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  
Zendegi

Inhumane Treatment Of Ayatollah Boroujerdi

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

For a long time I have been saddened by the inhumane treatment and clearly unjust prosecution of Ayatollah Seyyed Hossein Kazemeyni Boroujerdi, a cleric who advocates for the separation of religion and government and, more freedoms and human rights in Iran. He has been preaching a traditional form of Islam which separates religion from politics in a poor neighbourhood of South Tehran. He is at the moment suffering from multiple heart complications, including respiratory problems and kidney stone complications, a loss of 80% of his vision due to cataracts and as well as losing 36 kilograms, where he is not receiving proper care in prison.

 

In October 2006, a warrant was issued for Ayatollah Boroujerdi's arrest, where many of his supporters, students and many others over a 1000 people surrounded his house to prevent him for getting arrested by authorities where police had to forcefully repel them. Ayatollah Boroujerdi was eventually arrested with hundreds of his staunch supporters. He was charged behind closed doors in June 2007 in the Special Clerical Court where he was deprived of access to an independent attorney. He was unfairly charged for "waging war against god", acting against national securitie, having links with anti-revolutionaries and spies, using the term religious dictatorship instead of "Islamic Republic" in public discourse and radio interviews and last of all, publicly calling political leadership unlawful. He was sentenced  initially sentenced to death, but due to many appeals he was later sentenced to 11 years. Some of these charges are just obviously ridiculous and unjust and made up for political reasons, while this man is a pious, modest and religious man and also shouldn't there be any freedom of speech in this country?

 

According to Amnesty International, he is living in unsanitary and poor prison conditions, and receives regular torture and ill-treatment, which has led to a deterioration in his pre-existing medical conditions. He is currently in kept in solitary confinement with his hand and feet in chains. The poor man has went on regular hunger strikes, to protest against his treatment and also suspension of visits and telephone calls from his family and lawyers. He is not allowed to leave prison to receive proper attention and medical treatment, what sought of authorities anywhere in the world would do all of these barbaric things to someone.

 

Ayatollah Borouherdi enjoys a lot of support among Iranians and his bravery in the face of this regimes repression is truly breathtaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Borujerdi confession was not legitimate he was forced out of his own will to confess, like the Regime does to all its political prisoners. He was not even offered a fair trial with a lawyer and regime made false allegations against such as being a representative of the Twelfth Imam which is not true, the allegations are there just to defame him and so no one else can follow him  and to also maintain the regimes blatant political propaganda from people like Borujerdi, who are calling for a separation of religion and state. That's all. He is a well learned Ayatollah as was his late father. Even if his good or bad person at the end of the day he shouldn't be constantly tortured and be living in poor prison conditions and be denied access to medical treatment. Where in the world is it ever like this? All people have the right to be treated with proper care and respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that he has publicly accuse the Iranian government in front of his supporters. Everyone should be accountable for what they say, more than for what they do, since what you say has many times more effect than what you do.

Edited by lover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Borujerdi confession was not legitimate he was forced out of his own will to confess, like the Regime does to all its political prisoners. He was not even offered a fair trial with a lawyer and regime made false allegations against such as being a representative of the Twelfth Imam which is not true, the allegations are there just to defame him and so no one else can follow him  and to also maintain the regimes blatant political propaganda from people like Borujerdi, who are calling for a separation of religion and state. That's all. He is a well learned Ayatollah as was his late father. Even if his good or bad person at the end of the day he shouldn't be constantly tortured and be living in poor prison conditions and be denied access to medical treatment. Where in the world is it ever like this? All people have the right to be treated with proper care and respect.

 

I'm glad he had access to the new 4g net with his new iphone 6 plus to send you sms telling you all this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, boy, let me sum up how it's going to go down in this thread

 

anti-IRI posters will post a bunch of stuff about how Boroujerdi is a poor, helpless victim of conscience. When asked for sources. they'll post the same Amnesty International report again and again with no other sources (as if AI never gets anything wrong, right?) and reject any evidence of Boroujerdi being less than virtuous as regime propaganda.

 

Then the pro-IRI posters will start posting how nobody should care since he apparently said this or that, reject any allegations of torture in Iranian prisons (cause we all know that NEVER happens, right?) or, better yet, brush off the matter as unimportant since Boroujerdi is apparently not worthy of sympathy either way.

 

Then the thread will stop getting posts until somebody posts about it again next month. :dry:

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, boy, let me sum up how it's going to go down in this thread

 

anti-IRI posters will post a bunch of stuff about how Boroujerdi is a poor, helpless victim of conscience. When asked for sources. they'll post the same Amnesty International report again and again with no other sources (as if AI never gets anything wrong, right?) and reject any evidence of Boroujerdi being less than virtuous as regime propaganda.

 

Then the pro-IRI posters will start posting how nobody should care since he apparently said this or that, reject any allegations of torture in Iranian prisons (cause we all know that NEVER happens, right?) or, better yet, brush off the matter as unimportant since Boroujerdi is apparently not worthy of sympathy either way.

 

Then the thread will stop getting posts until somebody posts about it again next month. :dry:

 

What kind of statement is this? So we should or shouldn't trust that the police do their jobs properly? It's one thing to say that a police officer is corrupt or we find incidents of police not behaving. But what you are suggesting here is torture, which puts the entire system of law in suspect. Then before that, apparently we can't trust what Amnesty international says(which is probably where you got any news of any torture happening before). You aren't being coherent here, very vague and inconclusive analysis. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What kind of statement is this?

 

An objective one.

 

 

So we should or shouldn't trust that the police do their jobs properly?

 

I don't really believe in the whole idea of police to begin with, but we should expect police like any other recognized institution to be accountable for any abuse of the law or their authority regardless. And we shouldn't just assume police always necessarily do things right since most police are no more honest or virtuous than the average human being.

 

 

It's one thing to say that a police officer is corrupt or we find incidents of police not behaving. But what you are suggesting here is torture, which puts the entire system of law in suspect.

 

What's your point? That no one should suggest there's a problem with the system because that would mean there's a problem?

 

 

Then before that, apparently we can't trust what Amnesty international says(which is probably where you got any news of any torture happening before). You aren't being coherent here, very vague and inconclusive analysis. 

 

I think my sense of humor was lost on you. I was making fun of the fact that both the anti-IRI and pro-IRI posters don't really look at things very objectively. Anti-IRI posters will latch onto any "evidence" of their belief that the IRI is a thoroughly corrupt "regime," without bothering to look at the objectivity or credibility of their sources for such allegations. Meanwhile, pro-IRI posters will plug their ears and just pretend there are no problems at all, or they'll just pretend like they aren't worth serious attention.

If the justice system of Iran is being accused of mistreating a prisoner or has imprisoned said individual on false or trumped up charges, don't these allegations deserve serious investigation? Even in first world countries, there's corruption in the justice systems, false charges and even torture, just because Iran slaps the tag "Islamic" on things doesn't suddenly make its own system immune.

On the other end, however, one shouldn't jump to conclusions without evidence. The people who are apparently weeping for Boroujerdi from what I have noticed have not divulge anything concerning his politics, his moral behavior or his religious teachings. They paint him as just another helpless reformist cleric being abused by the big bad government with vague statement, when his opponents are apparently accusing him of much worse and rather than ask where Amnesty International or whoever is getting their information or providing more sources to back it up with better analysis, they just use it as another launchpad to pet themselves over how much they care about human rights and democracy, when most of them probably only care about using such things to mold Iran and other Islamic countries in their image.

 

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An objective one.

 

 

 

I don't really believe in the whole idea of police to begin with, but we should expect police like any other recognized institution to be accountable for any abuse of the law or their authority regardless. And we shouldn't just assume police always necessarily do things right since most police are no more honest or virtuous than the average human being.

 

 

 

What's your point? That no one should suggest there's a problem with the system because that would mean there's a problem?

 

 

 

I think my sense of humor was lost on you. I was making fun of the fact that both the anti-IRI and pro-IRI posters don't really look at things very objectively. Anti-IRI posters will latch onto any "evidence" of their belief that the IRI is a thoroughly corrupt "regime," without bothering to look at the objectivity or credibility of their sources for such allegations. Meanwhile, pro-IRI posters will plug their ears and just pretend there are no problems at all, or they'll just pretend like they aren't worth serious attention.

If the justice system of Iran is being accused of mistreating a prisoner or has imprisoned said individual on false or trumped up charges, don't these allegations deserve serious investigation? Even in first world countries, there's corruption in the justice systems, false charges and even torture, just because Iran slaps the tag "Islamic" on things doesn't suddenly make its own system immune.

On the other end, however, one shouldn't jump to conclusions without evidence. The people who are apparently weeping for Boroujerdi from what I have noticed have not divulge anything concerning his politics, his moral behavior or his religious teachings. They paint him as just another helpless reformist cleric being abused by the big bad government with vague statement, when his opponents are apparently accusing him of much worse and rather than ask where Amnesty International or whoever is getting their information or providing more sources to back it up with better analysis, they just use it as another launchpad to pet themselves over how much they care about human rights and democracy, when most of them probably only care about using such things to mold Iran and other Islamic countries in their image.

 

 

 

 

An objective one.

 

Subjective opinion of your opinion(which is subjective in its own). 

 

 

 

I don't really believe in the whole idea of police to begin with, but we should expect police like any other recognized institution to be accountable for any abuse of the law or their authority regardless. And we shouldn't just assume police always necessarily do things right since most police are no more honest or virtuous than the average human being.

 

Again there is a difference between a police officer and a police unit/department. 

 

 

 

What's your point? That no one should suggest there's a problem with the system because that would mean there's a problem?

 

I believe i made my point perfectly clear. Any criminal being arrested for a crime of this magnitude is not treated by 1-2 police officers, but by an entire department. Suggesting that the department is involved in torture needs significant proof otherwise your suggestion is not only faulty but also a bad deed in itself. The people handling this case are shia, to slander or suggest a fellow shia, specially a group of shias going from police, detectives up to the judge himself, all monitoring and handling the case. So it's easy to do the math of whether or not it's a good idea to suggest such a thing without proper proof. 

 

 

 

 Anti-IRI posters will latch onto any "evidence" of their belief that the IRI is a thoroughly corrupt "regime," without bothering to look at the objectivity or credibility of their sources for such allegations. Meanwhile, pro-IRI posters will plug their ears and just pretend there are no problems at all, or they'll just pretend like they aren't worth serious attention.

 

You are generalizing here. I know plenty of Anti-IRI people that are logical in their approach and don't point at things that there is nothing wrong with. At the same time i know plenty of pro-IRI supporters that admit to the things that are actually wrong. 

 

 

If the justice system of Iran is being accused of mistreating a prisoner or has imprisoned said individual on false or trumped up charges, don't these allegations deserve serious investigation? Even in first world countries, there's corruption in the justice systems, false charges and even torture, just because Iran slaps the tag "Islamic" on things doesn't suddenly make its own system immune.

On the other end, however, one shouldn't jump to conclusions without evidence. The people who are apparently weeping for Boroujerdi from what I have noticed have not divulge anything concerning his politics, his moral behavior or his religious teachings. They paint him as just another helpless reformist cleric being abused by the big bad government with vague statement, when his opponents are apparently accusing him of much worse and rather than ask where Amnesty International or whoever is getting their information or providing more sources to back it up with better analysis, they just use it as another launchpad to pet themselves over how much they care about human rights and democracy, when most of them probably only care about using such things to mold Iran and other Islamic countries in their image.

 

If the justice system of Iran is being accused of mistreating a prisoner or has imprisoned said individual on false or trumped up charges, don't these allegations deserve serious investigation?

 

You are innocent until proven guilty. Saying someone or some system or some country is guilty before it is proven is morally declined. It's like police arresting you for an alleged crime before having any proof of it. 

Then you have to ask, investigation by whom? 

 

Even in first world countries, there's corruption in the justice systems, false charges and even torture, just because Iran slaps the tag "Islamic" on things doesn't suddenly make its own system immune.

 

I don't care about first world countries. And enough with this Iran slaps on the Islamic Tag already. Let's say Iran has the tag of communists buddist on. This is not a message for you but for everyone, it's becoming a habit on this site. Is Irans population shias or not? What rule does one have as a shia individual before slandering? Because to suggest a fellow shia is doing something as grave as torture before one has the proof is nothing short of slander. 

 

 

 

On the other end, however, one shouldn't jump to conclusions without evidence.

 

This is the reason i say you are being incoherent. Because further up as i quoted you claim:

What's your point? That no one should suggest there's a problem with the system because that would mean there's a problem?

 

So publicly suggesting that something is wrong is ok according to Islamic view, as long as you don't conclude it?

Say i suggest that you are a thief, is that ok?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe i made my point perfectly clear. Any criminal being arrested for a crime of this magnitude is not treated by 1-2 police officers, but by an entire department. Suggesting that the department is involved in torture needs significant proof otherwise your suggestion is not only faulty but also a bad deed in itself. The people handling this case are shia, to slander or suggest a fellow shia, specially a group of shias going from police, detectives up to the judge himself, all monitoring and handling the case. So it's easy to do the math of whether or not it's a good idea to suggest such a thing without proper proof.

 

Their Shi'a affiliation is not particularly relevant. This isn't the first time the IRI's justice department has been accused of torturing a prisoner, political or otherwise. Whether or not they are Shi'a, they are still human and still capable of abusing their power and doing evil things like we see in almost every other justice or police department in nearly every part of the world, including but not limited to Western countries.

 

I'm not accusing anybody of anything in this particular case at all, just so you know, and I can't say whether Boroujerdi is innocent or if the justice department has done wrong, although I do believe there's sufficient evidence that certain segments of Iran's justice department are guilty of doing terrible things to prisoners or Iranian citizens and getting away with it in the past. But whether or not such is the case with Boroujerdi can only be determined however if one is willing to take such accusations seriously, regardless of where their loyalties or sympathies lie, instead of dismissing them as being hogwash designed to attack Iran simply because they suggest something one doesn't want to believe can happen.

 

 

You are innocent until proven guilty. Saying someone or some system or some country is guilty before it is proven is morally declined. It's like police arresting you for an alleged crime before having any proof of it.

 

This is completely besides the point. Innocent until proven guilty does not mean that accusations of wrongdoing should be ignored. My question is simple, if there are concerned parties who believe Boroujerdi has not been imprisoned on false charges, but also believe he is being mistreated as a prisoner of the Iranian justice system, and believe so on the basis of testimonies by various supposed witnesses and perhaps other more physical evidence, should not the question of whether Iran's police or judges are doing wrong be taken seriously?

 

 

Then you have to ask, investigation by whom?

 

Well, normally, in a situation like this, you'd want to choose a party that both sides of the argument would be willing to trust to investigate the matter objectively without any personal bias. I don't suppose I know who would fit that bill in this case.

 

I don't care about first world countries. And enough with this Iran slaps on the Islamic Tag already. Let's say Iran has the tag of communists buddist on. This is not a message for you but for everyone, it's becoming a habit on this site. Is Irans population shias or not? What rule does one have as a shia individual before slandering? Because to suggest a fellow shia is doing something as grave as torture before one has the proof is nothing short of slander. 

 

You'd have a point if it was just baseless rumors by gossiping housewives we were talking about here, that is not the case. What we have is an accredited human rights organization, which quite a few members of this site have relied on in the past as a source when it comes to other issues like those in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan (I have even seen users make use of Amnesty International to refute bogus claims made by Iranian dissidents against the Iranian government) if this organization that is well known and respected by many has found through its own investigations that Iran is guilty of wrongdoing, is not the proper response a counter argument with reason and evidence to back it up.

 

Yes, Amnesty International could be wrong but just because it could be wrong is no reason to say that anyone who trusts their investigations is guilty of slander, especially when those who are defending the accused (in this case, the Iranian justice system) have not provided a reasonable counter argument backed by proofs. If Amnesty International is basing its accusations on supposed witnesses, then the proper response is not "we shouldn't accept their argument because if there's a chance they're wrong, then we'll be guilty of slander if they are." That would only be the proper response if the evidence is inconclusive but nonetheless stacked against them or if the evidence in support of both sides is stacked equally high and we are therefore unable to determine who is correct, in which case one would have to refrain from having an opinion in the affirmative or the negative. In this way, we'd avoid both slandering the innocent and accidentally standing on the side of the guilty.

 

I can't say whether Boroujerdi deserved to be arrested in the first place or whether he is in fact a victim of torture, but if an accredited human rights organization is saying that he didn't and that he is, then a reasonable argument against such accusations by those who wish to defend the accused party in response should be a very simple request just as it should be a simple request that those who are accusing this party provide proper evidence themselves. Amnesty International and others also have the same responsibility to show its evidence to those who wish to see it.

 

 

This is the reason i say you are being incoherent. Because further up as i quoted you claim:

What's your point? That no one should suggest there's a problem with the system because that would mean there's a problem?

 

So publicly suggesting that something is wrong is ok according to Islamic view, as long as you don't conclude it?

Say i suggest that you are a thief, is that ok?

 

If you accuse me of being a thief and you feel you have good reason to think that, then you have every right to bring forth your argument and its proofs. And if I do not wish to be known as a thief, I should provide a proper counter argument. If you called me a thief and appealed to such and such evidence that I was one and instead of arguing against this accusation I chose to hide or run away, this would only make me look more guilty. Also, I wouldn't say I have the right to accuse you of slander if you are only following the evidence you've been given and have not been given a good reason to doubt the evidence that I am a thief by anyone who knows better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their Shi'a affiliation is not particularly relevant. This isn't the first time the IRI's justice department has been accused of torturing a prisoner, political or otherwise. Whether or not they are Shi'a, they are still human and still capable of abusing their power and doing evil things like we see in almost every other justice or police department in nearly every part of the world, including but not limited to Western countries.

 

I'm not accusing anybody of anything in this particular case at all, just so you know, and I can't say whether Boroujerdi is innocent or if the justice department has done wrong, although I do believe there's sufficient evidence that certain segments of Iran's justice department are guilty of doing terrible things to prisoners or Iranian citizens and getting away with it in the past. But whether or not such is the case with Boroujerdi can only be determined however if one is willing to take such accusations seriously, regardless of where their loyalties or sympathies lie, instead of dismissing them as being hogwash designed to attack Iran simply because they suggest something one doesn't want to believe can happen.

 

 

 

This is completely besides the point. Innocent until proven guilty does not mean that accusations of wrongdoing should be ignored. My question is simple, if there are concerned parties who believe Boroujerdi has not been imprisoned on false charges, but also believe he is being mistreated as a prisoner of the Iranian justice system, and believe so on the basis of testimonies by various supposed witnesses and perhaps other more physical evidence, should not the question of whether Iran's police or judges are doing wrong be taken seriously?

 

 

 

Well, normally, in a situation like this, you'd want to choose a party that both sides of the argument would be willing to trust to investigate the matter objectively without any personal bias. I don't suppose I know who would fit that bill in this case.

 

 

You'd have a point if it was just baseless rumors by gossiping housewives we were talking about here, that is not the case. What we have is an accredited human rights organization, which quite a few members of this site have relied on in the past as a source when it comes to other issues like those in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan (I have even seen users make use of Amnesty International to refute bogus claims made by Iranian dissidents against the Iranian government) if this organization that is well known and respected by many has found through its own investigations that Iran is guilty of wrongdoing, is not the proper response a counter argument with reason and evidence to back it up.

 

Yes, Amnesty International could be wrong but just because it could be wrong is no reason to say that anyone who trusts their investigations is guilty of slander, especially when those who are defending the accused (in this case, the Iranian justice system) have not provided a reasonable counter argument backed by proofs. If Amnesty International is basing its accusations on supposed witnesses, then the proper response is not "we shouldn't accept their argument because if there's a chance they're wrong, then we'll be guilty of slander if they are." That would only be the proper response if the evidence is inconclusive but nonetheless stacked against them or if the evidence in support of both sides is stacked equally high and we are therefore unable to determine who is correct, in which case one would have to refrain from having an opinion in the affirmative or the negative. In this way, we'd avoid both slandering the innocent and accidentally standing on the side of the guilty.

 

I can't say whether Boroujerdi deserved to be arrested in the first place or whether he is in fact a victim of torture, but if an accredited human rights organization is saying that he didn't and that he is, then a reasonable argument against such accusations by those who wish to defend the accused party in response should be a very simple request just as it should be a simple request that those who are accusing this party provide proper evidence themselves. Amnesty International and others also have the same responsibility to show its evidence to those who wish to see it.

 

 

 

If you accuse me of being a thief and you feel you have good reason to think that, then you have every right to bring forth your argument and its proofs. And if I do not wish to be known as a thief, I should provide a proper counter argument. If you called me a thief and appealed to such and such evidence that I was one and instead of arguing against this accusation I chose to hide or run away, this would only make me look more guilty. Also, I wouldn't say I have the right to accuse you of slander if you are only following the evidence you've been given and have not been given a good reason to doubt the evidence that I am a thief by anyone who knows better.

 

Conclusion, we have different view of what Islam is. We can agree to disagree. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to quite agree with Saintly_Jinn23 arguments, there very precise and factual and not bias. Plus, repenter everyone has the right to be treated in a humane and caring way, whether their good or bad, Muslim or not Muslim and Shia or not Shia it doesn't matter everyone is equal. It doesn't even matter if the authorities handling the case are Shia and taking on a fellow Shia. This was the main point of why I posted this thread. The Iranian regime does not represent Shias or Islam and it never will and non of us should like worship this regime as if their idols. I just can't believe how attached a lot of Shia are to this regime.

 

I am personally against this regime and have no such sympathy for it, since the rigged and corrupt 2009 Elections where Mir Hossein Mousavi actually won the votes over the corrupt Mahmoud Ahmadinejhad. Mir Hossein Mousavi another opponent of the regime currently under house-arrest with his wife and various others who are not so far released. The dreadful and merciless reply of the regime against the Green Movement protesters greatly shocked me, many of the protests were peaceful but then the regime began attacking the protesters who were heavily mistreated and injured, it was inhumane and unislamic and few people also died.

 

From then on people have lost trust in this regime. As you know I have utter distaste for the hardliners who run the country, and many of the people who strongly participated and had a voice in the 1979 Revolution, turned against the Revolution in the following years notable examples are again Mir Hossein Mousavi, Ayatollah Montazeri, Mohsen Sazegara and many others. This regime needs a reformation or it will fall within a matter of decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to quite agree with Saintly_Jinn23 arguments, there very precise and factual and not bias. Plus, repenter everyone has the right to be treated in a humane and caring way, whether their good or bad, Muslim or not Muslim and Shia or not Shia it doesn't matter everyone is equal. It doesn't even matter if the authorities handling the case are Shia and taking on a fellow Shia. This was the main point of why I posted this thread. The Iranian regime does not represent Shias or Islam and it never will and non of us should like worship this regime as if their idols. I just can't believe how attached a lot of Shia are to this regime.

 

I am personally against this regime and have no such sympathy for it, since the rigged and corrupt 2009 Elections where Mir Hossein Mousavi actually won the votes over the corrupt Mahmoud Ahmadinejhad. Mir Hossein Mousavi another opponent of the regime currently under house-arrest with his wife and various others who are not so far released. The dreadful and merciless reply of the regime against the Green Movement protesters greatly shocked me, many of the protests were peaceful but then the regime began attacking the protesters who were heavily mistreated and injured, it was inhumane and unislamic and few people also died.

 

From then on people have lost trust in this regime. As you know I have utter distaste for the hardliners who run the country, and many of the people who strongly participated and had a voice in the 1979 Revolution, turned against the Revolution in the following years notable examples are again Mir Hossein Mousavi, Ayatollah Montazeri, Mohsen Sazegara and many others. This regime needs a reformation or it will fall within a matter of decades.

 

What on earth....? Were did i say the opposite? All i said was before one make suggestions of torture, one must have solid proof. It is a sin to accuse a fellow shia of being involved in torture unless one is certain. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What on earth....? Were did i say the opposite? All i said was before one make suggestions of torture, one must have solid proof. It is a sin to accuse a fellow shia of being involved in torture unless one is certain. 

 

Your posts seem to imply that we're not allowed to even discuss the issue because we possibly COULD be falsely accusing fellow shia of wrongdoing. However, as I mentioned, you have a trusted international organization claiming its investigation has good reason to believe the Iranian justice system is guilty of wrongdoing in this particular case. Why then should we not seek the truth in this matter?

 

Look at it this way, if a person is accused of murder and there are witnesses or physical evidence against the person, if you don't investigate the matter further while entertaining the possibility that the individual could have done it if he or she so intended, you could be letting someone guilty of murder get away with it. While if you entertain that possibility, investigate the matter further and turn up nothing to conclusively prove the matter or in fact find that the opposite is the case and that the person is innocent, you can at least say you pursued the certain truth of the matter , which is a virtue in and of itself. And by the way, to simply ask if the person is guilty and to seek answers is not the same as outright accusing them, that's precisely how guilty people are discovered and innocent people exonerated.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your posts seem to imply that we're not allowed to even discuss the issue because we possibly COULD be falsely accusing fellow shia of wrongdoing. However, as I mentioned, you have a trusted international organization claiming its investigation has good reason to believe the Iranian justice system is guilty of wrongdoing in this particular case. Why then should we not seek the truth in this matter?

 

Look at it this way, if a person is accused of murder and there are witnesses or physical evidence against the person, if you don't investigate the matter further while entertaining the possibility that the individual could have done it if he or she so intended, you could be letting someone guilty of murder get away with it. While if you entertain that possibility, investigate the matter further and turn up nothing to conclusively prove the matter or in fact find that the opposite is the case and that the person is innocent, you can at least say you pursued the certain truth of the matter , which is a virtue in and of itself. And by the way, to simply ask if the person is guilty and to seek answers is not the same as outright accusing them, that's precisely how guilty people are discovered and innocent people exonerated.

 

There is a famous hadith saying you should make "70" excuses when you see/hear a fellow shia doing something wrong. This is just in case you have misunderstood or don't know the whole story.

 

So on to your point, you have an trusted(trusted by who?) international(like UN?) organization that has good reason(based on what and who's testimony?) to believe that the justice system in Iran is doing something wrong. Ok, let's say we ignore all those points in parenthesis. Simple scenario, if a Christian, Jew, atheist or someone non shia, yet trustworthy among other non shia, comes to you and claims that your brother in faith is under investigation for a crime. Please explain to me what you would do, step by step. 

 

The reason I'm upset, and yes I'm upset, is not because of Iran or it's justice system is involved. The reason I'm upset is because it has become a norm among shias to slander, to humiliate(even if you don't mean to) other shias without proper proof or knowledge of the situation, to backbite and diminish other shias specially in public where there are non shias too. We see it on this site all the time and it's getting annoying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ It's a hipsterish attitude.

 

Basically, the Islamic Revolution is the lifeblood of Shias in the 20th and 21st centuries. Every advancement we have made politically and culturally in the last 35 years has been because of this momentous occasion. (which itself was, of course, a continuation of over a thousand year's struggle)

 

So a bunch of hipsters decide to dislike it or go against it or be snarky and critical towards it. It makes no sense from a Shia perspective, unless you're being spiteful and going against the grain just for the sake of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a famous hadith saying you should make "70" excuses when you see/hear a fellow shia doing something wrong. This is just in case you have misunderstood or don't know the whole story.

 

I haven't read the hadith you have mentioned so i cannot comment on its authenticity or whether you are interpreting its meaning correctly in this context. But I don't believe Islam teaches us to make excuses for fellow believers at the expense of the pursuit of truth and justice. Should we be willing to give the benefit of the doubt? Certainly, but that's not the same as turning a blind eye, which is what you seem to be suggesting in the name of preserving the good reputation of our coreligionists, even if that reputation itself may be built on lies and half-truths.

 

Here in the states, we have a similar culture of people who are afraid to confess or give testimony to law enforcement or intervene themselves when they've clearly seen something wrong because they either believe it's "none of their business," or they're scared that they could be wrong and end up looking foolish or, even worse, they're afraid of the social backlash for "snitching." And as a result of these sorts of attitudes, many heinous activities occur without anyone being punished for them.

 

There are some people who quote various hadith where the Prophet or someone else in his holy household told people who confessed to crimes, suggested they may have been insane or mistaken before the person confessed a fourth time. Some people in our community suggest that this is because the Holy Prophet (pbuh) and his Ahlul Bayt had such compassion that they did not want to kill the individual, let alone a fellow believer. I, however, believe this is a silly interpretation of such traditions since Ahlul Bayt with all their divine knowledge would know whether the individual is guilty or not and so if they were to make excuses for an individual whom they knew was guilty, they would themselves be complicit in the obstruction of justice being meted out to those who deserve punishment or must as a matter of course be compelled to confess to their deeds. The way I interpret such traditions is that Ahlul Bayt know the guilt or innocence of the believer who comes to them, but the individual is being tested for their honesty in admitting to their crimes even when the opportunity exists for them to escape punishment or escape having to confess them. I don't believe that Islam has ever taught that justice takes a backseat to sympathy because to protect someone's life or reputation at the expense of justice, even if that person is a member of one's family, is just plain favoritism.

 

 

So on to your point, you have an trusted(trusted by who?) international(like UN?) organization that has good reason(based on what and who's testimony?) to believe that the justice system in Iran is doing something wrong. Ok, let's say we ignore all those points in parenthesis. Simple scenario, if a Christian, Jew, atheist or someone non shia, yet trustworthy among other non shia, comes to you and claims that your brother in faith is under investigation for a crime. Please explain to me what you would do, step by step.

 

1. I would ask what the crime he or she is being accused of is and if there is sufficient evidence against him to put him or her on trial

2. If I believe there is not sufficient evidence against him or her or if I felt that what they did should not be considered a crime, then I'd object to them being tried for it.

3. If I agree that the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the individual being guilty or if the evidence from my perspective seems equally in favor of the individual being innocent and guilty, I would not stand in the way of that person being tried for the crime, although I'd leave the ultimate judgement of whether he or she is guilty up to the recognized legal authorities and investigators.

4. However, if I felt the judges, jury or prosecutors in the case were guilty of corruption and could not be trusted to handle the case with objectivity and honesty, then I'd bring it before a higher authority and demand that they remove these individuals from the case and put someone else in charge of the prosecution or investigation (depending on where the issue lies). This is regardless of whether my fellow Shi'a is guilty or not or what my feelings on his/her guilt or lack of it is.

5. If these high authorities refuse to listen, then I'll find some other legal means of getting them to listen.

6. If the prosecutors and investigators can all be trusted to handle the case against my fellow Shi'a honestly, without any personal ill will against based on race, nationality or creed or personal history, then I won't stand in the way and will trust that justice will be done.

7. If my fellow Shi'a is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, even if the prosecutors, judge or jury are non-Muslims or non-Shi'a, I will accept the judgement, unless I feel something has been overlooked which may prove the individual innocent.

8. If my fellow Shi'a is guilty of committing a crime against the law of a non-Muslim state which has allowed him/her to live in the country and has provided for him/her with the opportunities, protection, social services and liberties to practice and even spread his/her faith, then that person should be punished accordingly since he or she has behaved ungratefully as a Shi'a to the country that in spite of being mostly non-Shi'a has nonetheless protected the Shi'a. Unless that individual can prove that the law he broke was itself unjust or deserves mercy, he should be willing to pay.

9. If the individual is found innocent, but I believe that something has been overlooked that in fact proves that he or she's guilty, the first thing I would do is confront my fellow Shi'a and implore them to confess to their crimes immediately on the basis of their honor as a Shi'a. If they refuse, then I will present the evidence to the proper trusted authorities so that individual is punished for their crimes.

 

Whether or not the individuals accusing a fellow Shi'a are not Shi'a I think is ultimately irrelevant unless one can prove the accusers can't be trusted to tell the truth because of a strong animosity towards those outside their faith, but an individual can be a Jew and have no personal animosity towards Muslims or Shi'a that would compel him to lie against one.

 

 

All I said, however, as far as this case is concerned, is that if Amnesty International and other human rights organizations are accusing Iranian authorities of something unjust or cruel of which they claim their investigations have yielded proof, those who believe this is not true should at least take this proof seriously and if it isn't true, provide a proper counter argument backed by proofs of its own. Making others feel guilty for "slander" if all they're in fact asking for is a reasonable answer to these allegations or for something to prove them wrong doesn't help one's case. I'm not even saying Amnesty International or anyone else is right, but we have relied on Amnesty International's investigations before when it comes to other matters that concern Shi'a, is there a reason we can't rely on them now? If so, then what is it?

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read the hadith you have mentioned so i cannot comment on its authenticity or whether you are interpreting its meaning correctly in this context. But I don't believe Islam teaches us to make excuses for fellow believers at the expense of the pursuit of truth and justice. Should we be willing to give the benefit of the doubt? Certainly, but that's not the same as turning a blind eye, which is what you seem to be suggesting in the name of preserving the good reputation of our coreligionists, even if that reputation itself may be built on lies and half-truths.

 

Here in the states, we have a similar culture of people who are afraid to confess or give testimony to law enforcement or intervene themselves when they've clearly seen something wrong because they either believe it's "none of their business," or they're scared that they could be wrong and end up looking foolish or, even worse, they're afraid of the social backlash for "snitching." And as a result of these sorts of attitudes, many heinous activities occur without anyone being punished for them.

 

There are some people who quote various hadith where the Prophet or someone else in his holy household told people who confessed to crimes, suggested they may have been insane or mistaken before the person confessed a fourth time. Some people in our community suggest that this is because the Holy Prophet (pbuh) and his Ahlul Bayt had such compassion that they did not want to kill the individual, let alone a fellow believer. I, however, believe this is a silly interpretation of such traditions since Ahlul Bayt with all their divine knowledge would know whether the individual is guilty or not and so if they were to make excuses for an individual whom they knew was guilty, they would themselves be complicit in the obstruction of justice being meted out to those who deserve punishment or must as a matter of course be compelled to confess to their deeds. The way I interpret such traditions is that Ahlul Bayt know the guilt or innocence of the believer who comes to them, but the individual is being tested for their honesty in admitting to their crimes even when the opportunity exists for them to escape punishment or escape having to confess them. I don't believe that Islam has ever taught that justice takes a backseat to sympathy because to protect someone's life or reputation at the expense of justice, even if that person is a member of one's family, is just plain favoritism.

 

 

I have another opinion on this, but it is irrelevant to the subject. 

 

 

1. I would ask what the crime he or she is being accused of is and if there is sufficient evidence against him to put him or her on trial

2. If I believe there is not sufficient evidence against him or her or if I felt that what they did should not be considered a crime, then I'd object to them being tried for it.

3. If I agree that the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the individual being guilty or if the evidence from my perspective seems equally in favor of the individual being innocent and guilty, I would not stand in the way of that person being tried for the crime, although I'd leave the ultimate judgement of whether he or she is guilty up to the recognized legal authorities and investigators.

4. However, if I felt the judges, jury or prosecutors in the case were guilty of corruption and could not be trusted to handle the case with objectivity and honesty, then I'd bring it before a higher authority and demand that they remove these individuals from the case and put someone else in charge of the prosecution or investigation (depending on where the issue lies). This is regardless of whether my fellow Shi'a is guilty or not or what my feelings on his/her guilt or lack of it is.

5. If these high authorities refuse to listen, then I'll find some other legal means of getting them to listen.

6. If the prosecutors and investigators can all be trusted to handle the case against my fellow Shi'a honestly, without any personal ill will against based on race, nationality or creed or personal history, then I won't stand in the way and will trust that justice will be done.

7. If my fellow Shi'a is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, even if the prosecutors, judge or jury are non-Muslims or non-Shi'a, I will accept the judgement, unless I feel something has been overlooked which may prove the individual innocent.

8. If my fellow Shi'a is guilty of committing a crime against the law of a non-Muslim state which has allowed him/her to live in the country and has provided for him/her with the opportunities, protection, social services and liberties to practice and even spread his/her faith, then that person should be punished accordingly since he or she has behaved ungratefully as a Shi'a to the country that in spite of being mostly non-Shi'a has nonetheless protected the Shi'a. Unless that individual can prove that the law he broke was itself unjust or deserves mercy, he should be willing to pay.

9. If the individual is found innocent, but I believe that something has been overlooked that in fact proves that he or she's guilty, the first thing I would do is confront my fellow Shi'a and implore them to confess to their crimes immediately on the basis of their honor as a Shi'a. If they refuse, then I will present the evidence to the proper trusted authorities so that individual is punished for their crimes.

 

1. Good, agreed. But trialed by who? We aren't talking about a trial. We are simply saying a non shia is accusing/investigating a shia for a crime. But sure, agreed non the less. 

2. Again, not a trial, but point taken. 

3. So you would not stand in the way of a non shia/muslim, trialing a shia, based on their own laws and what "human rights" is and what a "crime" is?

4. Islam, specially in case of justice and trials is not based on ones "feelings". You are way off here. 

 

No point in going through this point by point after the first 4. See on point 1. i agreed to half your statement. Evidence. If there is non, then i would tell that person to get lost. Another issue here is agenda and standards. Who is the accuser, what is their track record, what is their agenda and finally by what standards do they "investigate"? If these points do not satisfy Islamic views and norms, then It is discarded. 

 

 

 

Making others feel guilty for "slander" if all they're in fact asking for is a reasonable answer to these allegations or for something to prove them wrong doesn't help one's case. I'm not even saying Amnesty International or anyone else is right, but we have relied on Amnesty International's investigations before when it comes to other matters that concern Shi'a, is there a reason we can't rely on them now? If so, then what is it?

 

No one is making people guilty of slander if they are "asking". Read the first line of this thread. Is that asking? That is slandering regardless of how you twist it. So no, I'm not making people feel guilty, I'm saying they are guilty. 

 

You said: 

Then the pro-IRI posters will start posting how nobody should care since he apparently said this or that, reject any allegations of torture in Iranian prisons

 

Do you know what the word allegation means? 

Here is the definition:

Allegation - a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof.

 

You keep going in circles here bro. 

 

Finally, you having relied on Amnesty International before is fine and your right, but don't generalize please. 

 

It's no point in continuing this debate either, it's leading to nowhere.

 

My point is simply, shias must stop believing things being said about fellow Shias(specially when it comes from non Shias) without proper proof. They need to specifically stop spreading these things as facts before they are actually facts. Asking genuine questions are welcome, but we all know that what we often see is not "questions". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...