Last edited by atensari; 13-Feb-2011 at 06:40 PM.
TEHRAN: An interior ministry official said on Saturday Iran will not allow the opposition to hold a rally in support of Arab uprisings which regime backers believe to be a ploy for fresh anti-government protests.
Opposition leaders Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi had sought ministry permission to stage a rally on Monday which they said was to show solidarity with the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt.
"These elements are fully aware of the illegal nature of the request. They know they will not be granted permission for riots," Mehdi Alikhani Sadr, a senior official at the ministry's political bureau, told a news agency.
Permission for "riots by seditionists" will not be given, he said, referring to opposition leaders blamed by regime officials for widespread unrest after the disputed re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2009.
Backers of Iran's Islamic regime say the opposition leaders intend to use the rally to stage anti-government demonstrations, similar to those in 2009.
The post-election protests left dozens of people dead, hundreds wounded and thousands arrested in a huge security crackdown on demonstrators.
Although Tehran is not permitting the opposition movement to hold a rally, it has come out in support of the demonstrations in Arab nations.
Ahmadinejad himself said on Friday it was the "right" of Egyptians to protest against US ally Hosni Mubarak, just hours before the Egyptian strongman stepped down. (Reuters)
Iran: Government Bans Sunnis from Praying in State Universities
By Khaled Mahmoud
Cairo, Asharq Al-Awsat- the Iranian government yesterday issued a decision banning Sunni Muslims from praying at state universities and military camps, Asharq Al-Awsat has learnt. This decision comes within the framework of pressurizing the Sunni community in Iran, which has been taking place for decades.
This ban, which was confirmed by Sunni sources in Tehran, came after Sunni Muslims were banned from holding communal Friday prayers services in their homes in cities like Isfahan, Shiraz, Kerman, and Yazd.
Sheikh Abdul-Hamid Esmaeel Zahi, the highest authority for Sunni Muslims in Iran and the imam and preacher of the Makki Mosque, the largest Sunni mosque in Iran located in the city of Zahedan, expressed his sorrow at the ban. He said, "We are very sorry that some elements have come forward to ban Friday prayers from being held in the home and placed restrictions on this practice. This group is ideologically deviant and they truly have a narrow outlook and are overly sensitive with regards to [Sunni] mosques and schools and advocacy."
Sheikh Zahi criticized this decision, stating that the Iranian constitution does not prevent any religious group from practicing its faith, regardless of its sect. He added, “There should not be a ban on performing prayers, rather everybody should be invited to perform prayers, and we hope that all Sunnis and Shia take the initiative to perform this obligation that is the most important pillar of Islam after belief in the oneness of God."
Sheikh Zahi considered the objection of officials to the construction of mosques, schools, and religious centers for Iran's Sunni community to be completely contrary to the principles of Iran's Islamic government. He said, "There are some [Sunni majority] villages where only one Shia family lives, and the government builds a [Shia] mosque. However the problem is that they do not allow us to build mosques or religious schools in large cities that are home to large Sunni communities."
He added that the officials who object to Sunnis praying at university do not have religion or any knowledge of God. Sheikh Zahi said that somebody who hates to pray behind or beside somebody from a different Muslim sect is showing signs of extreme ignorance.
Sheikh Zahi said, "I call on the country's officials and the Supreme Leader…to grant the freedom to pray in every place, which is the least right granted to us in the constitution, and that is the freedom to conduct communal and Friday prayers."
He stressed that the most important concern for the Sunni community in Iran is the issue of jurisprudence, saying "we do not feel that there is a problem with regards to the constitution, however there is despotism from some extremist elements in some regions that have Sunni minorities, and this is something that concerns us."
Sheikh Zahi added, "The representative of the Supreme Leader has banned the Sunni community from conducting Friday prayers in a number of [Iranian] cities, however the Sunni community in this city – even if it is a minority – wants to perform Friday prayers, however the Supreme Leader's representative rejected this saying 'let them follow my example [of praying in the Shia way] in their prayers.'"
Sheikh Zahi has denounced such negative practices, and asked what law – national or Islamic – is able to take away the rights of Sunni Muslims to perform independent communal Friday prayers in any area of the country?
As a Pakistani, this post seems to smell Pro Saudi...
Or may I say Pro western. Or better Pro Isreali.....
Keeping Sunni shia story aside. What I can say is
Anit Iran = Pro Israel.
Fall of Egypt and other Arab Government is an reply from ALLAH Subhan Talla.
Was not the same formula used by western power to off set Iranian Government, but see what happened in return.
Basmala, Allah, ar-Rahman and ar-Rahim
وَمَا أَنتُم بِمُعْجِزِينَ فِي الْأَرْضِ وَلَا فِي السَّمَاء وَمَا لَكُم مِّن دُونِ اللَّهِ مِن وَلِيٍّ وَلَا نَصِيرٍ
You are not (able) to frustrate (Allah) neither in the earth nor in the sky. And, apart from Allah, you have neither a protector nor a helper.
Getting my point Bhai ... its time we left Sunni shia issue aside and work against our common enemy.
Educate your self, reinstate your vision, increase your knowledge, do not stand under a Tree.
This post is pro-reality, Middle East is going through change of faces not hands. Pro-American dictator will go and other Pro-American dictator or Democrat will replace them. That’s why Iran is not allowing Pro-American opposition to show their solidarity with Pro-American changes.
Few Pro-Iran members are satisfying their Anti-Salafi emotions, Iran’s stance should open their eyes.
Ops! did I read this correct ..... Anti-Salafi... is this a word? Describing a certain sect?
One thing is cleared now, Ahle Sunnat Wal Jama'at and Wahabi/salafi are two different branches of Islam.
Thanks Bro! ....
Now answer to your first line...
"This post is pro-reality, Middle East is going through change of faces not hands. Pro-American dictator will go and other Pro-American dictator or Democrat will replace them."
As for Pro-Iran and Anti Iran / Shia , let me once again clear this stance. Its seems strange to explain the same story again and again. But it seems patience is the only thing left. For me it looks like I am an instructor for the Mentally challenged members of Siasat.pk
Let me try and nibble the food for you to digest.
Beside Iran there is no other state or Governance where we have any representative Islamic Democratic institution. We have tons of Muslim states, but they are either family / one man rule or Institute that furnished nothing more than a Islamic identity on the passport.
Western Democratic concept is good for knocking out local Kings and Dictators. This process is like a Bulldozer racking out a path.
Once this is done, Islamic essence can be established with ease. More like putting flower beds (Read this line twice or thrice... it tries to explain your reasoning)
With reference to Iran, the western bulldozer has made its path, the flower bed has been placed. There is no use of Bulldozer as it will only damage those Islamic Flower beds.
Remember, if you were to use adroit management to induce Islam.. there is no way to indoctrinate. As it will simply backfire... you don't have to look too far.. see Taliban and its Governance. It just fell flat on its face.. ask your self why?
You need Grass root level Management.
There is no way you can win an Islamic establishment based on Shia sunni feud.
Not even a Jew / Christian / Hindu fued....If that was the case, Islamic history would have done so, 1380 years before your birth.
Is this clear or I need to go more basic?
Boss its time we all as Pakistani grow out of our Shell .. this Sunni Shia Hanfi, what not ... is one big collective punishment. Religious Grouping is good, but taking extreme and killing in the name of one is not a healthy attitude. There is no Win , Win situation... its all of us.. or non.
Now .. every one can label me a liberal Sunni, Shia, Kafir or what ever.. but I stand solid behind kicking King Abd-al-Aziz Al Saud- known as the Lion of Najd out of Hijjaz.
Last edited by hans; 14-Feb-2011 at 03:18 AM.
Politics and Nonsense on Egypt
By James Zogby
February 11, 2011 "Counterpunch" -- When US politicians are forced to discuss critical Middle East matters, more often than not their remarks either display an ignorance of facts, are shaped more by political needs than reality, or are just plain dumb. Commentary about the popular revolt in Egypt provides a case in point.
There was no doubt that the events in Cairo were momentous and, therefore, deserving of response. In the case of most US political leaders, however, struggling to come up with the right TV sound bite didn't require actually knowing anything about Egypt. All that was needed was to frame the issue through either the prism of partisanship or that of unbending loyalty to Israel. The result was a string of comments, some bizarre, others dangerous.
The new chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, for example, cornered the market on incoherence and contradiction when she observed that "Mr Mubarak should... immediately schedule legitimate, democratic, internationally recognised elections," adding however that "the US should learn from past mistakes and support a process which includes candidates who meet basic standards for leaders of responsible nations -- candidates who have publicly renounced terrorism, uphold the rule of law, [and] recognise Egypt's... peace agreement with the Jewish state of Israel."
In other words, Ros-Lehtinen supports a democracy where we (not they) set up the criteria. Not quite "respect for the will of the people," but still better than former Republican speaker of the House Newt Gingrich's partisan tirade.
Gingrich, who is reported to be considering a presidential run, is shallow and remarkably uninformed about most Middle East issues. He gets by largely because he sounds so authoritative and always has a clever quip or two. In Gingrich's assessment of the current situation, "there's a real possibility in a few weeks... that Egypt will join Iran, and join Lebanon, and join Gaza, and join the things that are happening that are extraordinarily dangerous to us."
Having thus displayed almost no understanding of the Middle East, Gingrich goes on to ridicule US President Barack Obama's "naiveté", charging that Obama "went to Cairo and gave his famous speech in which he explained that we should all be friends together because we're all the same... and there are no differences between us. Well, I think there are a lot of differences between the Muslim Brotherhood and the rest of us."
Gingrich's parting shot was to state that the US administration "doesn't have a clue". Then, in order to demonstrate that he does, Gingrich offered this "advice" to Obama: "study Reagan and Carter and do what Reagan did and avoid what Carter did."
If the need to take a partisan shot is central to some, more important for others, both Democrats and Republicans, is the need to make this all about Israel. Presidential aspirant and former governor Mike Huckabee, for example, used the occasion of the Egyptian uprising to make his 15th trip to Israel where he lamented that "the Israelis feel alone... and they cannot depend upon the United States, because they just don't have confidence that the US will stand with them."
Representatives Shelley Berkley and Anthony Weiner, both Democrats, worried about "Arab democracies". Weiner observed that "Israel has been seared by the experience recently of seeing democracy elect their enemies," while Berkeley shockingly added "the reality is this: democracy as we think of it and democracy as it is often played out in the Middle East are two different things."
Trying to sound smart and concerned with defence matters, and failing miserably, was Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr Jackson said that "US military technology can't fall into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood or... Iran's allies in Egypt. Our partnership with Egypt has provided [them] with a technological military advantage... it must be secured and not allowed to fall into the hands of enemies." A number of other members of the US Congress focussed on the threat they believe the uprising poses to the Suez Canal and therefore to the price of oil. They, therefore, are pressing the White House to use this crisis to focus on renewing efforts to pass an energy bill in Congress.
What has been so disturbing about all this is that there have been plenty of instances during the past few decades where American political leaders had not only the opportunity, but were challenged with the imperative, to learn more about the Arab world. Despite this, they failed. As a result, they continue to frame critical issues as mere political issues. A transformative uprising in Egypt or Tunisia comes to be seen as being about Israel, or as a club to use against one's opponent.
The reality, of course, is that Egypt is about Egypt. No one in Tahrir Square is waiting for Newt Gingrich's, or even Barack Obama's blessing. And the silly US TV anchor, who recently tried to get the Muslim Brotherhood spokesman to say that he would recognise Israel as a Jewish state, was just that -- silly.
And just as silly was Eliot Abrams, one of the neo- conservative ideologues-in-residence in the Bush White House who wrote an article last Sunday attempting to give Bush credit for the uprising in Egypt, since Bush advocated for democracy while Obama has not. The reality is more complex. Bush did speak about democracy, but then went on to pursue regional policies that were so wildly unpopular with the Arab public that governments friendly with the US felt compelled to subdue their own public's outcry in order to maintain their friendship and support for the US. Arab leaders found that their embrace of and cooperation with the US could be politically costly. Demands on their friendship only served to delegitimise their rule at home. When the US's favourable rating is 12 per cent in Egypt (and lower still in Jordan), cosying up to America can be quite costly.
US politicians may need to hear themselves talk, but they need to realise that, in fact, until they have at least a basic knowledge of the Arab world and work to change America's policies across the region, they will have no constructive role to play. They can threaten to withhold aid and make more demands, but the wiser course might be to simply assert US principles, take a more humble back seat role and let the situation play out. The Egyptians in Tahrir Square may cheer the US's pulling the plug on their president, but they won't be cheering for the US. When the dust settles, US regional policies will still be the same, and Arab anger at those policies, and the US, will not have changed either.
James Zogby is president of the Arab American Institute.
A leopard never changes it's colours thus Zionist controlled USA will forever be loyal to Israel, by the time American people realise this it'll be too late to save them.
Iran would not want to get involved with Arab revolutions but can't avoid or ignore what's happening next door.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)