Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : America Under Siege: The End of Innocence -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elmer Flugum who wrote (20560)	12/9/2002 6:18:26 PM
From: lorne	Respond to of 27666

Tom Friedman’s Reformation His Iran. December 6, 2002 9:20 a.m. The New York Times, actively campaigning to become our great national shame, should really ask Thomas Friedman to write their main editorial column, because at least he's got the right voice for it. He speaks ex cathedra, seriously and imperiously, as befits a newspaper purporting to be authoritative. "The struggle in Iran is symbolized by one man, whose name you should know: Hashem Aghajari..." he wrote on December 4, in a column entitled "An Islamic Reformation." That's the way to talk to your readers: Tell them what they should know, and explain why. However, Friedman's got it a bit wrong, for the same reason he's been getting Iran wrong for lo these many months: He thinks that the historic struggle now under way inside Iran is between religious fanatics and religious reformers, which he describes as "the war of ideas within Islam." That war certainly exists, as it has for many centuries. And it is certainly very important — he rightly says we have a big stake in the eventual triumph of reasonable Muslims over the fanatics. But it is not the main issue in Iran today. The Iranian turmoil is over the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic itself, regardless of the theology of the leaders. In case you haven't been keeping score, Hashem Aghajari is a repentant Islamic revolutionary-turned-history-professor, one of the student activists of 1979 (and a former official who was a full participant in some of the most-brutal repression following Khomeini's seizure of power), who now challenges the infallibility of the ruling mullahs and calls upon Iranians to think for themselves instead of blindly accepting whatever is preached in Friday sermons. For this bit of common sense he has been sentenced to death, and he has been supported by the students and professors at most of the country's universities, as well as by tens of thousands of ordinary citizens, workers, and cultural leaders. The students rallied around Aghajari because he is the most-visible target of the regime, but the demonstrators' demands go far beyond anything that Aghajari has said. He wants to reform Islam; they want a total separation between mosque and state. He wants an Islamic Reformation, as Friedman says, but the demonstrators are interested in the creation of a secular civil society. He is a reformer, but they are revolutionaries. And that is — or rather should be, if we had policymakers with the courage of our convictions — worthy of our support, because it lies at the heart of our own remarkable political success, and because it lies at the heart of the war against Islamic terrorism. We lack standing in the internal Islamic debate. Interpretations of the Koran and Mohammed's reflections are matters for Muslims to debate among themselves. But we should have a lot to say about the separation of mosque/church and state, which is crucial to the proper functioning of democracy, in America and elsewhere. Both the Iranian secular revolutionaries and many leading ayatollahs agree that a similar requirement should be institutionalized in Iran as quickly as possible. These enlightened ayatollahs — many of whom are certainly not in favor of religious reform — recognize that the longer the conflict rages, the more likely it is that Islam itself will be a victim of the regime's eventual downfall. Thus, the widespread demand by the demonstrators for a national referendum on the country's political system — a demand that all Americans should enthusiastically endorse. Aghajari is a marginal figure in this struggle, as is another of Friedman's heroes, the so-called President Khatami. Like Khatami, Aghajari is a hero of opportunity for the demonstrators, a vessel into which the rage of the Iranian people has been poured, but who is certainly not a leader of the revolution. The revolution is being led by students, workers, intellectuals, and military officers and soldiers who can no longer bear the misery of the Iranian people, the corruption and hypocrisy of the Iranian leaders, and the awful degradation of the country. The battle for the minds and souls of the Iranian people has already been won by the opponents of the regime. The battle now underway — the battle that should be concerning our own leaders and intellectuals — is for the streets and institutions of the country. Do something serious, please. Enough talk. Help these worthy people. They are far more important than the crowd at the U.N., the sly appeasers in Foggy Bottom, or even the star columnists at the Times. nationalreview.com