SalarHaqq
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2019
- Messages
- 4,569
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
I am being honest and you may ask other Iranian users. Oppositionists to the current political system and especially the rioters we've seen in recent weeks as well as their supporters, are heavily tending towards secularism and liberalism. And some adhere to Iranian ultra-nationalism, focusing on the pre-Islamic Iranian civilization, and oftentimes viewing Islam as an "Arab" religion not well suited for Iran.
How is not a sign of all out anti-clericalism when campaigns are launched to harass ulema by knocking off their turbans?
How is it that some mosques were attacked, while one in the city of Rasht was actually burnt down?
https://www.redd.tube/video/bf224f1cb4c22a954ba30ae6469c7910488a27a3
How is it that the mother of a child martyred by terrorists, in a gathering of individuals chanting slogans against the Islamic Republic and its Leadership, requests the Quran not to be recited at her son's funeral because he allegedly disliked Quran recitations?
(Note: the reddit post says "shot dead by Iranian security forces" but this appears to be fake news. For one, Iran arrested three terrorists said to be responsible for the killing. Secondly the child's mother initially claimed that police indeliberately shot at their car, but she happens to be a staunch opponent of the Islamic Republic, who was following the Persian-language propaganda account of the zionist regime on Instagram, so her credibility stands to debate.)
These may be salient examples, but I am not exaggerating when I state that the riots are marked by very strong secularist and anti-clerical traits at a minimum, with more radical elements going farther yet in their opposition to Islamic religiosity. So while all of them may not be Islamophobic (some definitely are), they are secularist in their overwhelming majority, and averse to the slightest notion of Islamic governance.
Either way, they are not the majority. The majority rejects those who riot and provoke disturbances.
This is not so. The Supreme Leader is chosen by the Assembly of Experts, which itself is elected by the people. And, the Assembly can remove the Leader and replace him with somebody else if deemed necessary. However, there are numerous advantages to having some sort of an authority with a longer term mandate to balance out the elected institutions, control over which changes hands at shorter intervals. A steadier institution like the Leadership enables more efficient long term planning, thanks to the existence of an authority unaffected by party political bickering and dubious voter chasing tactics.
Don't forget that the Supreme Leader is not micro-managing policy nor really in charge of the executive power per se. What he does, is to set general guidelines, broad directions for the elected President and his cabinet, as well as for other institutions to try and follow.
And believe me, there are many examples of Presidents and other officials not listening to the Leader and ignoring his guidelines with impunity. Former President Rohani in a speech even used indirect invectives against the Leader and got away with it.
Also, there's a peculiar characteristic to Iran's political landscape which is quite unique in the world: one of two governing parties, the liberal camp (made of reformist and moderate parties) does not truly believe in the founding principles of the Constitution nor in the ideology of the Revolution, but seeks to operate so-called "regime change" from within like Gorbachev did in the Soviet Union. Furthermore this political camp is in effect advancing the interests of Iran's geostrategic enemies, namely the western regimes.
This makes the Iranian system more much pluralistic than liberal secular "democracies" of the west, where the difference between rival forces competing at elections is minimal in comparison.
The Shia Islamic tradition has specificities of its own. In particular the concept of Wilayat ul Faqih or authority of the Jurisprudent, a highly qualified alim who is to act as the vice regent to Imam Mahdi (a.j.) until the latter's return (for Shia Moslems believe in Imamate as the legitimate form of government, rather than a califate).
Now there are different interpretations amongst Shia scholars as to what exact form Wilayat ul Faqih should take, with several schools of thought (some believe that the Wali should directly govern, others that he should only deal with religious matters, etc).
But Iran's system allows for a combination of theocratic and electoral elements. Wilayat ul Faqih is implemented, as well as the republican form of government along with elections.
Don't underestimate the impact of the soft war Iran has been subjected to at the hands of hostile western and zionist powers. Like I said, Persian language BBC for instance posts eight times more content than Chinese or Russian services of the same BBC. No nation has been subjected to such an intensive propaganda and social engineering campaign by foreign powers, encouraging among other things irreligious lifestyles.
Also, the Iranian context is different from the Indonesian one. In Iranian modern history we have had strongly secularist and even Islamophobic currents, unlike most other Islamic countries. These currents and their legacy have perpetuated themselves to this day. Under Reza Khan, the first ruler of the Pahlavi dynasty in the first half of the 20th century, hejab was outright banned in public, clerics were persecuted. Certain thinkers who were supporting Reza Shah's regime, like Taqizade, were openly advocating cultural westernization, and considered Islamic piety as an obstacle to progress.
To this, a scholar like shahid Motahari would later respond by formulating the thesis that Islam and modernity are compatible. Anyway, I don't want to get into details nor into religious discussions, but context matters and the Iranian context is different from Indonesia's.
Now as for Islamic legislation in Iran: just know that the Islamic Republic's Leadership never sought to confine women nor to prevent them from participating in social, political and economic life. Some make an unhealthy fixation on the dress code and on the football stadium topic, but you'll notice that the same people will deliberately obfuscate far more decisive matters such as:
- The fact that over 60% of Iranian university students are women. Is this what's commonly considered as Taleban-style rule? What's more, this percentage is much higher than it used to be under the secular regime of the last shah, when hejab was not mandatory in the public sphere.
- The fact that Iranian women vote at every election. Again, Taleban-style? Definitely not.
- The fact that we have female members of Majlese Shoraye Eslami (parliament), and other political institutions and administrative offices.
- Females working in countless branches of the economy.
- Females never having been prevented from driving cars, traveling, and so on.
For the rest, the Islamic Republic has sought to combine this with an Islamic public sphere, where decency will be guaranteed by law. People can do a lot of things in the privacy of their homes and nobody is going to bother them, but the public realm is not to be opened up to un-Islamic behaviour.
This does not mean that women would be forced to wear burqas or chadors: they're free to choose their preferred type of hejab, and in practice tolerance levels haven't ceased increasing since 1979, so that nowadays the laxest forms of hejab authorized feature loose headscarves with half the hair protruding, heavy make-up and what not.
When it comes to attendance of sports games, women aren't barred from matches of male teams in other modern sports. Football has been kind of an exception because of the particular atmosphere at football stadiums, which is conducive to rudeness, hooliganism etc. But even here, authorities did show gradual flexibility since they experimented with female attendance of male football games some months ago, when women were allowed into the stadium. To me however, this is a secondary issue, there are more important topics in the life of a woman.
So anyone claiming that something like this justifies riots, lethal assault against law enforcement and the ensuing escalation of violence, needs to have their head checked I'd say.
Last edited:
