Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Modest Muslim

Imam Khomeini: I'm Confused And Disturbed

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

(salam)

 

I'm very confused and disturbed about Imam Khomeini. I have a deep respect for him but what I have found out has made me doubt his persona. 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/1321090/Khomeini-fatwa-led-to-killing-of-30000-in-Iran.html

 

Could a man like Imam Khomeini sanction the death of innocents? Could he order to kill his political rivals? Could he fail to tolerate even small political disputes? Could he approve of selfish autocracy? Could he command to kill 30,000 people? Could he ask to kill newborns? Could he do something against human rights? 

 

Why are there so many problems of human rights in Iran?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran

 

Why Ayatollah Montazeri so much opposed to Imam Khomeini? Why was there so much violence from our side in the Islamic Revolution?

 

Please help me if you can answer these questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some info on these 'innocent' people:
 

Like many people who've researched how the MEK actually works, I don't believe that they're freedom fighters in exile as they claim to be. Nor do I believe their values are democratic, as they claim they are.

I believe the MEK is a militant cult of personality, whose leaders, Maryam and Massoud Rajavi, figured out in the 1980's that they could survive by doing mercenary work on behalf of governments that hate Iran. Saddam Hussein was their first patron, and he granted them land in Iraq to build a walled, military compound, Camp Ashraf, where until a few months ago, more than 3,000 members lived.

There, they would wake up every day and worship images of Maryam Rajavi before commencing with the day's Army base-type tasks. The MEK claims to subsist on foreign contributions, but that's only partly true.

In America, their well-paid U.S. advocates, men like former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, wax on about how the MEK renounced violence a decade ago and just needs U.S. backing in order to topple the Iranian regime and seize power. I've watched these guys earn $40,000 for an eight-minute speech.

...

After that, it was that the MEK's leaders would deliberately provoke a confrontation with Iraqi security forces, many of whom would be happy to avenge the ethnic cleansing raids MEK soldiers carried out for Hussein back in the day.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-wilkie/the-mek-may-be-bad-actors_b_1930056.html

Edited by Haydar Husayn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm very confused and disturbed about Imam Khomeini.

 

I am very confused and disturbed the way you came under the influence of some nonsense propaganda from old ages (of all those who opposed & hated Islamic state, the revolution, a Shia state).

 

If you had any respect for Imam Khomeini, you wouldn't collected all these pieces and tried to make your case..

 

There is no such thing as love affairs in Islamic rulings... those who are involved in mass-murder and endanger the ummah and the Islamic state in taking action to even kill and terrorize a nation, deserve nothing but the will of God and be punished by death sentence... now that the so called human rights champion or Muntazeri or anybody else did not like it, that is their problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I can't get any replies to this thread. 

 

I'm not exactly the biggest supporter of Khomeini on this forum, but why do you assume these people were innocent?

As for human rights, the only rights that are important in an Islamic country are Islamic rights, not man-made secular ones.

I also wouldn't rely on the Daily Telegraph to report anything accurately when it comes to Iran, so it would be better to read directly what Montazeri had to say. In any case, political and ideological disagreements are almost inevitable. The fact that it occurs isn't a reason to be overly disturbed. It only becomes really problematic if you see political leaders or systems as virtually infallible.

 

Well, I know not much about history of Iran or the political movement of Imam Khomeini. That's why I found it better to ask you guys so you can help me. 


The communist Mujahideen-e-Khalq are well known for their terrorist operations in Iran after the revolution; to execute any of their members is to punish treason. It's pretty sad how low people would go to condemn Khomeini for something any country would do with a terrorist organisation.

 

OK, so that party was a terrorist organization. Well, I'm also a communist and I don't support any Stalin-like ideas. We should propagate communism with peace because Islam and communism are two sides of the same coin. May God bless Marx!


The bag of scum caused us to loose a person like Mutahari and many more gems.

 

How should a murderer be treated, let alolne a band of them.

 

Oh, no, bro. I would never call Montazeri that name. He was a great Ayatollah. Look, Khomeini was our leader but I would never like to make him a deity or something. He was a man like us and he could commit mistakes. We're allowed to criticize Khomeini. Don't worship him like Ibn Taymiyyah is worshiped by his lovers. Imam Khomeini deserves respect but remember that he wasn't infallible.


I am very confused and disturbed the way you came under the influence of some nonsense propaganda from old ages (of all those who opposed & hated Islamic state, the revolution, a Shia state).

 

If you had any respect for Imam Khomeini, you wouldn't collected all these pieces and tried to make your case..

 

There is no such thing as love affairs in Islamic rulings... those who are involved in mass-murder and endanger the ummah and the Islamic state in taking action to even kill and terrorize a nation, deserve nothing but the will of God and be punished by death sentence... now that the so called human rights champion or Muntazeri or anybody else did not like it, that is their problem.

 

Yes, I came here under the influence of the same thing and I want you guys to help me out. :D 

 

I have a deep respect for him but I'm not a blind following sheep like you. If I would see that Imam Khomeini was a bad person, I would hate and curse him. If I would see that Imam Khomeini was a good person, I would love and appreciate him. He is my leader, not my god.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Firstly, communism in the modern sense of the word (which is inextricably tied to Marxism-Leninism), is not compatible with Islam. You should read up on that before commenting.

 

Secondly, it's irrelevant whether MKO is communist or fascist or whatever. It means nothing. They will [Edited Out] themselves out to any leader or government who funds them, so their ideology is kind of a secondary consideration. The more important thing is that MKO are traitors against Islam, the revolution, and human scum. They fought on Saddam's side in the Imposed war. Then, during the Iraqi Shias' uprising against Saddam, they played a major role in the bloodbath/crackdown. Camp Ashraf is basically a Stalinist-style dictatorship; nobody is allowed to leave, and the residents always have to say praises of the cult leader Maryam Rajavi. (The bizarre system within the camp is one reason why Iran has adopted an amnesty policy toward low-ranking MKO members.)

 

Basically, MKO are bad dudes. Whatever your ideological confusion is, if you deny that MKO are bad dudes, then you are either stupid, or a liar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Firstly, communism in the modern sense of the word (which is inextricably tied to Marxism-Leninism), is not compatible with Islam. You should read up on that before commenting.

 

Secondly, it's irrelevant whether MKO is communist or fascist or whatever. It means nothing. They will [Edited Out] themselves out to any leader or government who funds them, so their ideology is kind of a secondary consideration. The more important thing is that MKO are traitors against Islam, the revolution, and human scum. They fought on Saddam's side in the Imposed war. Then, during the Iraqi Shias' uprising against Saddam, they played a major role in the bloodbath/crackdown. Camp Ashraf is basically a Stalinist-style dictatorship; nobody is allowed to leave, and the residents always have to say praises of the cult leader Maryam Rajavi. (The bizarre system within the camp is one reason why Iran has adopted an amnesty policy toward low-ranking MKO members.)

 

Basically, MKO are bad dudes. Whatever your ideological confusion is, if you deny that MKO are bad dudes, then you are either stupid, or a liar.

 

Well, call it whatever you want. I call it communism; you can call it Marxism. Marxism is just like Islam. Their basics about social life are similar.

 

I know nothing about MKO or whatever names you are using. That's why I asked you guys here. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I know not much about history of Iran or the political movement of Imam Khomeini. That's why I found it better to ask you guys so you can help me.

 

Greetings Modest Muslim.

 

I just did some studying about Khomeini not too long ago.

 

Here is one of the Youtube video's that I watched.  I thought it was very good.  I also watched some video's on Iran's history in general which spoke of the revolution and were very helpful to understanding. :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, call it whatever you want. I call it communism; you can call it Marxism. Marxism is just like Islam. Their basics about social life are similar.

 

I know nothing about MKO or whatever names you are using. That's why I asked you guys here. :D

 

Bro, did you know that one of the ideals of Marx is that in an advanced society, religion (all religions; EVERY religion) plays an exclusively reactionary role? Meaning, that religion can play NO positive role in society except if society is at a primitive stage (and even then, it is only in select circumstances and conditions)? How can Marxism be "just like Islam" if this is the case?

 

I think, brother, unfortunately, you are looking at rather superficial things and making declarations. What is it about Marxism that makes you think it is similar?

 

Is it social justice? Group living? These are rather superficial aspects, which do not represent the core ideas of Marxism. Even "social justice," is not really a principle of Marxism. In Marxism, everything is subject to the inevitable course of history. History's inevitable movement is towards communism. So, for example, if you look at the events in Russia starting in the late 1920s, you will see this contempt for social justice, in action. Prior to that point, most of Russia's farm land was governed by something called the obshina system. The obshinas were peasant communes; many farms combined into one, owned by the people who worked the land. It was a good system as far as farmers were concerned; however, this was not an ideal system for a modern economy (whether capitalistic or socialistic). So the Soviet government enforced a "collectivization" of these farmlands; essentially, the posesion of them by the state, and the implementation of a command system whereby the farmers were to meet certain production quotas. It was basically a farm-factory system. To mechanize the farming and to maximize the use of the land, they needed larger farms (hence, collective farms comprised many villages). The obshina system was not conducive to this.

 

Ultimately, the Soviet government did something which was at the expense of the welfare of the farmers. But it was completely justifiable from a Marxist perspective; the obshina farmers were standing in the way of the inevitable movement towards communism. They played a "reactionary" role.

 

Did you know that a yearning for social justice without an ideological basis in dialectic materialism is referred to as "Utopian Socialism?" (contemptuously)

 

Marxism has nothing to do with social justice. So if it is the social justice aspect of it that attracts you, then you have an incorrect understanding of Marxism.

 

As for MKO, well here is a summarized Cliff notes history:

 

- Ayatollah Taleghani, whilst in prison, taught some prisoners (whose names I forgot)

- These prisoners, when freed, established an organization called Mujahideen-e Khalq (People's Mujahideen)

- The organization had ideological flaws (which Ayatollah Taleghani was aware of and criticized) but was not particularly bad

- After the original founders died, the organization took a downward turn and became more and more Marxist-Leninist and less Islamic

- This eventually led them to become more crazy, in their views and actions

- Their subversive ideas caused them to become outlawed in Iran

- They committed terrors against many important figures, like Shahid Beheshti and Shahid Motahhari

- The Leader's bum arm, is from an attempted assassination of him by MKO members

- They were supplied with a lot of weapons from the West; there were some proper tank battles between MKO and the IRI Army in southwestern Iran during the war, and their soldiers wore Fritz helmets

- They were known for committing a lot of crazy tortures against the people they captured; including skinning people alive

- Masoud Rajavi, the previous leader of the organization, was a political ally and personal friend of Saddam Hussein one of the worst oppressors of our time

 

And that other stuff I already mentioned.

 

Basically, there is nothing redeemable about MKO/MEK. They're scum. And even if they are politically irrelevant now, they were committing a lot of atrocities in Iran at the time and causing a lot of terror. This isn't paranoia. This was simply the reality. The 7th of Tir martyrs, and the countless other terror attacks show this.

Edited by baradar_jackson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, no, bro. I would never call Montazeri that name. He was a great Ayatollah. Look, Khomeini was our leader but I would never like to make him a deity or something. He was a man like us and he could commit mistakes. We're allowed to criticize Khomeini. Don't worship him like Ibn Taymiyyah is worshiped by his lovers. Imam Khomeini deserves respect but remember that he wasn't infallible.

MKO sympathizer brother, which of your words is in response to any of my words?

 

How should Fithna Maker and Paid Murdurers be treated, enlighten us brother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bro, did you know that one of the ideals of Marx is that in an advanced society, religion (all religions; EVERY religion) plays an exclusively reactionary role? Meaning, that religion can play NO positive role in society except if society is at a primitive stage (and even then, it is only in select circumstances and conditions)? How can Marxism be "just like Islam" if this is the case?

 

I think, brother, unfortunately, you are looking at rather superficial things and making declarations. What is it about Marxism that makes you think it is similar?

 

Is it social justice? Group living? These are rather superficial aspects, which do not represent the core ideas of Marxism. Even "social justice," is not really a principle of Marxism. In Marxism, everything is subject to the inevitable course of history. History's inevitable movement is towards communism. So, for example, if you look at the events in Russia starting in the late 1920s, you will see this contempt for social justice, in action. Prior to that point, most of Russia's farm land was governed by something called the obshina system. The obshinas were peasant communes; many farms combined into one, owned by the people who worked the land. It was a good system as far as farmers were concerned; however, this was not an ideal system for a modern economy (whether capitalistic or socialistic). So the Soviet government enforced a "collectivization" of these farmlands; essentially, the posesion of them by the state, and the implementation of a command system whereby the farmers were to meet certain production quotas. It was basically a farm-factory system. To mechanize the farming and to maximize the use of the land, they needed larger farms (hence, collective farms comprised many villages). The obshina system was not conducive to this.

 

Ultimately, the Soviet government did something which was at the expense of the welfare of the farmers. But it was completely justifiable from a Marxist perspective; the obshina farmers were standing in the way of the inevitable movement towards communism. They played a "reactionary" role.

 

Did you know that a yearning for social justice without an ideological basis in dialectic materialism is referred to as "Utopian Socialism?" (contemptuously)

 

Marxism has nothing to do with social justice. So if it is the social justice aspect of it that attracts you, then you have an incorrect understanding of Marxism.

 

As for MKO, well here is a summarized Cliff notes history:

 

- Ayatollah Taleghani, whilst in prison, taught some prisoners (whose names I forgot)

- These prisoners, when freed, established an organization called Mujahideen-e Khalq (People's Mujahideen)

- The organization had ideological flaws (which Ayatollah Taleghani was aware of and criticized) but was not particularly bad

- After the original founders died, the organization took a downward turn and became more and more Marxist-Leninist and less Islamic

- This eventually led them to become more crazy, in their views and actions

- Their subversive ideas caused them to become outlawed in Iran

- They committed terrors against many important figures, like Shahid Beheshti and Shahid Motahhari

- The Leader's bum arm, is from an attempted assassination of him by MKO members

- They were supplied with a lot of weapons from the West; there were some proper tank battles between MKO and the IRI Army in southwestern Iran during the war, and their soldiers wore Fritz helmets

- They were known for committing a lot of crazy tortures against the people they captured; including skinning people alive

- Masoud Rajavi, the previous leader of the organization, was a political ally and personal friend of Saddam Hussein one of the worst oppressors of our time

 

And that other stuff I already mentioned.

 

Basically, there is nothing redeemable about MKO/MEK. They're scum. And even if they are politically irrelevant now, they were committing a lot of atrocities in Iran at the time and causing a lot of terror. This isn't paranoia. This was simply the reality. The 7th of Tir martyrs, and the countless other terror attacks show this.

Marxism is not a religion, dude. Lenin was an atheist and Stalin was an anti-religious atheist who struggled to eradicate religion from Russia. But Muslim communists are monotheists even they are communists. Take the examples of Bhutto and Faiz Ahmad Faiz.
 
Well, Lenin was kinda merciful towards Islam as he gave us back the Uthman Qur'an. :D I like him. He's my hero.
 
I'm a communist because I'm aware of communism. Those who criticize communism are just like those who criticize Islam. Both have baseless arguments. Bro, when you criticizes communism, you forget that communism is not a religion. If communism has some flaws, a communist will admit. If Islam has flaws, it'll destroy the castle of Islam. Marx can be the most evil person in the history; I like his communist thoughts. But that shouldn't be the same with Prophet Muhammad. So there are differences between a theory and a religion.
 
Communism believes that everything my country have is the mutual property of all the people of my country. No single group/individual can acclaim it all for itself/himself. If I'm the owner of a factory and I have men who work at there, the factory actually belongs to the men. I'm also the owner but my men are the real owners because they work there. So they deserve good wages. 
 
If I'm a landlord and peasants work for me, the land actually belongs to the peasants because they work for it, not me. How can I acclaim something that belongs to someone else? I can own only that piece of land which I uses. 
 
Communism also teaches us to share. Community is the basis unit of life. Communism wants the poor to get themselves liberated from the rich. The poor are men as well and they have rights as well. 1st May, you all know, is celebrated in recognition of communist struggles for the poor.
 
Now we can strongly oppose the other details in communism. Of course, we can. As for atheistic views of the communsits, I believe that there should be no state religion of a country. I believe in what Turkey did; it removed Islam as the state religion. Secularism should be the state religion; means no religion. Because the state has no religion. State belongs to all religions being adhered to in the state.
 
And thanks for providing me with reliable info about that MKO/MEK (whatever it is). Indeed, that helped me a lot feeling releived about Imam Khomeini.

MKO sympathizer brother, which of your words is in response to any of my words?

 

How should Fithna Maker and Paid Murdurers be treated, enlighten us brother.

 

I am not sympathizing with MKO. I am - no - I was asking why Imam Khomeini treated it so harshly. People told me that it was a terrorist organization. But a foolish person like you who had nothing to tell me, came here and began maligning me. If you know nothing then please don't annoy me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I believe that there should be no state religion of a country. I believe in what Turkey did; it removed Islam as the state religion. Secularism should be the state religion; means no religion. Because the state has no religion. State belongs to all religions being adhered to in the state.
 

 

This is incredibly naive. Secularism is an ideology that is openly hostile to religion, as Ataturk's state proved. You can also see the same thing in Western countries today.

 

Atatürk and his colleagues also attempted to Turkify Islam through official encouragement of such practices as using Turkish rather than Arabic at devotions, substituting the Turkish word Tanri for the Arabic word Allah, and introducing Turkish for the daily calls to prayer. These changes in devotional practices deeply disturbed many Muslims and caused widespread resentment, which led in 1950 to a return to the Arabic version of the call to prayer, after the opposition party DP won the elections. Of longer-lasting effect were the regime's measures prohibiting religious education, restricting the building of new mosques, and transferring existing mosques to secular purposes. Most notably, the Hagia Sophia(Justinian's sixth-century Christian basilica, which had been converted into a mosque by Mehmet II) was made a museum in 1935. The effect of these changes was to make religion, or more correctly Islam, subject to the control of the state. Muftis and imams (prayer leaders) were appointed by the government, and religious instruction was taken over by the Ministry of National Education. As a result of these policies, the Turkish Republic was judged negatively by some sections of the Muslim world.

 

 

 

 

While most of the secular countries have religious schools and educational system, one in Turkey can only have religious teachings after a state decided age; which is considered as a necessity given the fact that Turkey is the only considerably secular country in the Muslim world, i.e. it is claimed that conditions to establish secularism on are different than those in Christian world. The establishment of private religious schools and universities (regardless of what religion) is forbidden. Only the state controlled Imam Hatip Lisesi is allowed which benefits only Islamic community in Turkey. This type of high schools teach religious subjects with modern positive science. However, graduates of these schools cannot go to the university to seek higher education in another field of study for example medicine, law, engineering etc.; because graduates of these schools are intended to be clerics, rather than being doctors or lawyers.

 

 

 

Although intellectual debates on the role of Islam attracted widespread interest, they did not provoke the kind of controversy that erupted over the issue of appropriate attire for Muslim women. During the early 1980s, female college students who were determined to demonstrate their commitment to Islam began to cover their heads and necks with scarves and wear long, shape-concealing overcoats. The appearance of these women in the citadels of Turkish secularism shocked those men and women who tended to perceive such attire as a symbol of the Islamic traditionalism they rejected. Militant secularists persuaded the Higher Education Council to issue a regulation in 1987 forbidding female university students to cover their heads in class.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Turkey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is incredibly naive. Secularism is an ideology that is openly hostile to religion, as Ataturk's state proved. You can also see the same thing in Western countries today.

 

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Turkey

 

OK, change the word with liberalism. I know that many people hate secularism while tolerate liberalism.

132754180299.jpg

 

I'm not a troll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. so I was right. He is a "communist" and that a Muslim communist.

 

Funny how he tried to present himself as a good Shia in his initial reply....

 

A 'materialist-evolutionary' and anti-religion Marxist, who is somehow labeling himself a "Muslim communist" is really in a position to school others on murders and mass-killings! That is not even funny!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. so I was right. He is a "communist" and that a Muslim communist.

 

Funny how he tried to present himself as a good Shia in his initial reply....

 

A 'materialist-evolutionary' and anti-religion Marxist, who is somehow labeling himself a "Muslim communist" is really in a position to school others on murders and mass-killings! That is not even funny!

 

Oh, shut up. You're a sad excuse in the name of human being, you jerk! Get lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I am not sympathizing with MKO. I am - no - I was asking why Imam Khomeini treated it so harshly. People told me that it was a terrorist organization. But a foolish person like you who had nothing to tell me, came here and began maligning me. If you know nothing then please don't annoy me.

 

 

I will take it as a compliment from a fellow Peshawarite. Re read my posts if you cool down some time in future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...