The Latest from Iran (24 June): Persistence

2015 GMT: International Front. By the narrow margin of 99-0, the US Senate has approved a bill with sweeping sanctions --- far wider than the UN resolution that passed earlier this month --- on Iran's banking and energy sectors.

1545 GMT: Parliament v. President. Video has been posted of Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani's speech in the aftermath of the Basij/student demonstrations against the Majlis bill asserting control of Islamic Azad University.

NEW Iran Special: Mousavi, Karroubi, and the Strategy of “We Are Still Standing (for the Revolution)”
Iran Document: The Mousavi-Karroubi Meeting (23 June)
Iran Eyewitness: An “Army of Strollers” and Allah-o-Akbar on 12 June (Tehran Bureau)
The Latest from Iran (23 June): Baghi Freed

1510 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Student activist and Mousavi campaign worker Arash Sadeghi has been sentenced to six years in prison and 74 lashes.

Labour activist Mohammad Ashrafi has been arrested.

Student Sina Tahani, detained earlier this month for distributing Mousavi and Karroubi leaflets, has turned 18 in prison.

Photographs of filmmaker Mohammad Nourizad, released yesterday from detention, have been released.



1240 GMT: This Week's Political News --- Shutting Down the Reformists? An EA correspondent follows up the news, which we noted earlier this week, that Parliament has deferred the local elections for Tehran and other city councils until spring 2012.

The correspondent asserts, "Should the Guardian Council approve this, this would give time to the conservatives to rout the reformists, removing them completely from the political radar. I believe it to be an ominous sign regarding the attitude of the ruling clique towards the concept of electoral politics."

1230 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Fatemeh Shams, the wife of student activist Mohammad Reza Jalaeipour, has told Radio Farda, "In a short phone call [on 20 June, six days after his detention], he told his mother that he was being held in solitary [confinement], but when asked in which prison, he remained silent."

Shams added, "Two days before Mohammad Reza's arrest, I received threatening e-mails from a group called the Cyber Army of the Islamic Republic saying 'we'll arrest your husband.'" The same group sent her another threatening e-mail after her husband's arrest saying, "We'll make you return to Tehran."

Seyed Hossein Marashi, former member of Parliament, Vice President in the Khatami Administration, and brother–in-law of former President Hashemi Rafsanjani has given leave of absence from prison for a week. Marashi is serving one year in prison for propaganda  against the regime.

1225 GMT: Parliament v. President. Footage has emerged of the Basij/student demonstration in front of Parliament on Tuesday, protesting the Majlis bill maintaining control (and thus refusing to cede it to the President) over Islamic Azad University.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87ANAadXRwA&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]

0754 GMT: The Situation Abroad. Writing in Rooz, Kaveh Ghoreishi highlights, "Iranian Refugees In Iraq Face Uncertain Fate".

0750 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. RAHANA reports that 325 people were arrested during the month of Khordaad (May/June).

0730 GMT: We begin this morning with an analysis, "We Are Still Standing (for the Revolution) of Wednesday's statement by Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi.

Meanwhile....

Academic Corner

The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, with an interview with a student activist, highlights, "Summonses, Notices, and Dismissals at Qazvin International University".
Political Prisoner Watch

Fars News reports that the trial in Tehran Revolutionary Court of blogger Hossein Derakhshan has finally begun.

Derakhshan was arrested 19 months ago. He is accused of “cooperation with enemy states, propaganda against the Islamic regime, promoting anti-Revolutionary groups, insulting sanctities, launching and managing vulgar and obscene sites”.

Derakhshan was one of the first Iranian bloggers when he created “Editor: Myself.” He had settled in Canada but was detained when he returned to Iran in November 2008.

Where's Mahmoud?

For President Ahmadinejad, it is still eyes front-and-centre on the international front. He told an audience Wednesday, "The recent [United Nations sanctions] resolution against the Iranian nation was in fact a loud announcement of the fall of liberalism and humanism. Those who ratified the resolution are perfectly aware that it will have no impact."

Comments

[Baz]

To all the "regulars" who have been "contributing" to this Forum thread - Samuel and Rezvan and M Ali will be rubbing their hands with glee after reading your "contibutions" . They have no need to be here now - you are all doing their job for them very well

Barry

[wdavit]

Barry,

Please expand on your point. I am not sure the discussion on this thread is going to have Samuel and Ali rubbing their hands in glee. To me it demonstrates a democratic debate in which subjects are being debated that under the regime would most certaintly would not be. I may be wrong and that is why I ask. I also value your opinion greatly.

Thx
Bill

[wdavit]

Bahman_Azad,

Thank you for your reply. You are correct in that assumption about staying away from power but as we have seen in Iran that is not the reality. The question is the regime right or wrong in doing this? Frankly I don't know and to be upfront most of my points are from a Sunni standpoint. The Sunni standpoint is pretty clear about no seperation of Mosque and State. As for Shias it is not quite as clear and I have only begun to delve into that. I have found arguements supporting a seperation and others not such as the regime in Iran. Ironically I have even found arguements that the regimes position is an innovation for Shia Islam. If you can offer any insight or direct me to some sources to read up on I would greatly appreciate it. Personally I see Shia Islam and especially Iran as an opportunity for the world to see how Islam can successfully integrate with the world.

From what I have seen Shias seem to always be those Muslims who most easily integrate with the other(read a number of studies that showed Shias as the ones most succesful integrating in the West.) I have also observed that Iran is light years ahead of the Sunni world as it comes to education, technology, and democratic concepts. My two best friends who are Iranians are walking examples of this. I believe this stems from the more liberal approach Shias have and the fact that they never closed the gates of Ijtihad(independent interpretation of scripture.) The Sunnis closed the gates of Ijtihad over a thousand years ago(thanks to Al Ghazali and Iby Taymiyyah) which essentially stuck Sunni Islam in a time warp unable to really change. Shia Islam has not done that and it is why Iran has progressed so much in comparision. The regime however is the contradiction of this. They seem to have over time embraced the "arab mindset" when it comes to Islam. Hopefully when they go then Iran can be a shinning example of how Islam can succesfully integrate, take advantage of democracy, and simply coexist with the West.

"Don't you think that that notion allows for committed Muslims to, if not actively support, at least live with secular governments?" I would say yes but with the qualification that it is on an individual level for Sunnis and for Shias something their society does espouse making it even easier for the individual to embrace. The only issue I have is the fact Islam does posit itself as complete way of life governing everything thus I am not so sure if a true Western liberal democracy can ever be achieved. Islam needs to be part of the framework for any Islamic states governance. This can be good for Muslims but my concern is what does it mean for religious minorities. The reality on the street is the fact that all Islamic states do in fact have laws on their books severly restricting(even banning) other religions, dual legal systems that institutionalize discrimination of religious minorities lifted directly from Sharia, and a complete ban on non Muslim missionary work. Just imagine if in the West we banned Dawa, Mosque construction, and open displays of faith. Muslims would be rightly outraged because our governments mandate complete freedom of religion--and yet these restrictions are realities for most non Muslims in Islamic states. This problem needs to be corrected and frankly it is the number one reason why most in the West believe a secular democracy is not possible within Islam. Actions speak louder than words. I apologize if this comes across as bit harsh. I just believe this is one of if not the major issues facing the world in determining how we can all coexist and prosper. I don't judge anyone by their faith and my hope is one day well all look at each others as equals regardless of what our faith is. Let me know your thoughts and I very much appreciate any feedback you can offer.

Thx
Bill

[Baz]

Bill

"To me it demonstrates a democratic debate in which subjects are being debated that under the regime would most certaintly would not be. "

You are absolutely correct - and I agree with what I think is your intent in doing so. But there are other things to consider. Is it giving supporters of the Regime some comfort to see that the Resistance is divided?? - perhaps divided is too strong a word, but they rummage for ANYTHING that they can use.

Democracy is a wonderful thing - and the right for people to express their differing views is also wonderful - but neither is sacrosanct. You will recall that in past times ( like WW2 in the Allied countries, UK, US, Australia) censorship was practised - and I believe for a good reason. I am not advocating that here - but some self-censorship may not go astray. Please do not give them any comfort at all, or give them anything that they can use. .

Barry

[wdavit]

Bijan77,

You make some valid points. However the central difference between Islam and Christianity is that Christianity embraced critical thought and secularism. It was Jesus who said "leave unto Cesar's what Cesar's" predisposing the Christian faith to man made laws and also the concept of critical thought(ie man figuring things out himself.) Islam clearly predisposes the follower to the belief mosque and state cannot be seperated. Islam also make critical thought a tricky business because so much in Islam is governed by what Allah says you must or must not do--thus who is man to figure out things when Allah has already revealed to them how things are done. In my mind this rejection of critical thought in favor of the divine is one of the major issues in the Islamic world. They instead hold to the primacy of Allah's law especially so when it contradicts with anything man came up with. Frankly this predisposition is what leads to so many conflicts because Muslims are mandated to live under Sharia and we can see them all over the west agitating for it. Christianity does not demand God's law but instead says man can govern himself making secularims and equality for all regarldess of faith a reality.

As for equality I would agree from a religious standpoint those of other faith will never truly look at the other as equal. The difference is what each religion teaches on how to get along with those of other faiths. Christianity says you must call others to your faith but also states "love thy enemy and neighbour." Christianity and just about every other non Muslim faith also lives by the golden rule "live and let live" simply meaning we are not mandated to convert everyone--it respects choice. Islam on the other hand has no such golden rule and in fact its golden rule is "all must submit to Allah." Some will argue saying Islam says "their is no compulsion in religion" but they fail to realize that this verse was abrogated(supported by all 4 Sunni schools and Twelver school of thought) by over a 100 verses mandating the rule of Islam must span the globe. We need not be all converted but at the very least Sharia must be the law for all people regardless of faith. It is so because in Islam unbelief is the worst evil and is the source for all the worlds injustice, oppression, and strife. Muslims are prescribed to eradicate this ignorance. Worse yet Sharia clearly states force is an option to spread Islam because of this mandate. Some will argue this is false but I would point out verses support this along with the actions of early Muslims. Muhammad set the example by doing this himself and the early Islamic conquests showed a precedance for this. The reason you don't see offensive warfare to day is because there is no Caliph and the more salient fact that they do not have the means to. When the Islamic world had the means to wage war to spread faith they did it almost every year of their existence. One only needs to google the wiki entries on Islamic conquests and the Ottamans wars and note how almost every year war to spread faith was a fact.

You also bring up another interesting point about Islam accepting other faiths. In fact their scripture says they should hold Jewish and Christian scripture as valid. Ironically many Islamists will state these works were corrupted but the they contradict the Quran which clearly has no reference to these works being corrupted. The other interesting point is the Quran says they are valid but then contradicts itself by saying just the opposite such as Jesus not dying(this is always a fun quesiton when dealing with Islamist--they get all twisted in knots trying to show the Quran says it was corrupted and they are never able to prove it.)

By the way I am in no way an expert but just someone who delved into it once I had a Saudi friend disown me citing scripture as the reason a verse(the take no friends amongst those of other faiths verse.) This event has led me to investigate Islam. Most of my studies are from the Sunni standpoint and as I noted in a few other posts on this thread the Shia view is different and one I am not as familiar with. I would also encourage you to take my words with a grain of salt because they are just my views based on study. I don't hold them to be universally right and I could be very well wrong.

As lesson read the Cario Decleration of Human rights(its only a few pages):

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/cairodeclaration.html" rel="nofollow">http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/cairodecla...

The important point is the OIC states felt the need to author their own document because they felt the Universal one contradicted Islam. Once you read it you will note they have no reference to true freedom of religons or equality of all regardless of faith. Also note how in several places it replaces the word "rights" with "dignity. To me this is a clear example of the fact Islam does not truly believe in any other truth than their own. They can't because Islam does not truly believe in freedom of religon or equality of all regardless of faith or sex.

Thx
Bill

[wdavit]

Barry,

Thanks for the clarification. I do understand your point but I don't believe self censorhip is the answer in all cases. Is some cases but here I don't think so. The reality is the Green Movement to be succeful has to discuss these issues and find a resolution. If they just try to sweep it under the carpet it won't get resolved thus no realy unity. Now having said that maybe a prudent course is to argue these points outside of the public sphere. The problem in this case is the fact this is most likely one of the few spots these folks can get together to discuss topics like this. Thus your left debating the fruits of discussing it and the risk of it being used by the opponents when done openly. I think this then needs to be taken on a case to case point. Ironically it is why I am torn over such things as the wiki leaks stuff. It is the same issue and while I believe these errors must be addressed we do need to be careful about it. Wiki leaks may have good intentions but they need to consider the wider ramifications of leaking this stuff. Even though it as an isolated instance it can become a powerful recruiting tool that could cause more death all around. Frankly its why why we never see footage by the Russians in Chechnya or Afghanistan--if don't know it happened how can it then be used for propoganda purposes. It is also why the regime does not air any of its dirty laundry as well.

Thx
Bill

[Ange-Paris]

Barry
Self censorship is the policy of iranian regime; after each wrong doing in the regime, KH says that " for the sake of" Nezam", all the staff have to keep their mouth closed and forget what has happened " ( lots of corruptions's cases, or what they have done to iranian people ); Green movement debate about all wrong things existing in their fights, to improve the stand of their movement; we have not to close our eyes saying like AN ," everything is well "; it's a democratic debate, and I think, even with Samuel and others, we had had the same approach ; it's not bad if this kind of debates are done in public sphere; it's very good to have a TV channel so that all different ideologies of GM could debate freely in public ; in democratic countries , it's very normal ! now , we have only EA, to be able to do so, and we have nothing to hide if not, it becomes their " Nezam " !

[Arshama]

Barry,

Bahman Azad reminds me very much of Mr Brill. I simply don't have the time to continue such useless discussions!

Arshama

[Bahman_Azad]

wdavit,

I'm no expert on the issue of whether the Shia theology is inherently more flexible in integrating with democratic systems or not.

I can easily argue that it is not the shia theology, rather Persians' success in not becoming absorbed into the culture of their Arab invaders is the true cause for their better integration that you point to.

I'm not persian nationalist but just the fact that persians did develop the first human bill of rights some 2,500 years ago could be an example of how the historical cultural differences are still playing a major role....that's what a persian nationalist would clearly argue.

OTOH, since Shia muslims had never held political power, that could explain why their theology had no choice but to evolve as one that justified its lack of power by saying "well, we never wanted to have power because politics are dirty and we don't want to get stained by it and therefore we instead believe that we are required by god to wait for the hidden imam and jesus to return."

Of course, once Shia clerics did come to power in 1979, one branch of them decided that there was no reason to use that old excuse any more, so they did a 180 and celebrated the benefits of their first-ever political power. Sunnis had always held political power so their theology faced no reason to adopt an apolitical thought/excuse.

But after the 1979 revolution, another clerical branch believed that staying away from politics was still what their religion required of them and they stuck to studying theology and pursuing self-improvement. I personally know one Grand Ayatollah (not a well-known name for obvious reason) who believes in this approach.

Of course many fall at various points between these two extreme ends of the spectrum (active politicians versus completely apolitical ones). IMO Montazeri evolved to fall between these two extremes: he believed in engaging in politics to fight injustice but he did not believe in clerics taking on governmental positions.

This last group is the one that has aligned with Green Movement and has played an instrumental role in not allowing the regime to repeat its 1980's massacre of thousands of opposition members.

That's why I am troubled by those Iranians who use every opportunity to undermine this group.

Switching gears a bit, as much as I hate the effects of the American Israel lobby on US foreign policy, they obviously provide the "best-in-class" model for how outside supporters of a movement (in this case the zionist movement in Israel) can play a very decisive role in the movement's success on the other side of the world.

Israeli Lobby in the US is not a monolith; it is made up of many groups from across the political spectrum from extreme right neocons to extreme liberals, from orthodox jews to secular atheists. But when it comes to any policy matter with any degree of impact on Israel, they act as a homogeneous group that uses its united voice to achieve its common goal of maintaining a jewish state in Palestine.

Iranians could learn a huge amount from Israeli Lobby in the US. We could become a powerful united voice made up of very different ideologies that acts as one united advocacy group when it comes to one common goal: improve the lives of all Iranian people.

But hey, why do that when we can instead argue over flags!!!!

[Ange-Paris]

My dear Bill
I thank you a lot for saying all this and I agree with you; Iranian people have to learn from your thoughts and from the other fights in foreign countries to reach the freedom; the exemple of France, when during the war General De Gaulle was surronded by communists ( supporting Staline) and people belonging to right wing ( supporting USA) and after the war, in 1945, together, they formed a coalition untill 1948 ; there was no president of republic in the country but only this coalition , a group of individuals ; in 1948, because of a huge political mess, De Gaulle withdrew from politics and France was run by the "president of the conseil" choosen by the french parlement; every 6 or 12 months, the government was removed because of the same mess; in 1958, De gaulle came back , making a democratic coup, asking the the president of the conseil, Mr Coty, to withdraw , he took his place and then, he become the president of France and Mr Michel Debré, wrote the constitution, which giving president a very big power, compare to the other countries like, Italy, Germany and even USA; the president of France can dissolve the National Assembly; all this to say that "DEMOCRACY" is a process reached slowly and iranian opposition has to open the movement to all thoughts included in this movement ( all the reforming MOLLAHS, the Leftists , the Monarchists and in general all the seculars ); it's only by doing this that the Regime , will be overthrown; outside the country we have to teach iranian people, showing that iranian diaspora, has made a coalition and hand in hand, they support people inside the country ! UNITY in the fight towards Democracy is essential .

[Ange-Paris]

Bill
I am so sorry, I thought, it was your reply to Bahman, and I have just seen that it was his reply for you; so, instead of Dear bill," it's dear Bahman ",( in my last comment :-); as we have witnessed, I have really the same ideas than Bahman on this subject !

[Bahman_Azad]

Ange,

First you thought I was Kadivar and now you thought I was Bill. May I suggest George Clooney next???

;)

"BAHMAN"!

[Ange-Paris]

"Bahman"
:-)