Tuesday
Jul062010
Iran Document: The Mousavi-Khatami Meeting (5 July)
Tuesday, July 6, 2010 at 18:30 
A summary of Monday's meeting between Mir Hossein Mousavi and former President Mohammad Khatami, from Khatami's website via Payvand:[Mousavi and Khatami] stressed that 1) firm guarantees for the release of political prisoners, 2) the opening and normalization of the current restricted and security atmosphere, and 3) elimination of the obstacles facing the political and cultural activities of the various groups and parties that are in line with the true values of the Islamic Republic and in the framework of the Constitution, as well as holding free and fair elections, were the basic necessities to change the current crisis dominating the country.
Mousavi and Khatami condemned the new UN Security Council resolution and the imposition of new sanctions against Iran, calling this an action against the national security of Iran. They pointed to the concurrence of this resolution with the empowerment of the terrorist groups and their resumption of activities in the West, called it a new conspiracy against Iran. These terrorist groups have the blood of the innocent people of Iran on their hands and have no place among the nation and are a group of dead who have been buried in hatred in the minds of the Iranian people, although the official propaganda and psychological warfare inside the country have brought up their names once again after many years and given an illusion to these terrorists and their western supporters that they are still alive. These international actions that were supported by the big powers are being committed while the crimes of the government of Israel, which were against humanity, not only are not condemned but are being supported.
The former President [Khatami] and the Prime Minister during the Iran-Iraq war [Mousavi], while emphasizing that the great nation of Iran will not allow anyone or any power to interfere in its internal affairs, made it clear that any policy or provocative, unconsidered, or adventurous behavior by government officials that would give an excuse to damage the national security and interest of the country is not acceptable.
Expressing great sadness for the increase in pressures on the [Government's] critics, as well as the continuation of illegal actions and detentions and the increase in the waves of lies and false accusations against renowned figures devoted to the revolution's ideas and defenders of the people's demands and rights who want the prosperity of the country, Mir Hossein Mousavi and Seyyed Mohammad Khatami demanded the formation of a free and safe environment for the people,an atmosphere to criticise the government's policies and actions in economic, political, cultural, and foreign affairs, and the means for everyone's participation in the country's fate.
Condemning the spread of lies and unjustified accusations, Mir Hossein Mousavi and Seyyed Mohammad Khatami pointed out the extensive release of an audio file from several months ago ---- what was mentioned on it was undoubtedly unprecedented in the past thirty years and full of lies, insults and illusions. They called it, contrary to the intention of those who distributed it, illuminating of many uncertainties in the events before and after the last presidential election and the corruptions surrounding it....
Seyyed Mohammad Khatami and Mir Hossein Mousavi considered the spread of this content, in the name of the decisions of "the establishment", sad and said the lack of confrontation--- against the spread of these illusions, lies, and confessed illegal actions and the collaboration of some official organizations and media with this group--- was shocking.
Khatami and Mousavi emphasised that all should be vigilant against internal and external conspiracies and threat. They should insist on rational demands and expectations and moving forward within the boundaries of the Constitution. God willing, we will witness the return of everyone to the principles of the Islamic Revolution, the principles of the Constitution, and the high aspirations of the noble people of Iran.
Reader Comments (34)
"God willing, we will witness the return of everyone to the principles of the Islamic Revolution, the principles of the Constitution, and the high aspirations of the noble people of Iran."
Yes, the wonderful constitution that enshrines absolute rule and religious tyranny.
Has anyone actually ever READ the constitution? It does promise freedom of assembly and freedom of speech BUT only insofar as they don't violate the interests of Islam. And guess who get's to decide that one!
Bozorg,
I have read the defective document Islamic Republic and its retarded pseudo leaders call the “Constitution”; it is a document written by Akhound (mullah) for Akhound. The thought, the intent, and the language in that document are pathetic. The fact that many so called intellectuals in Iran voted for it is even more pathetic.
What really irritates me is the audacity of imbeciles like Mousavi, Karroubi, Khatami, etc. wanting to take people back to Khomeini era, Khomeini the chief idiot and murderer. I would like to know what in the world was glorious about the Khomeini era, the abolition of civil liberties, the lawlessness, the execution without due process, killing field of Khomeini war, or the destruction of the economy? Their supporters, the likes of Gangi, Shirin Abbadei, and Kadivar are working overtime for the second coming of Islamic Republic. The sad part is some people are buying their trash as they bought Khomeini’s trash; even those who are living in the free world, those who are not in the tight grip of Islamic retarded Republic. These people are happy to be fooled again.
Bozorg, I think you and I and others like us are wasting our breath; Iran as we knew is lost forever. I am sorry, for being so frustrated and so pessimistic. I cannot help it when I see some readers on this blog especially those who want democracy in Iran are falling for people like Kadivar by explaining away his blatant lies or argue that Montazeri was a saint and Karroubi is a hero. I want them to explain to the rest of us how in the world an Akhound like Karroubi got to be a millionaire living in plush neighborhood of Northern Tehran. Or what makes Montazeri a saint, his remorse for remaining silent when thousands were slaughtered and buried in mass graves under his watch or for masterminding the return of Iran to 14 century? Or what the hell Khatami or Mousavi have done to deserve the spilling of the blood of our young? I think those who still believe Iran will become a democratic nation and a nation of Laws by replacing Khamenei with another Akhound or by replacing Ahmadi with Mousavi or Karroubi are more delusional than Ahmadi and frankly they deserve Islamic Republic as their government. I am tired of listening to their sob stories.
By the way I just learned that mullahs of IR are insulated if you call them Akhound. So from this day forward I will refer to them as Akhound. I hope others do the same.
Scott,
"These international actions that were supported by the big powers are being committed while the crimes of the government of Israel, which were against humanity, not only are not condemned but are being supported."
This translation is defective, i.e. euphemistic. The Persian text reads "...while the actions of the Zionist regime, which are obvious crimes against humanity..."
When I first read this sentence on Khatami's site, I thought it was a fake, but obviously he and Moussavi never intended to give up their holy Islamic ideology.
I fully agree with Megan. Whoever follows these "leaders" deserves the IR as his government!
Arshama
Dear Megan
I know that you refer to me and I understand your disillusion; I think that in a repressive regime as we have in our country, the men like Montazeri or Karroubi are really brave to rebel against this dictatorship; Montazeri become the ennemy number one of Khomeyni because he was against "velayat faghih" , he cririsized the murders of the students and all his life he was in jail in his own house ! Boroujerdi, even from prison sends the letters outside saying how he is sad for people of Iran and how he's ashamed to be a muslim ! Karroubi when he was the chairman of parlement showed his bravery and after the elections last year , dared to reveal rape's cases in iranian prisons and fights everyday with this tyranny; I believe that the current leaders are not the representatives of islam, I hate them for what they have done with our people, for their inability to run our country, for dishonoring our country in the world; I have hated Khomeyni from the beginning; he was full of hatred and revenge; I can't forget when he come back in the country and when a journalist asked him, "what's your feeling "he said "nothing" !! instead of kneeling down and embracing the soil of our country or I heard that he was washing his hands with the blood of killed people on the rooftops !! very sad history ! I hate in general the akhounds as you say; I am from a secular and well educated family and not at all practising but my strentgh or my weakness is that I believe in God and you can't imagine how big are my believes, and I love to find myself in mosque, church or temple to pray ; I find that it's unfair to belittle what people like Montazeri, Karroubi Boroujerdi or others like them have done despite that repression reigning in the country; we had also a secular regime with Shah and I think in each kind of regime you could find , brave or mad people; but what I want to say is that Islam is not incompatible with democracy and perhaps we can't find brave people as I cited above , even in Shah's time; they are as exceptional as Reza Shah, Ghandi, Martin Lutherking , or Mandela were; perhaps you want an other Reza Khan making a coup as he did at that time, why not, I want to as well :-); my difference with you is that I have" double chances" to be happy; secular or islamic, I don't care, I want only " democracy "and happiness for my people !!
Ange,
I love you and your dedication to freedom in Iran. I love you for caring and hurting for Iranians in Iran. I am, however, worried that you have started mixing up faith in God, and religious beliefs with politics and system of government. I would like to reply to your above comments in detail but I am afraid I have to do that tomorrow if that is okay with you. It is past 4:00 am my time and I need to get a couple of hours of sleep before getting ready for work.
OK Megan, have a nice dream; I will be absent for few days and I couldn't answer but I will be able to read EA and all the comments .
I love you too ! :-)
Anyone who thinks Islam and democracy are compatible betray their ignorance of the Quran, the hadiths, and 1400 years of Islamic jurisprudence.
Bozorg
First of all, when I was child and we had "talimat dini", theology ,in school, we were taught that islam is modern and move and develop with time; that veiled female and the obligations to be worn from the heels untill the head for women are human creations and are only the interpretation of islam; do you think that at that time, women were worn like women in Afganistan with burqa or like iranian women in tchador or scarf ?? we were taught all the good values existing in other religions ( killing , stealing , lying raping ......); we were taught zoroastrian values, (good thoughts, good speeches, good deeds) existing also in other religions; now some thugs, not only , interpret islam, but it's so exagerated that our poor islam becomes a caricature it's no more a religion but a tool to harass people !
Bozorg
"Anyone who thinks Islam and democracy are compatible betray their ignorance of the Quran, the hadiths, and 1400 years of Islamic jurisprudence. "
I honestly believe that any religion is compatible with Democracy - IF there is separation between Church and State. Poland is a VERY religious country - I didn't realise how much so until I visited there some years ago- but they have slowly and successfully changed to a Democratic society.
I think you are probably saying this because the writings of Islam are prescriptive - saying such things as God's law is the only law. There are aspects of Christianity which are similar- but these days in Christian countries, while there are still some fundamentalists who believe that the writings in the Bible are the very word of God and must be obeyed, while there are others who believe that human interpretations of the Bible ( as written by the different Christian Churches) must be obeyed - these fundamentalists are now a very small minority. They are not given any heed by more modern minded Christians (moderates) and hence have no power. This will come to Islam one day - trouble is , as I see it, is that many Islamic countries are poverty stricken and people are not educated or worldly and are easily led by others.
Barry
Angie,
I have more respect for conservative Muslims. So-called moderate Muslims cherry-pick verses in order to accommodate Islam to secular morality, like all other "moderate" religionists. Conservative Muslims understandably find this buffet pick-and-choose approach to interpretation as dishonest, and contrary to the integrity and primacy of sharia. The Mesbah Yazdis of Islam are far more faithful to the actual content of the Quran and hadiths than so-called moderates.
In order to see this, one really needs to read the Quran and hadiths on their own, not rely on someone else's sanitized presentation of them. It's religion that adapts to secular morality, not the other way around.
Do you really need religion to teach you to have Good Thoughts, Good Words, and Good Deeds?
Baz,
"I honestly believe that any religion is compatible with Democracy - IF there is separation between Church and State."
It's not compatible if it needs to be separated from the government, now is it?
I never said that democracy is incompatible with a religious citizenry. My contention is that having sharia as the basis of law and governance is incompatible with democracy and its attendant rights. Islamists like Mousavi and Khatami disagree. They think you can have a sharia-based democracy that respects secular standards of human rights. Well, for the most part. You still won't see too many gay pride parades under Green Islamist rule.
"I think you are probably saying this because the writings of Islam are prescriptive - saying such things as God's law is the only law."
Yes, Islam claims to be the final and complete revelation of God to man, and therefore, the only correct model for society. The idea that there can be other sources of law, or that Islam needs to accommodate itself to any other system is an affront to its core belief about its social, political and economic primacy.
"these fundamentalists are now a very small minority. They are not given any heed by more modern minded Christians (moderates) and hence have no power. "
Christian fundamentalists are a very small minority? You need to visit the U.S., my friend.
Ah yes, again, the "sophisticated moderate" religionists argument. Moderates are people that simply don't take their religion too seriously. What do you think about the intellectual integrity of a Christian who ignores all the "bad stuff" and only focuses on the "good stuff."
"This will come to Islam one day - trouble is , as I see it, is that many Islamic countries are poverty stricken and people are not educated or worldly and are easily led by others."
It has. You can find it among the works of reformist theoreticians, and Montazeri.
The mental contortions and polemical somersaults needed to force archaic scriptural law to comply with modernity is dishonest and unconvincing to both secularists and conservative Muslims.
What do you think about the intellectual integrity of a Christian who ignores all the "bad stuff" and only focuses on the "good stuff" in the Bible.
Barry -
I follow where you are going with your discussion, however Bozorg is correct. I do not think it is accurate to say fundamentalists, defining as one who takes the Bible as the full and only truth for purposes of this post, are not a mintority...not sure majority is correct either. It may be perceived as a minority based on the fact, aside from a few individuals, religious figures do not have a great deal of stature and related to this, press in the US. So while the belief that "we are right and they are wrong" may still be commonplace amoungst many in the US, specifically in more rural areas, the US still takes great effort to seperate church from state.
Regarding seperation of church and state...I will again agree to an extent with Bozorg. The reason for the concept of seperation of church and state is based on the fact one (or both) will take over the other. The concept as used specificaly in the US constitution, in my opinion, was done so knowing there is a level of incombatability between state and church and therefore efforts were made to keep the two seperate so that the democracy could thrive. Note I am not saying exist as I agree with you that I think Islam and democracy can exist together but feel it would take substantial efforts if this democracy was to be as it exists in the west.
Regards,
"My contention is that having sharia as the basis of law and governance is incompatible with democracy "
Now this I can agree with completely - and as for the rest, I think we are all on the same page.
Without getting into an argument about how many Christian fundamentalists there are in the US - there is no doubt that in any Christian Democracy (Poland?), that Christian background ( whether including fundamentalists or not) will affect/guide many things, including morals, ethics, politics, etc. But it is not the final arbiter nor the only arbiter of these things. This is not the case in Iran , where it seems that Islam is the final and only arbiter. But - it doesn't have to be that way, in spite of what the Islamic writings say. And in any case - just exactly what is Islam? Is it the one and only original Quran - or is it the later human interpretations of it??
Bozorg - you seem to mock religious "moderates" as "cherry pickers"?? There are only 3 choices really - non-religious, moderate or fundamentalist. I have chosen the first of these three- but I believe all religions need "cherry picking" - as their writings all come from a time period long past. And nothing is absolute .
Possibly the biggest problem with all religions is not the prescriptive side - but the side whereby humans "expand" on the religious writings - basically they invent an interpretation which they then regard as sacrosanct. Does anybody know where in the Islamic writings , the style/length of a man's hair is prescribed?? I often see things described as "Islamic ****" - eg an Islamic hairstyle.
Barry
"And in any case - just exactly what is Islam? Is it the one and only original Quran - or is it the later human interpretations of it??"
Great question, Barry, and one that more people need to ask and investigate for themselves, instead of relying on others to tell them.
In Sunni Islam, Islamic law (sharia) has four roots (usul) - the Quran, the hadith, the consensus of scholars (ijma) and the method of reasoning by analogy (kiyas).
Different sects place various emphasis on each, save the Quran, which has primary authority among all Muslims. For Shias, which are also divided into too many sects to keep count, add the sayings of Ali and his descendants to the whole labyrinthine scheme.
"possibly the biggest problem with all religions is not the prescriptive side - but the side whereby humans "expand" on the religious writings - basically they invent an interpretation which they then regard as sacrosanct. "
Barry, it's the prescriptive side that serves as the basis for interpretation. American Christians used the Bible to both support and oppose slavery. Our moral bearings are extra-religious. Religions are very seldom the source of moral content, but are rather used to sanction moral content that's decided independent of religion.
Yeah, I do find liberal or moderate religionists to be cherry pickers. I think it's insincere and provides cover for fundamentalists.
"often see things described as "Islamic ****" - eg an Islamic hairstyle. "
haha...yeah, that's what you're going to get from religion that wants to regulate the minutiae of human lives.
I have to agree that Islam, or any other religion, is not compatible with democracy. Theocracy isn't something you can have just "a little" of. Separation of mosque and state, separation of church and state, separation of temple and state are all necessary.
Ange,
Point #2, Your support for karroubi and Montazeri.
I am aware of Karroubi activities and Montazeri’s faith in later years of his life as outlined by you.
How much do you know about Karroubi? Have you heard of Shahram Jazayeri who was jailed for embezzlement? Karroubi’s name was among those who dealt with Shahram Jazayeri. Did you know that Karroubi was not in favor of foreign investment in Iran? Do you know that Karroubi favors state controlled economy? Though he portrays himself as pro women rights in practice he is not. I heard an interview by an Iranian woman who was a Green Democracy Movement protester and her story of having been jailed by Karroubi. She described that her husband had been killed in Iran-Iraq war. She said she had two small children and was preoccupied with caring for the children and managing life and had fallen short in taking her children to see their grandparents, her mother and father in-law. Her in-laws filed a complaint and she was taken to court. Karroubi was adjudicating the case. Karroubi not only separated her children from her by giving custody of the children to her in-laws (her dead husband’s parents) he sent her to jail for not taking the children to see the grandparents for two months. She said she kissed Karroubi’s feet and bagged him not to separate her children from her in exchange for more jail time. Karroubi did not listen and her children were taken away from her as they cried for their mother. That is the Mr. hero.
There are a lot more we do not know about these Islamic Republic fellows. Truth about all of them will surface once the system collapses. One thing is clear; they all are guilty of abuse of power, at minimum.
Even if we dismiss all the whispers as baseless allegations and focus solely on his good deeds in the past year as you suggest, I would like to know why suddenly he found the courage to speak out. After all, murder and rape in Islamic Republic had not only happened in last 13 months. This regime had used murder, rape, torture, imprisonment of people for their political views as an effective means of staying in power. So why Karroubi all of sudden have become the champion of victim rights? The answer is because he was denied a seat at the table of power. Because regime circle of friends got smaller and Karroubi was left out. Karroubi is working for Karroubi not for victims. He would not be any better than Akhound Khamenei if he was SL. He would have been just as incompetent as Ahmadi, as ineffective as Akhound Rafsanjani and Akhound Khatami if he became president.
Today is the anniversary of 1999 student uprising and the massacre at student dormitory. Khatami was president in 1999. He ordered shutting down of certain newspaper. Student massacre took place under his watch. Where were Karroubi or Mousavi? They were in Iran in 1999 and not on the moon. They remained silent because they were part of the gang. They were collecting their share of stolen goods. Lives of a few students or shutting down of a newspaper, arresting, jailing and torturing people were all for keeping them in power and that was all they cared for.
With regard to Montazeri: when you condone lawlessness and condone hooligans and their reprehensible conducts you will be at the receiving end one day. He sure was. He witnessed murder of thousands; he cheered and sanctioned scaling of US embassy walls and imprisonment of 52 people for 444 days. If you the government condone hostage taking, one day you will be the hostage. And he became a hostage in his own home. Velaayet Faghih clause was his brainchild. Islamic Republic was his Frankenstein that turned on him. I pity all these idiots but shed no tears for any of them. None of these guys is a saint or a hero in my book.
Ange,
Point # 3. Your tendency to quickly accept words of any scoundrel who comes along and pretends they support democracy movement in Iran.
Even though I know you only through cyber space I can say, based on your words and writings, that you are a person kind at heart; I would say too kind. You are genially hurting for people of Iran. You make an effort to get along with everyone. You want all to unite. You even tried to reason with Samuel and bring him to your side. You see no evil and believe everyone means well. I respect that. I love your purity and sincerity but my friend I worry that you fall into the web of deceit of others quickly, the likes of Kadivar or Ghalibuff (Tehran Mayor) or Sazegara or many others. You listen to these guys and see sincerity. I listen to these guys and see deceit and see motives. These guys words and claims ring hollow to me. I may be wrong but I will be safe because it takes a lot to fool me. I only hope that people back home are a whole lot apprehensive, a whole lot shrewd, question everyone, and scrutinize every claim because they cannot afford to be fooled again.
Finally, as I said I respect you and I love you for your dedication to this cause. Forgive me if I am harsh on people you believe in.
Hi WitteKr,
If you read the entire article it becomes clear how and why the author reaches that one line conclusion you disagree with. If you do not have time to read the entire article you may want to read paragraph 2 under the heading of “Elements of Democracy in non-Arab Islamic Countries" in which democracy in Indonesia is addressed.
Interesting enough the author sees greater hope for Iran. But his hope is based on false premise of “genuine parliamentary and presidential elections”. There has not be been any “genuine” election of any kind in Iran in the past 31 years.
The corruption level in many of the mentioned countries in the article is very high and that includes Iran. Until and unless the corruption factor is addressed democracy will remain fragile whether it is secular or not. It is doubly fragile in countries where masses are herded to mix up and practice superstition instead of religion(false teaching of Quran by clergies that sometimes are intentional and other times is due to ignorance of the clergies). This is prevalent in uneducated rural areas in Iran. I cannot speak for other countries.
Hi Wittekr
I think it`s necessary to examine your reply more critical. At the surface you are right - Indonesia has a secular democrazy. They have no State religion and the constitution says that you have to choose ( you must) between 6 different religions. In practise: You are free to choose one of
6 religions between Islam and Christianity.
But it seems to be that this model is just only a nice theory to bring people together with diffrent religions.
Looking to reality you have to see the real problem which you are underestimating even in Indonesia : And this problem is political Islam.
Political Islam is using freedom, democrazy and broad conceptions of religion to get stronger for his own purpose: At the moment there are
islamistic Parties in indonesia who are fighting the state with their claim to lauch the sharia. Do you know this ?
I think as a neighbour :) you can read German - its a very serious source.
http://www.swp-berlin.org/common/get_document.php?asset_id=5087" rel="nofollow">http://www.swp-berlin.org/common/get_document.p...
Iran is total different case - they have had political islam for 31 years. The only way to keep polical Islam out of business is a good secular democratic constitution and a strong and secular police and army.
And in general you have to make a social policy worthy of the name.
Sorry, not convinced. I admit I didn't read the piece. I did now.
It's absolute crap. Filled with unscientific rubbish and 'gut feeling'. Also very out dated (2003), by a professor emeritus from originally Estonia, with a Ph.D in physics and main research interest in electoral systems. Wow!
Sorry, Megan - I love you too :-)
Gunniy, I'm not saying democracy in Indonesia doesn't have it's problems. I have read your link (yes, I read German - and your link didn't tell me something new).
I do know political Islam in Indonesia exists - and even terror attacks took place. I also have witnessed how Indonesia has effectively counter attacked it.
I have in recent years had lots of discussions with young Indonesians who fought ten years ago - as students or young professionals, with veil or not - to establish the society they live in now. And they will not give up their democratic ideals to fanatical minorities. Do you know what 'Gus Dur' meant to them? Do you know Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono? (Just mentioning two presidents...)
Iran is really not a very different case. What, in history, is 31 years? Nothing! Indonesia had very bad years too, before young, intelligent, tolerant, democratic people forced the establishment to take a different path. And it works...
All I'm saying is it is possible. Look at Indonesia. There is hope.
To me, the struggle of Indonesia ten years ago is similar to the struggle in Iran today.
Similarities? Majority Islamic, demographically a young population, well educated, not Arabic, ancient civil roots, history to be proud of. Lots of minorities but also a history of long time peaceful coexistence.
There is hope, it's possible!
WitteKr,
There are a number of articles on the topic of, compatibility of Islam with democracy, some arguing it has been compatible in some Muslim nations and others points out to its incompatibility in other Muslim nations. I believe the reason for different conclusions are due to numerous variables such as culture, history, structure of society, economy, education, population centers, neighboring nations, adaptability, political structure, degree of corruption, etc. I am sure you noted the second study I provided a link to. This study used regression analysis to account for these variables.
Since I really do not want to turn this discussion in the direction of ”compatibility of Islam with democracy”, I refrain from providing more reference materials on the topic. Gunni, however, has provided an article on Democracy in Indonesia you may want to review if you do not agree with conclusions of professor from Estonia (!).
As I stated in my comments under point # 1, the entire topic of compatibility of Islam with democracy is moot and irrelevant to the situation in Iran. And I explained why.
I claim no expertise in failure of democracy or the success of democracy in Indonesia or any other Muslim majority country I have never lived in. Any conclusion those who do not live in a culture draw is academic at best. Any claim by you (if you have not lived in Indonesia) and I, will be questionable (or will be rubbish as you stated) like conclusions of the professor from Estonia. It is one thing to read an article about a nation, it is another thing to touch, see, feel, smell, and grow up in it.
I know a thing or two about Iranian culture and the structure of Iranian society, our failed experimentation with democracy under Islam and its root cause. I, therefore, would like to focus on practical aspect of this discussion instead of engaging in an academic acrobatics
Megan,
I have a question about the story you tell: "I heard an interview by an Iranian woman who was a Green Democracy Movement protester and her story of having been jailed by Karroubi. ... Karroubi was adjudicating the case. Karroubi not only separated her children from her by giving custody of the children to her in-laws (her dead husband’s parents) he sent her to jail for not taking the children to see the grandparents for two months...."
If this woman was a Green Protester, the case had to have taken place between June 2009 and now. Is Karroubi a judge? What legal position does he occupy that allows him to adjudicate in child custody cases or family law?
part I
Yes - WitteKr, the glas is half full and we have power and hope – how could I have doubts about this kind of statements you made.
Your suggestion to have a look to Indonesia at first is an interesting example to see how the Indonesian people deal with Islam inside a democratic system.
By the way - I never had doubts in the theory and in general, like you point out with the Indonesian experiment, that it’s possible to integrate Sunnis or Shias into a multireligous Democratic Society. And what the Indonesian people did is very clever: They created a secular democratical political system. And they try to integrate the different religious faiths of the people with the help of a kind of Superstructure – Philosophy: The “Pancasila”
Analysing and translating this system into clear words you can say:
1. Governing the country they created a secular rational democratic
political system.
2. With the superstructure Pancasila they try to equalize the different
religions.
Pancasila says: Every religion is equal and you have to recognize people with different faiths. To make it clear: the Islamic people have to acknowledge Christian people and reverse.
It seems to be an intelligent way to handle the Indonesian political problems. But is it possible to transfer (in theory)this system to Iran?
Part II
Surely it’s a question of the viewpoint but I see it this way: In theory the Indonesian model will work – but not in practise. Why? This model contains the strong ideas of Pluralism, Rationalism, ideas of Enlightment and the believing: Live and let live inside the borders of a democratic society.
Everybody on this blog can easily subscribe this aims – but looking to the reality you will find a real different world: The islamistic hardliners in Iran they would not accept one little tiny point of this aims. You can’t even talk with them about future developments inside the Iranian society - even less human rights or other fundamentals which will be needed for this kind of developed Indonesian political system.
The different interpretations of Islam in Iran are so many like stars at the sky. And the islamistic behaviour of the hardliners and figures like Jannati, Yazdi and many others you can’t take serious: It `s nothing more left than a cruel fascistic islamistic ideology to keep themselves in power. If you are swimming in these moody waters than its okay: they wan`t bother you – but if not – you get rapped, tortured stoned.
Following the harsh counterinsurgency for the last bitter tasting 13 month you can only say:
Islam is seriously damaged – and you have genuinely to ask:
Do the Iranian people really trust into Islam anymore ? Ore are they fed up with the mullahs and lunatics like SL, AN, Jannati and Yazdi? Analysing the past could you really say that this kind of islamistic behaviour could be the groundwork for a serious Iranian political system?
Wittekr – this kind of Islam is like a 1400 year old rusty, damaged car which wrecked at least in June 2009. Would you choose this kind of veiled wreckage of history as a ground work fore your future?