Disagree this time Daniel

Submitted by Harrak (Canada), Jan 14, 2006 at 00:48

As much as I like a lot of Daniel Pipes ideas, I do not in this article agree with some of the points. For instance, I do not find it academically relevant to state unauthentic reports like that which says that the president of Iran said he felt a light around him when he mentioned his god or that sayying his group told him they saw the light and so on. This kind of information need to based on only a statement from Najad himself to be relevant to state.

Now one may ask: what is the sourse of that..I follow politics in the middle east too close and find no trace of that statement. Even if we imagine that He said that, than what is the purpose of underlining the mystical threat of the president of Iran while never addressing the real admitted and out revealed statements of leaders like Sharon, Bush (who said he saw or spoke with Jesus) that have direct mystical threat meanings! is not that double standard! please correct me if I am mistaking.

Secondly, it is academically wrong to explain the Mahdaviya of Najad from what his supporter say. When a person is sick, the doctor does not examin his neighbour..

Daniel has made good point totalitarianizing the political intentions of Najad as he may exersise totalitarianism through the support of the clerics, but definitally not through the gate of him being Mahdai.

For those who wonder what Mahdaviya stands for. I`d like to say that it means waiting for the Mahdi -in Shiite Islam- to appear and fill the world with justice after it it becomes full of opression. So it is again academically wrong -please correct me again if you find a proof discrediting what I say- to say that Ahmadinajad or any Mahdavi wants to confront America or the west. It is simply because the Mahdi will not appear if Najad wants to spread justice him self and steal his -Mahdi- role. Iran and Shiites and all Mahdavis even are interested in maintaining a balance of fear and injustice done on them and permit it done around the world not by them to make the Mahdi appear. This is what makes Shiism the closest sect to rational legality of international politics. It is an easy religion to swallow in trends of globalisation. I may not deny that most dangerous entities in the world of international legality are the supremasists and the petro-leaders in the middle east. I think the west in most cases misinterpreted the cultures in the middle east and is payying the price of that. The price of being unable to communicate with and identify the other...

Lastly, I am almost absolutly sure that Iran and any Shiite entity will never go to war. They may help their Shiite minorities in secret like those of lebanon and Bahrain. But never they can help in a democracy e.i Shiites of Britin or Canada or even USA. So it is still not dangerous to have Mahdavis in power as opposed to ehat Daniel mentioned in the last paragraph. It is wrong to permit absolutists like those Soudi Arabia, Qatar, North Africa without mentioning names, it is wrong for west to permit those dictators crack on the civil society because they are the once who may harbor terrorism to pressure with the politics of fear and panic.

Thank you very much

---

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".