The Iranian Revolution cited as democratic? innovative?

Submitted by Maureen (United States), Jul 14, 2008 at 08:17

Yakub Halabi wrote that the orientalists could not: ". . . explain why a Muslim society rebelled against the Shah….Orientalists as well as neo-orientalists, however, ignore any sort of modernity or novelty in Islamic societies in general and in the Iranian revolution in particular."

I am puzzled by Yakub Halabi triumphantly citing the Iranian "Revolution" as proof that the Shia Muslims are democrats and innovators and not obscurantists and terrorists. The Iranian Revolution cited as innovative? modern? democratic?

Au contraire.

The Iranian Revolution is yet another confirmation of the continuing backwardness and terrorism of cultures mired in Islam. The Shia overthrew the Shah, because he was not despotic enough.

The Iranians wanted – and got – a thoroughly despotic ruler -- Khomeini -- who took control not only of their bodies but also of their souls. The Iranian obscurantists obsequiously bowed to Khomeini, while Khomeini murdered the ones who resisted. Evidently this is Halabi's peculiarly "Islamic" definition of "democracy, modernism, and innovation."

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".