The 'noble' struggle against the tyranny of justice
I've been watching the so-called "revolution" in Iran with some interest and I've noticed a few things. Firstly the trend for the profligate, the rich and the beautiful of the world to rise up in their struggle against the tyranny of justice, and to imbue their struggle with a sham nobility. They are morally bankrupt and proud of it. But what is happening today in Iran is meddling to the highest degree by foreign powers that have consistently had designs for that country's (and the region's) riches for over two hundred years. I see the Western media frothing at the mouth with excitement at what is happening there, even the newspapers which are supposed to be impartial all write their articles with an underlying tone implying that the collapse of the Islamic republic would be a good thing - referring to it in similar terms to the former USSR, East Germany or North Korea.
It is as if by sheer coincidence, the enemies of the states that these left leaning and progressive media outlets so love to attack happen to be their own enemies. The language of liberty, freedom and individuality have become politicised and turned into an ideology - albeit one with no substantial content or particular message. It is the liberation ideology of the profligate, fleshed out and blooming shamelessly in a way that would make John Stuart Mill proud. This is wrong, and there is no justice in what those people, and those who demonstrated in Lebanon in 2005, are calling for. They are angry because they want more money and not because they are hungry. When they cry out, they cry out yearning for the soothing whispers of America's pied piper, with her promises of unlimited desires waiting to be fulfilled. This turns our understanding of justice, freedom and the struggle against tyranny completely on its heads.
When the poor and wretched of the earth rise up we should rightly call it just and noble. When it is the rich, the beautiful and the immoral who rise up, then that is just revolting.
12 comments:
totally agree.
Other than that tt is ridiculous how the western media is hyping this thing up, when in Peru the government has been killing the poor natives that are fighting against new legislation that would allow multinational organizations exploit their native lands and rain forests for natural resources.
I think ahmadinajad rightly won the elections even with a 62% given that in the previous elections it was 61%.
I disagree, mainly because the people in Iran who are protesting aren’t vying for the Republic to fail. Mousavi and his supporters believe in the Islamic Republic, they simply don’t believe in the horrid leadership of Ahmadinejad. I do, however, disapprove of Western leaders’ and Iranian dissidents’ seeming portrayal of what’s going on as a revolution and as a dismantling of the Republic. That’s ridiculous.
I tend to agree wıth Abouzeide. I wholeheartedly support the project of the Islamic Republic and it is for this reason that I wanted Mousavi to win and that I hope the current unrest yields at least some change in the way things are done in Iran.
It is hard for me, because I know many people support what is going on simply because they want the Islamic Republic to fall and for the people of Iran to be "free" to model their country after a Western secular democracy and push their religious beliefs into the margins.
The Islamic Revolution is very important for the entire Muslim world, since it is currently our only working model for an attempt at genuine sovereignty for Muslims qua Muslims. But I don't think it can move forward with people like Ahmedinejad at the helm. In the past I defended Ahmedinejad against those who criticized him for the wrong reasons, but I really don't think he has the kind of vision that can inspire further progress in the cause of Islam. I also think there are serious problems with the Iranian system that need to be addressed, which is precisely what I think reformists like Mousavi intend to do.
Insha'Allah, one way or another everything will work out in the best interests of the Iranian people and of this din.
It seems like abouzeide is correct, but your characterizations are so strange. Who are you to decide that Ahmadenijad's supporters are the "moral" and the protestors are the "immoral"? Just because Western attitudes and coverage of the protests are idiotic and ill informed does not mean that there is no legitimacy to their protests.
Jabi, totally agree.
Abouzeide,
I see your point but I fail to see how anybody who believes in an Islamic republic would go and do the things that these people have been doing. Why not protest peacefuly? More importantly since they are not even certain that their election votes were the majority. Finally, if the Walih al Faqih spoke on Friday, why is there more discussion?
I think that whilst the majority of the demonstrators have genuine intentions, they are being herded into a political position by people who do NOT have the interests of the Republic at heart. That's what makes this all so dangerous.
Midwinterspring,
I've heard that Mousavi is actually a nasty piece of work but I do agree that the form of government in Iran needs to address some key issues both domestically and regionally. For one thing, their involvement in Iraq has been disastrous - think the brutality of the death squads and the assassination of key people in Iraqi society. Domestically also, they can do much to provide an alternative view of life to the current Western dogma we are force fed from a young age. But overall, I still think the same as what I mentioned above to Abouzeide, the protests these people are doing harm more than they benefit and Mousavi should know better than to egg them on.
Yaman,
Iran is not a democracy, it is an Islamic republic. The legitimacy of the protests operates within that context and not within the desires of the people. When Khamenei says Ahmedinejad stays, then Ahmedinejad stays.
Personally I like Ahmedinejad, I think he's honest, straightforward and clean. I also support his position against the West and more importantly against Israel. Domestically, when you have a man whose wife packs his own sandiches every day and whose modest finances are available for scrutiny, you know that there is a ruler who fears Allah. I am not Iranian, but I would rather have him rule over me even if he was incompetent than to have someone like Obama.
I think the interesting thing about Iran is that it is BOTH Islamic Republic and democracy. Given enough flexibility on the Islamic Republic side, the democracy side can be a necessary engine for adaptation to changing realities. At present, there isnt enough flexibility.
I visited Iran in 2006, with my guidebook Farsi. I noticed two things. First, Iran is far freer, fairer, less littered, more literate than any of its neighbours. Second, very many people are unhappy with the revolution's ruling classes and its interference in people's personal and cultural lives. I expected the rich and pretty people to be unhappy, but not the truck drivers, workers, and tea drinkers I met.
I think Ahmadinejad probably won the election, and I don't want Ahmadinejad's supporters to be disenfranchised, but I also think Khamenei and the establishment need to take people's legitimate concerns about corruption, hypocrisy and personal rights more seriously. It seems that many or most of the protestors are not facing the Basij (who are a problem)out of love for Musavi, but for wider reasons which do need to be addressed if the republic is going to survive ultimately.
I do think it is simplistic to write off all the protestors as the pretty rich, even if there are some, and even if the west understands things in these narrow terms. This is a struggle, or a complex of struggles, WITHIN the revolution. Five senior ayatullahs have called for the election to be run again, and several are under house arrest. The man who arranged training by Hizbullah of Palestinians expelled to Lebanon is a Musavi supporter.
In the present highly inflamed situation I wish Khamenei would arrange another election with independent observers. Probably Ahmadinejad would win again, and that particular issue would be put to sleep. But the regime as a whole needs to clean itself up and respond to genuine popular demands.
I say this because I am a friend of Iran and the revolution. An independent Iran is vital for Syria, Lebanon and Palestine, and to counter the US-client regimes in the region. Of course the West is making a fairytale propaganda narrative out of what is happening, and I'm sure it is trying to influence opinion in Iran with secret ops. (Where do all these rumours of Lebanese Hizbullah men beating Tehrani protestors come from?) Murderers like Obama should keep their mouths shut. But true friends of Iran should speak.
Why did Mousavi refuse to attend a meeting with Kadkhodayi representative of the Guardian Council yesterday? To not even try to engage with the legal body authorised to oversee the elections is a man who is more interested in gaining power by holding the nations peace to ransom. By not even being interested in investigating the election results through legal means only confirms his loss. Definitely a Jackal.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/22/dabashi.iran.myths/index.html
Thank you, qunfuz, for a note of sanity here. Judging from other comments, I suspect you may be the only one of this group who has actually been to Iran.
Post a Comment