Is Iranian politics a fair representation of Islam?

[youngborean]

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArt ... ISRAEL.xml

There are many assumptions when westerners are thinking about Islam and the Middle East. Those assumptions can be anywhere from Muslims in the Middle East are peace loving to them being vindictive and destructive in their theology. So with these new statements by the head of arguably one of the most influental Muslim States, is it fair to say that the politics of Iran (especially concerning Israel) is a fair representation of inherent anti-semetism in Islam, or is it just a complete coincidence?

[juliod]

I would say it is. All this talk we hear about islam being a nicey-nicey is a bit of wishful thinking, IMHO.

I would not say that the antisemitism is inherent, tho. It's more of a specific historical development. Religions do tend, however, to be violent towards one another. It's been said that no religious disagreement has ever been settled, except by violence.

This does not mean all differences must be settled by war, but religion is clearly a destabilizing influence in the middle-east.

DanZ

[micatala]

All this talk we hear about islam being a nicey-nicey is a bit of wishful thinking, IMHO.

I would not say that the antisemitism is inherent, tho. It's more of a specific historical development. Religions do tend, however, to be violent towards one another. It's been said that no religious disagreement has ever been settled, except by violence.

I would agree. It seems to me that what we have in Iran is another demagogue who will use religion to further his agenda and try to maintain power. Yes, he may believe his religious and political rhetoric (unlike some who only cynically use religion), but he is a demagogue nonetheless.

It need not be so, but when such a large proportion of the population is so fervent in the rightness of their religious views, and these people include iin their concept of religion the idea of labeling another group as 'evil' or 'enemies,' even if this is not really justified by the actual religious doctrines themselves, then we will have a hard time avoiding bad things from happening.

In my view, we are reaping the seeds of the corrupt polices of the past, both European and American policies. Whether President Ahmadinejad was actually one of the infamous U.S. Embassy hostage takers or not (as has been rumored and denied), he is the ideological heir of a revolution that was a reaction to the dictatorship of the Shah, a ruler who we installed in the 1950's to replace a democratically elected ruler who we (the U.S.) didn't like.

We are probably treading down the same path as we speak with respect to Iraq. In 20 years, we may someone like Al-Sadr in power (perhaps he himself), and won't that be fun.

[Jose]

As I understand it (someone please correct me if I am wrong), Islam indicates that it is appropriate--possibly required--to protect the homeland from invasion. If Bad Guys invade and occupy, your job is to get rid of them, and get back your land. Well...Israel is a relatively recent invention. Islamic people were displaced when Israel established itself. Therefore, by definition, Israel represents an invading and occupying force. Also by definition, so does the US occupation of Iraq, but we don't want to consider that any more now than we did before invading.

Unfortunately, the Israel/Palestine conflict has gone on long enough that for many middle easterners, it is all they know. What begins as an effort to repel an invading army becomes institutionalized as the only culture people know.

If you add to this the fundamentalist's view point that the only education that people really need is religious instruction, and you get a pretty volatile mix. I humbly suggest that the same would be true if it were Christian fundamentalism instead of Islamic. It's sort of a creed among fundamentalist groups that they are the Protectors of Truth, and that they are doing God's Work on Earth, and that there's no need for any "education" that would hint otherwise.

It makes it easier, of course, if the Bad Guys are a different religion altogether, as is the case with Israel. It is still possible, though, to develop serious animosities between different flavors of the same basic religion, as evidenced by the Sunni/Shiite unpleasantness, the Catholic/Protestant mess in Ireland, and the so-far less-violent squabbles between self-proclaimed True Christians and other Christians here in the US.

[micatala]

As I understand it (someone please correct me if I am wrong), Islam indicates that it is appropriate--possibly required--to protect the homeland from invasion. If Bad Guys invade and occupy, your job is to get rid of them, and get back your land. Well...Israel is a relatively recent invention. Islamic people were displaced when Israel established itself. Therefore, by definition, Israel represents an invading and occupying force.

I can't speak as to whether your understanding of Islam on this issue is correct or not. Obviously we have a bad situation with respect to Israel and its place in the Middle East, and religion is not helping matters one bit.

It is also worth pointing out that it was 'we Westerners' again who are largely responsible for the mess. Britain promised some Jewish people a homeland in Palestine, after already having more or less promised the Arabs their freedom in the same area for helping defeat the Ottoman's. Between British and French policy over the first half of the 20th century, the Arabs have a lot to be upset about. When the issue came to a head in 1948, it should have been no surprise that the Arabs did not stand idly by while what the justifiably viewed as their land was given over to the new state of Israel.

As you say, the situation has now degenerated to such an extent that most of the current residents of the region know no other situation than the existing ongoing, cancerous conflict.

[youngborean]

All interesting points. To Jose's statement that Israel is an occupying force, I don't believe that the definition is as simple. There were historically a majority of Jews living in the area alloted to them by the United Nations in 1947. It was after a mutal war that Palestinians were displaced from their lands and Jews were displaced from the rest of the Middle East. So I guess you point is half true in that many Palestinians eventually lost their homes. But the President of Iran suggested wiping Zionism off the face of the Earth, and not just leaving the middle east. As an interesting side note, the muslims of Iran are an occupying force as well. Iran was oringinally Zoastrian and/or Polytheistic before the Arabs invaded.

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

I have an ongoing dialogue with an Iranian friend with a pending refugee claim who suggest that the political backlash to the puritanical leadership in Iran is probably linked to this episode.

As for no inherent anti-semitism, where do we base this knowledge? The Koran (and subesquent Hadith's) leave a lot of room for antisemetic rhetoric in my opinion. Here is an example from an online edition of the Koran found here:

http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/ko ... yte=158021


[5.82] Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are polytheists, and you will certainly find the nearest in friendship to those who believe (to be) those who say: We are Christians; this is because there are priests and monks among them and because they do not behave proudly.

[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
[9.30] And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!


These are just a few of Many.