Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Mahsa Amini, 22-year old Iranian, dies after morality police arrest

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Site Administrators
39 minutes ago, kadhim said:

I’m not quite clear why you are singling me out about that view of marjaiyyah as if it’s some sort of personal creation on my part. I mean, I’ve never seen a poll, but far as I am aware that’s the majority view of what marjaiyyah is amongst both lay people and the marjaiyyah itself. It’s an institution that strives to give people guidance on fiqh

I understand that you’re more aligned with the post-Khomeini WF concept, and I respect your preference there. But I think you need to tune into the concept of ikhtilaaf and be a little more accepting of those who don’t share that view. 

I have to say I find it a little odd to see a site admin on a Shia site being so contemptuous and dismissive of the field of fiqh and the maraja who practice it. It’s an odd take. 

It's a forum, you pick someone opinionated that you disagree with and you single them out. That is how forums work......

Quote

I understand that you’re more aligned with the post-Khomeini WF concept, and I respect your preference there. But I think you need to tune into the concept of ikhtilaaf and be a little more accepting of those who don’t share that view.

Accepting that they have other views you mean? Yes? I'm not sure where I have said that I'm not accepting of that. But if I see someone just saying opinions without justifying their opinion, then I'll call it out. Have you tuned into the fact that people can and will call you out on your views?

 

Quote

I have to say I find it a little odd to see a site admin on a Shia site being so contemptuous and dismissive of the field of fiqh and the maraja who practice it. It’s an odd take. 

I find it odd that someone with 10K post still doesn't understand that someone saying the job of marjaiyya has not, is not and will not be to sit in a corner for 60 years to tell us how to pour water on which body part. You do know that most marajah write their hukms, laws and ruling in their 20's right? What do you think they spend the rest of their time on. Or what do  you think they should spend their time on if not get involved in society and politics? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Administrators
34 minutes ago, kadhim said:

Hold up here.

Why wouldn’t you have the same skepticism for the office holding clerics in Iran as you do for whatever layperson Iranian politician? You need to have a coherent answer for that. They’re all politicians in the Iranian system. 

You scoffed earlier at the idea anyone thinks an amamah or a turban is a magic shield against becoming corrupt.

But if you don’t actually think that way, why do you think the cleric politicians are off-limits for skepticism? I don’t understand your rationale.

 

Quote

Why wouldn’t you have the same skepticism for the office holding clerics in Iran as you do for whatever layperson Iranian politician?

It's called track record. If I want to hire someone as security guard for a bank, and you as a fine educated person, with no criminal record, no weird beliefs and no face tattoos apply, and on the flip side, someone with a criminal record applies with holes in their CV, who would I be skeptical towards hiring? Just because you can't seem to grasp that skepticism is based on reason, and everyone doesn't deserve the same amount does not mean that I'm being incoherent, it means you don't know what being skeptical implies. 

Quote

You scoffed earlier at the idea anyone thinks an amamah or a turban is a magic shield against becoming corrupt.

What? Go up and read again. In context this time.......

Quote

But if you don’t actually think that way, why do you think the cleric politicians are off-limits for skepticism? I don’t understand your rationale.

What the flipping squirrelmonkey are you on about? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
10 minutes ago, root said:

But if I see someone just saying opinions without justifying their opinion, then I'll call it out. Have you tuned into the fact that people can and will call you out on your views?

I’m confused why you think you get to “call me out” for basically aligning with the most common mainstream view of what the marjaiyyah is about. That’s how most people on the site think about it. So again I’m not sure why I got delegated to defend … the most mainstream view. 

 

Edited by kadhim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Administrators
4 minutes ago, kadhim said:

I’m confused why you think you get to “call me out” for basically aligning with the most common mainstream view of what the marjaiyyah is about. That’s how most people on the site think about it. So again I’m not sure why I got delegated to defend … the most mainstream view. 

 

You calling it mainstream is you trying to make something true just because you are saying it. And marjaiyya has never been just sitting in a corner giving advice. You need to get your history right. Remember the Shirazi tobacco uprising? Remember ayat. khoei and Sadr during Saddams day? Remember ayat.sistani and Iraq for the past 20 years? You think they were sitting there saying: "In my opinion, you should be nice, say your prayers and do wudhu this way and that way?"

I get to call you and everyone else out on anything, that is what forums are about........saying opinions then be ready to get flamed for it. And in my opinion you live in lala land, and I will tell you that you live in lala land and give the reasons as to why you do so. Talking eloquently works only thus far, sooner or later you have to have some meat on the bone you are serving else you will be called out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
11 minutes ago, root said:

You calling it mainstream is you trying to make something true just because you are saying it. And marjaiyya has never been just sitting in a corner giving advice. You need to get your history right. Remember the Shirazi tobacco uprising? Remember ayat. khoei and Sadr during Saddams day? Remember ayat.sistani and Iraq for the past 20 years? You think they were sitting there saying: "In my opinion, you should be nice, say your prayers and do wudhu this way and that way?"

I get to call you and everyone else out on anything, that is what forums are about........saying opinions then be ready to get flamed for it. And in my opinion you live in lala land, and I will tell you that you live in lala land and give the reasons as to why you do so. Talking eloquently works only thus far, sooner or later you have to have some meat on the bone you are serving else you will be called out. 

Ok. So this is getting a little addled on your part.

Let’s review. I just said I don’t agree with Khomeini-style WF with clerics running the government.  

You came back with some weird caricature of “Oh, so they’re just going to sit around and explain wudu.” Which was weird to me, because obviously those aren’t the only two options. I figured you must be mocking the traditional marjaiyyah, which is, after all, the default alternative to modern WF.

So I reply with confusion, asking why you’re mocking the traditional view. Why you’re not respecting ikhtilaaf. 

But now it looks like you are actually literally asking me to defend the idea of maraja literally just sitting around explaining wudu. Which is kind of surreal, since I never even remotely argued any such thing. That’s just a caricature in your head dude. 

I hold basically a pretty mainstream view of marjaiyyah, at least in so far as I think their expertise doesn’t give them the right to run countries and that they are supposed to rely on soft power and moral authority for influence. 

And in fact it’s doubly bizarre for you to try to pin on me such a caricatured extreme level of apoliticalness, given that the post you originally commented on was one where I advocated for them to keep the WF and Guardian council and such, but as purely advisory bodies to the government. A slightly more official version of these soft power precedents you are naming here.

So yeah. Just kinda bizarre. 
I’m sorry, but I don’t feel obligated at all to defend points of view you just randomly invented in your head. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 9/28/2022 at 12:42 PM, Ibn Tayyar said:

So then the question I guess I would ask is this; since everyone agrees that theft is a timeless sin and deserves a punishment, why would implementing the punishment in the Qur'an be "wrong"?

“Wrong” is probably not the word I would use in this discussion. I think that these sorts of punishments wouldn’t be reasonable today, because our societies - compared to early Islamic Arabia - aren’t warlord societies anymore, in a world where there was no such concept of a 'global village' with all sorts of people interacting with and influencing each other, where resources were scarce and where education levels were so low that these simple people would have to be deterred with harsh(er) punishments, instead of jails and rehab. It's also highly problematic when you consider the problem of how to incorporate a thief back into modern day society. In a society where there is already enough social stigmas surrounding people with disabilities.. it sounds like it’d open a pandora’s box of human rights concerns.

On 9/28/2022 at 12:42 PM, Ibn Tayyar said:

The early Muslims could have easily imprisoned thieves as modern society does.

How? Older societies were generally food-insecure and would combat each other over resources. So how would it be reasonable to throw criminals into prisons in a society where resources are already limited? Wouldn’t that just be a waste of labor? It seems that punishments that would make an offender physically or socially uncomfortable or outright crippled would have been far more viable in a society like that.

On 9/28/2022 at 12:42 PM, Ibn Tayyar said:

What would chopping a Muslim's hand achieve that a prison sentence couldn't in 700AD?

The same thing that all punishments achieve. It would have to be economically sufficient for any legal structure to implement it, it would need to be competently worse than one’s day to day life to even be viewed as a punishment, and it would have to be a deterrent greater than the act being deterred. In addition to all that, it had to be suitable for that society at that time.

On 9/28/2022 at 12:42 PM, Ibn Tayyar said:

I make this point because the traditionalist orthodox opinion is that knowing the "reasoning" - unless it is explicitly mentioned in texts - behind Islamic Laws (including punishments) is not necessary, even if they do not make "sense" to us.

That always sounded like lazy escape to me, personally. It’s like you choose to stay stuck in the infancy phase where the utopian ideal is the one where God sent a Prophet to a community of knuckleheads to guide them one last time, and if that guidance doesn’t work 1400 years down the line, then it must have been something that wasn’t meant to make “sense” to us. The reason it doesn’t make “sense” is because it conflicts with our intuition and with the world in which we are a part of now. We are repulsed by the ideas of any guillotine-styled punishments. The collective consciousness has changed astronomically over the past couple of centuries. We don’t want to see our children grow up in a place with amputees walking around. Why do people shy away from admitting this?

On 9/28/2022 at 12:42 PM, Ibn Tayyar said:

So since the context was to protect or build the nuclear family unit, if a modern Islamic country were to suffer from high fornication and adultery rates and the nuclear family was under threat, would a ruler be within their rights to declare "we will return to the capital punishment of the old days to get this under control"? Or would you say it is a matter of "what worked in the past may not work anymore"?

No, because there are other variables at play here. Punishments need to be appropriate to the culture in which they exist. Public shaming for a crime, for example, works far less efficiently on people who can just move up to a new community or who don’t care about their reputation in the first place. But public shaming does seem to have worked in feudal societies, because people were controlled into obedience via that method, and because feudal lords and medieval governances in general were more interested in keeping their masses in check by holding power shows. So, yes, what worked in the past may not work anymore.

Edited by khizarr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
2 hours ago, shadow_of_light said:

The authorities and governors must cleary explain what their children are doing in west especially in Canada and US. Why did they immigrate to these countries and have luxurious lives there while their fathers invite people to be patient about economic problems (caused partly by the sanctions and partly by the government's mismanagement and corruption). Isnt it hypocrisy? 

This is interesting to know, can you show who authorities and governors have sended their kids there and for what purposes? I know about Iraq, but not sure about Iran. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Administrators
50 minutes ago, kadhim said:

Ok. So this is getting a little addled on your part.

Let’s review. I just said I don’t agree with Khomeini-style WF with clerics running the government.  

You came back with some weird caricature of “Oh, so they’re just going to sit around and explain wudu.” Which was weird to me, because obviously those aren’t the only two options. I figured you must be mocking the traditional marjaiyyah, which is, after all, the default alternative to modern WF.

So I reply with confusion, asking why you’re mocking the traditional view. Why you’re not respecting ikhtilaaf. 

But now it looks like you are actually literally asking me to defend the idea of maraja literally just sitting around explaining wudu. Which is kind of surreal, since I never even remotely argued any such thing. That’s just a caricature in your head dude. 

I hold basically a pretty mainstream view of marjaiyyah, at least in so far as I think their expertise doesn’t give them the right to run countries and that they are supposed to rely on soft power and moral authority for influence. 

And in fact it’s doubly bizarre for you to try to pin on me such a caricatured extreme level of apoliticalness, given that the post you originally commented on was one where I advocated for them to keep the WF and Guardian council and such, but as purely advisory bodies to the government. A slightly more official version of these soft power precedents you are naming here.

So yeah. Just kinda bizarre. 
I’m sorry, but I don’t feel obligated at all to defend points of view you just randomly invented in your head. 

 

 

Quote

Ok. So this is getting a little addled on your part.

Yeah you would like to think so

Quote

You came back with some weird caricature of “Oh, so they’re just going to sit around and explain wudu.” Which was weird to me, because obviously those aren’t the only two options. I figured you must be mocking the traditional marjaiyyah, which is, after all, the default alternative to modern WF.

So I reply with confusion, asking why you’re mocking the traditional view. Why you’re not respecting ikhtilaaf. 

What are you on about. You do realize 99% of ulama agree with WF right? It's just the Mutlagh part they don't agree on.

Which is faaaar away from what your idea of "traditional" is. Maybe non of the Ulama are traditional? 

Quote

But now it looks like you are actually literally asking me to defend the idea of maraja literally just sitting around explaining wudu. Which is kind of surreal, since I never even remotely argued any such thing. That’s just a caricature in your head dude. 

You literally said this :"Politically, I don’t know. As I said earlier, I  tend to think the most natural evolution would be that the WF layer stays as an advisory body, but without official power to say no to anything. I think it could play an interesting role of moral guidance and authority if it distanced itself from the raw machinery of direct power. "

Which is basically saying sit down and be quiet, you can twist it the way you like it now, but that is what you said. 

 

Quote

I hold basically a pretty mainstream view of marjaiyyah, at least in so far as I think their expertise doesn’t give them the right to run countries and that they are supposed to rely on soft power and moral authority for influence. 

You are all over the place. What expertise do you have to have to run a country? Then, if you may, list what the qualifications of WF must be to actually be WF. 

 

Quote

And in fact it’s doubly bizarre for you to try to pin on me such a caricatured extreme level of apoliticalness, given that the post you originally commented on was one where I advocated for them to keep the WF and Guardian council and such, but as purely advisory bodies to the government. A slightly more official version of these soft power precedents you are naming here.

Too bad your "traditional" ulama don't agree with you. 

Quote

So yeah. Just kinda bizarre. 
I’m sorry, but I don’t feel obligated at all to defend points of view you just randomly invented in your head. 

Don't be sorry. It's hard sometimes, it's ok. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, khizarr said:

“Wrong” is probably not the word I would use in this discussion. I think that these sorts of punishments wouldn’t be reasonable today, because our societies - compared to early Islamic Arabia - aren’t warlord societies anymore, in a world where there was no such concept of a 'global village' with all sorts of people interacting with and influencing each other, where resources were scarce and where education levels were so low that these simple people would have to be deterred with harsh(er) punishments, instead of jails and rehab. It's also highly problematic when you consider the problem of how to incorporate a thief back into modern day society. In a society where there is already enough social stigmas surrounding people with disabilities.. it sounds like it’d open a pandora’s box of human rights concerns.

I mean I would imagine that amputees in early Arabia probably had it worse than amputees today, in terms of both reputation (as a known thief now), add to that I would say good luck to the amputee in finding an occupation at a time where most men would work in a manual labour field in an already resource-scare society as you mentioned, so I don't believe the stigma argument is strong in and of itself.

Secondly as I mentioned, Muslims were in fact jailed if they did repeat the offense of stealing, and prison was a already a punishment pre-Islam and during Islam.

Perhaps the "deterrence" argument you mentioned is stronger, which I will address later.

2 hours ago, khizarr said:

 

How? Older societies were generally food-insecure and would combat each other over resources. So how would it be reasonable to throw criminals into prisons in a society where resources are already limited? Wouldn’t that just be a waste of labor? It seems that punishments that would make an offender physically or socially uncomfortable or outright crippled would have been far more viable in a society like that.

I don't really see how prisons would significantly increase the burden on the Islamic Governments of the time, prisons back weren't as expensive as today and in a society where prisoners of war (captives) were already being taken care of in mass numbers, I don't think it would be something out of the norm.

2 hours ago, khizarr said:

 

The same thing that all punishments achieve. It would have to be economically sufficient for any legal structure to implement it, it would need to be competently worse than one’s day to day life to even be viewed as a punishment, and it would have to be a deterrent greater than the act being deterred. In addition to all that, it had to be suitable for that society at that time.

Even if I accept your argument that prisons were too expensive, which I don't believe would be true as prisons would be much simpler back then without the added costs of today's prisons, would it be reasonable to ask why lashing wasn't seen an an appropriate deterrence method for the thief? It apparently worked in deterring the fornicators. Even if you were to say that stealing is more severe and therefore requires a more severe punishment, one might still respond and say: severity of punishment shouldn't matter if the outcome is the same, that lashings work in both situations, and therefore deterrence has been achieved.

Unless one would now say that lashings simply wouldn't work at in deterring a thief, and they are a different type of criminal, and require a different punishment altogether that would work on them.

2 hours ago, khizarr said:

 

That always sounded like lazy escape to me, personally. It’s like you choose to stay stuck in the infancy phase where the utopian ideal is the one where God sent a Prophet to a community of knuckleheads to guide them one last time, and if that guidance doesn’t work 1400 years down the line, then it must have been something that wasn’t meant to make “sense” to us. The reason it doesn’t make “sense” is because it conflicts with our intuition and with the world in which we are a part of now. We are repulsed by the ideas of any guillotine-styled punishments. The collective consciousness has changed astronomically over the past couple of centuries. We don’t want to see our children grow up in a place with amputees walking around. Why do people shy away from admitting this?

I mean I don't necessarily even believe this is the case with just Islamic punishments, but any and every law, even for a simple case of mustahab and makruh, there is no reason to ask "why". For example, why is cutting bread with a knife makruh? Well, we don't need to know the reasons, we just need the proof that declares it makruh.

Our ahkam are ta'abudiyya (we worship and obey Allah through them) and we don't need the logic behind it, and the traditionalists often rely on the following Verse when the topic of reasonings is brought forth.

It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allāh and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should [thereafter] have any choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allāh and His Messenger has certainly strayed into clear error. [33:36]

The Muslims were told to not let pity get in our way of enforcing the punishment on the fornicators:

The [unmarried] woman or [unmarried] man found guilty of sexual intercourse - lash each one of them with a hundred lashes, and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion [i.e., law] of Allāh, if you should believe in Allāh and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment. [24:2]

And so therefore, in traditionalist worldview, the job is to obey once we figure out the meaning of a Verse or a hadith which we can be confident has come from an authoritative source, irrespective of emotional reactions or societal reactions. 

2 hours ago, khizarr said:

No, because there are other variables at play here. Punishments need to be appropriate to the culture in which they exist. Public shaming for a crime, for example, works far less efficiently on people who can just move up to a new community or who don’t care about their reputation in the first place. But public shaming does seem to have worked in feudal societies, because people were controlled into obedience via that method, and because feudal lords and medieval governances in general were more interested in keeping their masses in check by holding power shows. So, yes, what worked in the past may not work anymore.

And I believe this may be the most interesting argument, which I believe is the gist of your viewpoint, which is that deterrence was the end goal of the punishments and therefore as society and cultures change and move, then so should the punishments.

The traditionalist argument will be that we don't know if the end goal of these punishments is even deterrence, or if it may just be one goal among many goals, I believe the Sunnis have an authentic hadith they have narrated which implies that one of the uses of the punishments is that they can actually be an atonement for the sinner, so that the punished will not be judged in the Afterlife for this sin.

We also have such hadiths in our books, therefore in the traditionalist worldview deterrence has not proven to be the only goal of the punishments, and therefore they are to stay in their rigid format till the end of time, even if other similarly effective or more effective methods of punishment are available, due to things such as modern science and what not.

Edited by Ibn Tayyar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, root said:

What are you on about. You do realize 99% of ulama agree with WF right? It's just the Mutlagh part they don't agree on.

Lol. 

The “WF” they agree on is the “traditional WF” of caring for orphans, widows, disabled people, etc who lack a family guardian. 

I distinguished this above from the “modern” WF, the mutlaq version of Khomeini, the one about running states.

1 hour ago, root said:

Which is faaaar away from what your idea of "traditional" is. Maybe non of the Ulama are traditional? 

Lol. How would you even have any idea what my idea of traditional is when you insist on just projecting your own imaginings instead?

1 hour ago, root said:

You literally said this :"Politically, I don’t know. As I said earlier, I  tend to think the most natural evolution would be that the WF layer stays as an advisory body, but without official power to say no to anything. I think it could play an interesting role of moral guidance and authority if it distanced itself from the raw machinery of direct power. "

Which is basically saying sit down and be quiet, you can twist it the way you like it now, but that is what you said. 
 

Lol. No dude. Reading comprehension is your friend. “Without the power to say no” doesn’t mean “being quiet”; it means no formal legal veto. What this actually means is basically a slightly more official version of things like the tobacco fatwa, Khoei and Sadr during Saddam, Seestani post US invasion. All precedents you yourself invoked proving a marja doesn’t need the hard power of a state to have influence in the public sphere, so long as  he has the respect of people to lend moral authority. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Ensiyeh Khaz'ali's son works for Betternet (a Canadian-based vpn service provider). His mother is vice-president.

One of Hassan Rouhani's daughters lives in Austria.

Masoumeh Ebtekar's son immigrated to US to continue his education.

Ali Larijani's daughter immigrated to US to continue her education and apparently to work there.

And many others.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Administrators
23 minutes ago, kadhim said:

Lol. 

The “WF” they agree on is the “traditional WF” of caring for orphans, widows, disabled people, etc who lack a family guardian. 

I distinguished this above from the “modern” WF, the mutlaq version of Khomeini, the one about running states.

Lol. How would you even have any idea what my idea of traditional is when you insist on just projecting your own imaginings instead?

Lol. No dude. Reading comprehension is your friend. “Without the power to say no” doesn’t mean “being quiet”; it means no formal legal veto. What this actually means is basically a slightly more official version of things like the tobacco fatwa, Khoei and Sadr during Saddam, Seestani post US invasion. All precedents you yourself invoked proving a marja doesn’t need the hard power of a state to have influence in the public sphere, so long as  he has the respect of people to lend moral authority. 

 

Quote

The “WF” they agree on is the “traditional WF” of caring for orphans, widows, disabled people, etc who lack a family guardian. 

Ehh, no. LoL'ing won't change that. 

Here, educate yourself a bit:

image.png

I guess the stability and order of the Islamic society is making sure orphans and disabled people don't riot right? Maybe you disagree with Ayatollah Sistani too? Wouldn't it be easier if you just admitted that your problem is with Khamenei and are just shooting in the dark now hoping to make at least one valid point? I mean you started off as a gentleman, or tried to at least, now you are lol'ing. Don't break now, stay in character. 

Quote

I distinguished this above from the “modern” WF, the mutlaq version of Khomeini, the one about running states.

You distinguishing doesn't really matter. You can distinguish all you want. 

Quote

Lol. How would you even have any idea what my idea of traditional is when you insist on just projecting your own imaginings instead?

You literally explained your idea like 15 times. I'm not insisting anything. The thief starts running when you pick up a stick. 

Quote

Lol. No dude. Reading comprehension is your friend. “Without the power to say no” doesn’t mean “being quiet”; it means no formal legal veto. What this actually means is basically a slightly more official version of things like the tobacco fatwa, Khoei and Sadr during Saddam, Seestani post US invasion. All precedents you yourself invoked proving a marja doesn’t need the hard power of a state to have influence in the public sphere, so long as  he has the respect of people to lend moral authority. 

Imagine how much better it would be if they did have formal legal veto. Instead of failing to throw over Saddam, all people in Iraq would be obliged to follow him, instead of everyone with their own Marjah. I know it burns your kind to see Khamenei in his position, don't sweat it though, you are not alone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
28 minutes ago, root said:

 

Ehh, no. LoL'ing won't change that. 

Here, educate yourself a bit:
 

image.png

I guess the stability and order of the Islamic society is making sure orphans and disabled people don't riot right? Maybe you disagree with Ayatollah Sistani too? Wouldn't it be easier if you just admitted that your problem is with Khamenei and are just shooting in the dark now hoping to make at least one valid point? I mean you started off as a gentleman, or tried to at least, now you are lol'ing. Don't break now, stay in character. 

You distinguishing doesn't really matter. You can distinguish all you want. 

You literally explained your idea like 15 times. I'm not insisting anything. The thief starts running when you pick up a stick. 

Imagine how much better it would be if they did have formal legal veto. Instead of failing to throw over Saddam, all people in Iraq would be obliged to follow him, instead of everyone with their own Marjah. I know it burns your kind to see Khamenei in his position, don't sweat it though, you are not alone. 

Salaama

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, shadow_of_light said:

Ensiyeh Khaz'ali's son works for Betternet (a Canadian-based vpn service provider). His mother is vice-president.

One of Hassan Rouhani's daughters lives in Austria.

Masoumeh Ebtekar's son immigrated to US to continue his education.

Ali Larijani's daughter immigrated to US to continue her education and apparently to work there.

And many others.

 

 

 

Can you share some source

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
4 hours ago, shadow_of_light said:

Ensiyeh Khaz'ali's son works for Betternet (a Canadian-based vpn service provider). His mother is vice-president.

One of Hassan Rouhani's daughters lives in Austria.

Masoumeh Ebtekar's son immigrated to US to continue his education.

Ali Larijani's daughter immigrated to US to continue her education and apparently to work there.

I don't know in detail about this. But all of these are known people of the moderate camp and moderates in Iran tend to incline towards the west.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Salaam,

I stopped posting here. But just wanted to post one video I saw of a confession of a 'protester'.

Someone here (maybe @GreenTree or @khizarr), justified the burning of ambulances by a narrative that 'they are used by security'.

Above video confession proves that it was a false narrative coming from Masih Alinejad (a known CIA asset).

I live in India and in my country I have seen people killed, lynched and riots happened because of fake news. Please be careful about that.

60+ ambulances burnt. Who is responsible now for those who died because of it or those who will die because of a shortage of ambulance service (God forbid) in case of medical emergencies in Iran?

 

Try to suppress such false and crminal narratives as much as possible.

@Hasani Samnani, I saw a post from you as well where you shared a video viral on whatsapp. You know that laying down such false accusation on dead is a grave sin. It was shared to me as well and it was proven fake in the next minute for me. Be careful, this can lead to bitter conequences and those who will instigate or promote it will be accountable in Akhirah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 9/23/2022 at 2:57 PM, Dubilex said:

Your imagination is much wilder. You see CIA and Mossad around every corner.

Sad that you put ideology before truth

Our paranoia is completely unwarranted (sarcasm)

0d81afd6e3f06656f2ef3a4953465a08.jpg

iran-bases.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
On 9/21/2022 at 8:04 PM, Laayla said:

This is why your society is outrageously dumb and desensitized of anything outside America.  

I responded to Sister @starlightand bint al kuffa and they both gave irrelevant one-liners.

Laayla, I don't live in America and my religion doesn't tell me to worship IRI blindly. If you find my answers irrelevant kindly stop interacting with me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

US, Britain, Israel and Ukraine are upset with Iran for sending drones to Russia and the riots are payback for its 'meddling'...the drones are proving to be extremely effective in the field..."It's a very serious problem. Without countermeasures, they will destroy all our artillery. Its not like the artillery that hit us before, I haven't encountered anything like this before." Colonel Kulagin

New Frightening Weapon Unleashed In Ukraine (Richard Medhurst) 13 min

 

Edited by Eddie Mecca
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 9/24/2022 at 11:48 PM, khizarr said:

it's the state machinery enforcing the particular thing over a period of time.

You do realize that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was a statesman who founded the first Islamic state in Medina and he enforced a dress code on males and females right? And you do realize that the dress code wasn't based on styles derived from latest issues of Vogue, Cosmopolitan or Vanity Fair magazine(s) right?

Edited by Eddie Mecca
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
11 hours ago, khizarr said:

warlord societies

Shades of Jordan Peterson 

11 hours ago, khizarr said:

no such concept of a 'global village'

Islamic eschatology prophesizes about the various aspects of modernity and postmodernity...the homogenizing effect of a coerced globalization on the so-called Third World in general (and Muslim world in particular) has undermined traditional values (including Islamic norms)...one way this has been accomplished is by severing the connection between faith and politics...this was foretold 1,400 years ago in End Times/Final Days ahadith.   

Edited by Eddie Mecca
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 9/25/2022 at 11:28 AM, kadhim said:

The government shut down most of the internet

Like the Justice Department requiring RT America to register as a foreign agent and the US banning three dozen websites (Press TV, pro-Houthi, pro-Palestinian outlets) for disseminating "Iranian disinformation" and growing calls by FCC commissioner and others that want TikTok to be banned as well? 

Edited by Eddie Mecca
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:
On 9/25/2022 at 7:28 PM, kadhim said:

The government shut down most of the internet

Like the Justice Department requiring RT America to register as a foreign agent and the US banning three dozen websites (Press TV, pro-Houthi, pro-Palestinian outlets) for disseminating "Iranian disinformation" and growing calls by FCC commissioner and others

The hypocrisy of the western powers is on full display at all times.

whether they kill their own citizens, bomb/kill/maim others,  push a satanic agenda , bomb a pipeline and then try to blame the owner, ...these are only seen by people who recognize the signs...others who worship at the alter of Western European Enlightenment...will never see or mention this hypocrisy. 

Instead they will blindly follow whatever the media trends and zionist programing tell them the enemy, and blindly attack with no basis in reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
4 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

US, Britain, Israel and Ukraine are upset with Iran for sending drones to Russia and the riots are payback for its 'meddling'...the drones are proving to be extremely effective

To think that a nation on constant attack and vilification since its birth,  is now producing armaments that the most advanced militaries in the world desire.

Talk about lifting oneself by theirn own bootstraps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
17 hours ago, shadow_of_light said:

The authorities and governors must cleary explain what their children are doing in west especially in Canada and US. Why did they immigrate to these countries and have luxurious lives there while their fathers invite people to be patient about economic problems (caused partly by the sanctions and partly by the government's mismanagement and corruption). Isnt it hypocrisy? 

This is an invalid criticism and I'll tell you why. 

As a father, I can't force my child to live next to me or even in the same country as I live. Islam (and common sense also) gives children a choice, once they become old enough to support themselves, as to where they want to live, what kind of job they want to have, etc. The authorities and governors in Iran don't have the 'special right' to force their children to stay in Iran. 

Most of the Iranians that I know (and there are alot that live in the area of SE Michigan compared to other parts of the US) came to the US to study and then ended up liking it and staying here. Most of them also go back to Iran at least every few years to visit. We also have alot of students from the Hawza in Qum who study there for part of the year and their families are in this area (Iraqis, Pakistanis, Iranians, etc) So this community has alot of good, solid, first hand accounts of what is actually going on in Iran, apart from what the Western Media talks about, which is mostly made up fiction. That is the difference between here and other places in the US. Most of the American people have probably never met an Iranian person who is fluent in both English and Farsi and lives here and regularly goes back to Iran. So all they have to go by is what the Western Media says, which is ideologically and politically driven, and not facts driven, as they claim. 

BTW, the media here should be 'falling all over themselves' to interview these brothers and sisters as they are fluent in Farsi and Iranian culture and also fluent in English and know this country and community well. But alas, the media here would rather interview Kurds or Iranians who barely know English whose 'comments' fit with the political and ideological narrative they are trying to push onto the American people. It's unfortunate. 

I have said this before, there are alot of things the Iranian government could do better, i.e. there is alot of room for improvement as far as making Iran a more viable and stable country, economically. I have some ideas about this, which I would love to present to the Iranian government, if I ever have the chance to meet any of them. So we could say some things about that, but as far as giving the governors and authorities 'special rights' to force their children to stay in Iran, I don't think that's one of the ideas that would actually turn out well. 

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
5 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

Like the Justice Department requiring RT America to register as a foreign agent and the US banning three dozen websites (Press TV, pro-Houthi, pro-Palestinian outlets) for disseminating "Iranian disinformation" and growing calls by FCC commissioner and others that want TikTok to be banned as well? 

The whole internet. For the whole country.

I mean, those other things are stupid. (As much as I do think PressTV and RT are trash, it’s stupid). But that’s like targeted microdose stupid. 

Unplugging your whole country from the internet is heroic dose in silent darkness level stupid. It’s so blunt and clumsy as a tactic. I really feel for any Iranian e-commerce businesses caught up in that. 

It’s just not a way to run a country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, kadhim said:

The whole internet. For the whole country.

I mean, those other things are stupid. (As much as I do think PressTV and RT are trash, it’s stupid). But that’s like targeted microdose stupid. 

Unplugging your whole country from the internet is heroic dose in silent darkness level stupid. It’s so blunt and clumsy as a tactic. I really feel for any Iranian e-commerce businesses caught up in that. 

It’s just not a way to run a country.

I wrote this one up pretty quickly; I just know some snarky doofus is going to jump on the e-commerce line, which reads poorly standing on its own like that. I would rewrite but unfortunately the edit option fades after 5 or 10 mins.

So just to preempt that sort of lazy snark, the basic point is, in 2022, the internet is basic business infrastructure, like electricity, water supply, and waste management. So it’s just another example of the Iranian government not knowing what they are doing and shooting themselves clumsily in the foot. They can’t think of more nuanced ways to deal with situation, so they just end up collateral damaging the ability of much of the country to earn their living. Which is just going to make more people fed up with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest goldenegg
On 9/29/2022 at 10:30 PM, Eddie Mecca said:

Our paranoia is completely unwarranted (sarcasm)

0d81afd6e3f06656f2ef3a4953465a08.jpg

iran-bases.jpg

 

Those bases are only here to protect their allies.  Iran does not want just  nuclear bombs because they want protect their country from west. They want nuclear bombs because this will allow them to conquer other nations like Russia is right now doing. Iran is  already doing it in Iraq, Syria, lebanon by  buying the politics/Militias. . Nuclear bomb allow them to conquer Iraq without  west  intervene militarily. If Saddam managed to build nuclear bomb. Kuwait and Khuzestan  would be part of the iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
  • Veteran Member
4 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

This is an invalid criticism and I'll tell you why. 

As a father, I can't force my child to live next to me or even in the same country as I live. Islam (and common sense also) gives children a choice, once they become old enough to support themselves, as to where they want to live, what kind of job they want to have, etc. The authorities and governors in Iran don't have the 'special right' to force their children to stay in Iran. 

 

I understand what you are saying but what if they take undue advantage of their parents' positions to easily take a visa and attract sponsorship? Moreover, emigrating and investing your money in the countries who have imposed strict sanctions on the country and blocked Iran's money in their banks is traitorous.

On one hand, they encourage people not to emigrate or buy imported goods in order to help our economy, they invite people to be patient (which is good provided that they dont behave hypocritically).

They attribute most of the problems to American government (which, i admit, has been very oppressive toward middle easterners) and usually deny their own mistakes. On the other hand, people see these authorities letting their children emigrate to the same country whose government is our enemy (sometimes maybe most times they dont return) while here, people are suffering the sanctions and government's mismanagement. So it is clear why they feel furious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, shadow_of_light said:

They attribute most of the problems to American government (which, i admit, has been very oppressive toward middle easterners) and usually deny their own mistakes. On the other hand, people see these authorities letting their children emigrate to the same country whose government is our enemy (sometimes maybe most times they dont return) while here, people are suffering the sanctions and government's mismanagement. So it is clear why they feel furious.

Yeah. That's hypocrisy and I can definitely anticipate that it might be happening on the ministerial level.

IR leadership should keep a strict check on such people and stop them from entering high ranking government positions.

Actually, there are loopholes, who denies that but the solution is not riots. Solution is not western propaganda. Solution is not attacking the entire Islamic Republic ideology.

In India, there maybe rarely one or two people in the parliament who aren't corrupt. Top to bottom the entire politics is based on corruption. But Indians don't tear down their constitution to bring a change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
1 hour ago, shadow_of_light said:

I understand what you are saying but what if they take undue advantage of their parents' positions to easily take a visa and attract sponsorship? Moreover, emigrating and investing your money in the countries who have imposed strict sanctions on the country and blocked Iran's money in their banks is traitorous.

On one hand, they encourage people not to emigrate or buy imported goods in order to help our economy, they invite people to be patient (which is good provided that they dont behave hypocritically).

They attribute most of the problems to American government (which, i admit, has been very oppressive toward middle easterners) and usually deny their own mistakes. On the other hand, people see these authorities letting their children emigrate to the same country whose government is our enemy (sometimes maybe most times they dont return) while here, people are suffering the sanctions and government's mismanagement. So it is clear why they feel furious.

I understand why they feel furious, because they see this as part of a 'class system' where some have privileges that others don't have. If that is truly the case, i.e. that they are 'trading in influence' in order to give their children an unfair advantage over other Iranians, I would agree that is wrong, and if they are doing this they should be punished in some way. 

At the same time, this isn't always the case. In every country on earth, you have a group of wealthy people. Some gained their weath in legitimate ways, some in illegitimate ways. The U.S. government will give almost anyone (so long as they don't have ties to organizations that they deem 'terrorist') if they can show that they have 1 million dollars in cash in a US or European bank. That amount might be slightly higher now (I haven't checked in a few years), but basically that is the only requirement. So if they don't have that, they have to meet other requirements (like relationship with a US Citizen, etc). That is how the system works. It's an unjust system, but that's how it works

So it is the wealthy Iranians who come to the US. Yes, some also increase their wealth once they are here, but they had this wealth to begin with. I would say 80% of the Iranians who came here (1st generation immigrants) came here in the late 70s, early 80s and used the wealth they stole from the people of Iran via their connections with the previous govt in order to secure a visa. Most of them live in Los Angeles (the Shahs of Sunset, et. al). The ones who live in Michigan are not from that group (at least I haven't met any of them here). They earned their money in other ways. Many bought real estate in Tehran after the revolution (in the early 80s) and sold it so they made money that way. That is what I know, and there is alot I don't know about this subject. 

I have not met anyone yet (here in Michigan) who is actually connected to the Iranian govt. As you know and have mentioned, the Iranian govt is under very severe sanctions by the US govt and I doubt that they would give a visa to any Iranian govt official or someone who has an official connection, or any of their children, if they knew that they were their children. The only place where their are govt officials from Iran is in New York, at the UN. Even there, the only ones they give visas to are the ones they are required legally to let in, so that they can participate in meetings at U.N. Headquarters. 

Most of the children of govt. officials go to Canada or Europe, where the sanctions are not as severe. The Iranians here in the US, and their children, are private business people, not govt officials, from what I know. 

Link to comment
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.

×
×
  • Create New...