'ala

Brother and Sisters, Salam

Insha Allah everyone is well. I've been closely following the messages on this group as well as the elections here in Iran. While I'm not an expert in economics, I still can at least present my observations of the elections as we saw them. From the propaganda of the elections, we assumed it would be a very close race between Agaye Moosavi and Agaye Ahmadinejad. One the article presented yesterday was very biased and written for the American population. This article gave Iran a very bad name (as usual and as expected). During the last several days before the elections, we had the chance to get right into the middle of things and I was greatly surprised when the followers of Agaye Ahmadnejad overwhelmed those of Agaye Moosavi.

We also went early to the voting booths to avoid the crowd and the heat but we were shocked when later than afternoon, millions were crowding the voting places and we only said alhamdulillah, we went early. We were not surprised though when the results were announced that Agaye Ahmadinejad had won because we saw with our own eyes the tremendous support given to him, not only where we lived but all over Iran. One needs to keep in mind that the votes were counted all over the country--villages, smaller town, rural areas, etc and not only from selected sectors in Tehran. We only saw a few isolated places in Tehran where distrubances broke out--and of course, the biased American press jumped on those incidents as if the entire country was one huge riot. My own dismay of course was why they didn't show the other side of people celebrating around the country. Here in Qom, the entire city was one huge jashan. Of course, as a journalist trained in the pro-Zionist media, I didn't figure they would show it--it's against the propaganda that America is spewing out in order to convince people that war is needed.

We knew that the votes were not rigged because we saw the tremendous outpour of support for Agaye Ahmadinejad and it as very sad to see that Agaye Moosavi stated that the government was based on lies and dictatorship. This statement, if true as stated by the Americans, did more to destroy the reputation of the voting process and the integrity of the Iranian nation that any one official could have done. To state that Ayatollah Khamanie basically shut the way for protest to corruption is an insult not only to the Iranians but to Muslims all over the world as well. We spoke to one of the voting processors who explained that in every single voting site, a representative from each candidates was present during the voting and processing stages. If corruption was present, where was the voice of the representatives then?

We have been coming to Iran now for over 10 years. During this time, this year was the first time that we actually felt improvements have been made in the economy and prices have been lowered, although with considerable resistance from a minority of those who are seemingly trying to monopolize many sectors of the country. When we first came, meat and chicken prices were through the roof--this month they have been significantly lowered. This was also the first year that we saw many of the youth who had more hope and anticipation of the future, although no one can guarantee that with the tremendous pressure coming from the sanctions, Iran's economy will drastically improve in the near future. America is doing her best to destroy Iran economically as well as through other factors and the fact that the economy is still up and running should show people something. We are proud to witness something --the survival and advancement of a country under tremendous pressue which no country has been able to do. I see more than human influence working here. One of the problems I see here is that when we were young, we struggled to get where we are today. People worked through university, beginning marriages were tough and financial security didn't come until later on in life. Today's youth, even in Iran, want a lifestyle as they see in Hollywood--and they want it yesterday. There is little wonder that they then complain that life here in Iran is tough and without hope. Could it be possible that it's the desires and expectations that is causing the lack of hope rather than the current economic situation?

We were also shocked when City bank produced their statement that the statistics shown against Agaye Ahmadinejad were false. One can argue that maybe the city bank is also controlled by the so-called 'hardliners' and were forced to refute the statistics--no argument can be seen there. Either you belive them or you don't. My question would be--if city bank is lying--what would they gain and where did those original statistics come from in the first place if they are not lying?

Living in Iran certainly isn't as luxurious as living abroad but it's not impossible either. Jobs are available if people are not willing to insist on the highest position possible. In a way, we find it an honor to witness this struggle and if someone really comes here and takes a good, hard look, they will find that people's lives have tremendously improved. In fact, many people, even here in the city of Qom, live much better than our family does and while there is a significant population of poor, help is available. One can only look at the current situation in America to see that the poor and homeless is not limited to Iran and if fact, it's not only the duty of the governments but in Islam, it's the duty of people to help those in need. A hadith from our Holy Prophet (s) states that when a person is hungry, someone who is rich has taken their right. It's time that Iranians stop putting so much blame on the government--regardless of who or who isn't in charge, change the culture and start looking out for themselves and those around them. As JF Kennedy stated (he's not my role model) "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." My personal belief is that Iranians should take this motto into consideration and stop the blame game.

I also, as stated by one of the posts, we have yet to see the 'moral police' roaming the streets in search of deviant behavior. In fact, it would have been nice to see more control because the hijab is becoming pathetic--a direct insult to the divine laws of shari'a and the disgusting behavior of some of the youth in support of the elections caused me to keep my own children away due to the vulgar language and acts seen on the streets. If the rioters were being beaten during the upheaval, they have no one to blame but themselves. There is no where in America where one can destroy property, put others in danger, defy the laws and not get into trouble--including beatings, tear gas and arrest.

I'm very sad at this observance......as an American, whether we like each other or not or choose to support one candidate or not, in the interest of the country, especially when we feel we're threatened, in the end, we always unite. Yet, I have not seen this unity among Iranians and rather than unite for the cause of uplifting their country, they are willing to destroy each other for self-interests. This is my personal observation but sadly, I feel I should say the truth from what I've seen.

In conclusion, our own observations saw a very fair, very surprising election and now, whether we like or dislike who is in charge is beyond the point. Even if people still claim the voting was rigged, they cannot dispute the fact that 85% of the voting population turned out and that in itself is something out of the ordinary and something America hated to see. As Muslims and as Iranians, it's vital to unite under one voice as the enemies of Islam are doing their utmost best to divide and conquer. Please don't hand that victory to them that easily.

May Allah bless you all and may He bless the Islamic Republic with success, endurance and the ability to stay on the Siratul Mustaqeem, Insha Allah.

Taken From Maryam Shabani

[wake up]

پيام آيت الله العظمى منتظرى پيرامون نتايج انتخابات رياست جمهورى و حوادث پس از آن‏

‏بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم ‏
‏(لا يحب الله الجهر بالسوء من القول الا من ظلم )‏

‏ملت شريف و مظلوم ايران
‏ ‏ضمن سلام و تحيت - در روزهاى اخير شاهد تلاش و حضور پرشور و‏ ‏ايثارگرانه شما برادران و خواهران عزيز و بزرگوار، از زن و مرد، پير و جوان و‏ ‏تمامى اقشار در صحنه تبليغات انتخابات دوره دهم رياست جمهورى‏ ‏بودم .
‏ ‏در اين ايام قشر جوان با روحيه اميد و براى رسيدن به خواسته هاى به حق‏ ‏خود به صحنه آمدند و شب و روز براى روز موعود لحظه شمارى كردند، و‏ ‏اين فرصت بسيار مناسب و خوبى براى مسئولين نظام بود تا موقعيت را‏ ‏مغتنم شمرده و بتوانند بهترين رابطه دينى ، عاطفى و ملى را با قشر عظيم‏ ‏نيروى جوان و بقيه اقشار برقرار نمايند.

‏ ‏اما متأسفانه از اين بهترين فرصت بدترين استفاده شد. با اعلام نتايجى كه‏ ‏هيچ عقل سليمى آن را نمى پذيرد و بر اساس شواهد موثق تغييرات‏ ‏عمده اى در آراى مردم داده شده است و به دنبال آن در پى اعتراض برخى از‏ ‏اقشار مردم به اين نحو عملكرد، در جلوى چشم همين مردم كه بار سنگين‏ ‏پيروزى انقلاب و هشت سال جنگ تحميلى را بر دوش خود حمل نمودند و‏ ‏با دست خالى در برابر گلوله هاى رژيم شاهنشاهى و توپ و تانك دشمن‏ ‏مقاومت كردند، و در جلوى چشم جهانيان و در حضور دوربين هاى‏ ‏خبرنگاران داخلى و خارجى به جان فرزندان اين مردم و اين مملكت افتاده‏ ‏و با شدت و خشونت كامل با زنان و مردان بى دفاع و دانشجويان عزيز‏ ‏برخورد كرده و آنها را سركوب و مضروب و دستگير نمودند; و اينك به دنبال‏ ‏تسويه حسابهاى سياسى ، با فعالان و انديشمندان و روشنفكران بر آمده و‏ ‏عده كثيرى را كه بعضا از مسئولين بلند مرتبه نظام جمهورى اسلامى بوده اند‏ ‏بى جهت دستگير و بازداشت مى‎كنند.

‏ ‏اينك بر وظيفه دينى و ملى و بر اساس آيه شريفه (و ذكر فان الذكرى تنفع‏ ‏المومنين ) و نيز با هدف خيرخواهى و آرزوى اصلاح امور، چند نكته را تذكر‏ ‏مى‎دهم :

‏1 - ويژگى يك حكومت مقتدر - چه اسلامى و يا غير اسلامى - آن است كه‏ ‏بتواند ديدگاههاى موافق و مخالف را مورد توجه قرار دهد و با شرح صدر كه‏ ‏شرط لازم حاكميت است همه اقشار حق مخالفين فكرى و سليقه اى خود را‏ ‏جذب و در امر حاكميت سهيم نمايد، نه اينكه آنان را به كلى طرد نموده و‏ ‏روز به روز بر تعداد آنان بيفزايد. من به خاطر موسوم شدن حاكميت به‏ ‏حكومت دينى خوف آن دارم كه كارها و اعمال مسئولين در نهايت باعث‏ ‏ضربه به دين و موجب خدشه در اعتقادات مردم گردد.

‏ ‏2 - در رابطه با اوضاع كنونى و مسائلى كه پس از انتخابات اخير به وجود‏ ‏آمده و بسيارى از مردم دچار تحير و بدبينى شده اند و بر اساس آموزه هاى‏ ‏دينى و اخلاقى ، از حاكمان و مسئولين مربوطه توقع دارند در چنين امر‏ ‏مهمى كه حفظ حقوق عامه مردم است و در آن نمى توان به اصالت برائت‏ ‏تمسك كرد بلكه بايستى از طريق معتبر و مرضى الطرفين و بى طرف ،‏ ‏امانتدارى حاكميت و دست اندركاران آن احراز گردد. در چنين شرايطى‏ ‏انتظار آن است كه حاكميت پاسخى مقبول و معقول بدهد و با روشهاى‏ ‏صحيح ، بدبينى و شك و شبهه مردم را برطرف نمايد; كه در غير اين صورت‏ ‏موجب بى اعتمادى بيش از پيش مردم به حاكميت شده و مشروعيت نظام و‏ ‏منتخب آن زير سوال رفته و اعتبار آن مخدوش خواهد شد. بارها تذكر داده ام‏ ‏كه آراء ملت امانتهاى مردمى و الهى هستند و حاكميتى كه بر اساس تصرف‏ ‏در آراء باشد هيچ نحو مشروعيت دينى و سياسى ندارد.

‏ ‏3 - از همه مردم به ويژه جوانان عزيز تقاضا مى‎شود كه حق خواهى خود را‏ ‏همراه با صبر و متانت دنبال كنند و با كياست و هوشيارى درصدد حفظ‏ ‏آرامش و امنيت كشور و پرهيز از هرگونه خشونت و كارهايى باشند كه چهره ‏ ‏آنان و نيز خواسته مشروع و قانونى شان را مخدوش مى‎نمايد و بهانه به‏ ‏دست افراد معلوم الحالى مى‎دهد كه خود را در ميان مردم جا زده و با ايجاد‏ ‏اغتشاش و تخريب و آتش زدن اماكن شخصى و عمومى ، قصد ايجاد فضاى‏ ‏رعب آور و امنيتى كردن كشور را دارند. لازم است ضمن حضور آگاهانه و با‏ ‏هوشيارى كامل اجازه دهند تا كانديداهايى كه حقشان تضييع شده كار‏ ‏قانونى خود را دنبال نمايند.

‏ ‏4 - به همه مسئولان و دست اندركاران و همچنين به مأمورين نظامى و‏ ‏انتظامى توصيه مى‎كنم دين خود را حفظ و آن را به دنياى ديگران نفروشند و‏ ‏توجه كنند كه عبارت "المأمور معذور" در پيشگاه خداوند متعال به هيچ وجه‏ ‏پذيرفته نيست . جوانان معترض را فرزندان خود دانسته و از برخوردهاى‏ ‏خشن و غير انسانى دست برداشته و با عبرت از سرنوشت گذشتگان ، بدانند‏ ‏كه دير يا زود عاملين ظلم به مردم از كيفر و عقوبت دنيوى و اخروى مصون‏ ‏نخواهند بود. در اين زمان نمى توان با سانسور و قطع و محدود نمودن‏ ‏امكانات ارتباطى حقايق را از ديد مردم پنهان نمود.
‏ ‏در خاتمه از خداوند متعال توفيق همگان را در خدمت به اسلام و مسلمين ،‏ ‏و نيز عزت و سربلندى ملت عزيز ايران را مسألت مى‎نمايم .
‏ ‏والسلام عليكم و رحمة الله و بركاته .

I think I take the words above over the words of some American convert to Islam who has "visited" Iran and obviously does not speak our language.

Can you even read the above, Naqavi? (or Naqvi, you spell it differently every day)

If you can, respond to its points. If not, shut up and leave Iran alone. We've had enough of outsiders like you telling us how "true Muslims" would behave.

By the way, Sayyed, when he says:
نتايجى كه‏ ‏هيچ عقل سليمى آن را نمى پذيرد
He's talking about you.

[bdr]

Congrats on another year Haroon.

[Mohammed Husain]

Haroon,

I sometimes follow Masoomeh Ebtekar's english blog. (http://www.ebtekarm.blogspot.com/) She was former vice president under Khatami (they had several), and she's been involved in politics for sometime. She was also the spokeswoman during the hostage crisis on behalf of the students and wrote a memoir about it called "Takeover in Tehran." In any case, she is a reformist and a big supporter of Moussavi in the latest election.

She had this to write on her latest post: "I have been very engaged in the past weeks and therefore I had no chance to update my blog. Also at certain times I did not know what to say considering the quick turn of events in Iran. Mr. Mousavi has rejected the official election results and large populations amounting to millions have marched in Tehran. The reality is that this movement is totally rooted in national issues and Mr. Mousavi has stood as a candidate within the Islamic Republic and people have supported his reform movement with hopes for change. The important factor today is to emphasize upon the internal roots of this campaign. Foreign remarks and support could be considered as interference and are therefore not welcomed in this sensitive time. Iran has a long history of colonialism and whenever there has been a liberation movement, foreign intervention has been detrimental.
Millions have protested repeatedly in the streets, their calls of Allah o Akbar at night are heard throughout the cities, university scholars, artists, business sectors and most of the elite in Iran have officially announced their support for Mousavi."

Towards the end she mentions that most of the elite have come out in support Mousavi. And that's precisely it. And so, I wonder perhaps, the element of class conflict in this whole fiasco is being overlooked in favor of the liberal/conservative element. Real democracy should favor the masses; and maybe it has? And maybe in a way that more sophisticated, elite find repulsive? Ahamdinejad won about 62% of the vote in the run off against rafsanjani. Rafsanjani is backing and is also likely financially funding most of Mousavi's campaign. With such a close association, why should the election results be expected to be any different?

[wake up]

If 62% of Iran, hypothetically, was in favor of the regime using Basiji vigilantes to beat up, harass, and murder peaceful protesters in the streets of Tehran, would it be justified as the will of the "majority"? The rule of the masses?

America is something like 95% Christian, no? If the American gov't starts arming Christian militias to, hypothetically, harass all us non-Christians, murder peaceful protesters, and terrorize, jail, and torture non-religious and pro-reform people, would that be justified? Majority rule?

Or would the minority have EVERY goddamn right to stand up and launch a revolution to create a regime that would respect EVERYONE's rights, not just the majority?

But this is not what is going on in Iran right now. I assure you, the majority of Iranians are sick of tyranny in whatever form it takes, and you will realize this in the coming days.

But even if this was a "minority" movement, it is absolutely justified. Have some nuance please.

[Mohammed Husain]

Wake Up,

My apologies, I only communicate with human persons. So if you'd like me to respond to what you've written please use your real name, and be willing to stand by what you write.

[wake up]

I'm sorry, but with a Hezbollahi fanatic like Naqavi who loudly swears his allegiance to Seyyed Ali Pinochet on this site, my anonymity as an Iranian is pretty important to me.

The "democracy of the masses" that you eluded to above has a nice history of murdering its opponents in their sleep. See ghatl-haye zanjire-yi

I don't know what else to tell you. If you "only communicate with human persons," you should turn off your computer right now and get off the Internet. Anonymity, for a variety of reasons, is a pretty central and valued pillar of the electronic exchange of ideas. I absolutely "stand by what I write" : that doesn't necessitate you, nor anyone else, knowing my real name, my family info, or where I live, for that matter. Why would that info even be relevant to you, if you really want to engage my ideas?

[Mohammed Husain]

No one spoke of family info or your address buddy. Anonymity allows people to be brazen and emotional [you can judge for yourself whether you have been] without any sort of accountability, so it makes the discussion much less fruitful.

[wake up]

What sort of accountability do I have over you by knowing that your name is "Mohammad Hosain"? Right, you and 10 million other people.

My name, both my first and last, are unfortunately both rather rare and unique, and would immediately identify me and make me and my family open to retribution. I have had family members jailed and tortured for crimes far less than insulting Naqavi's beloved Supreme Leader.

So why don't you just call me Hasan. Would that be satisfactory?

[PURRRRSIAN]

YA ALI YA ALI YA ALI

LONG LIVE MUHAMMAD NAQVI