69 million page views

My dear Mr. Tovey

Reader comment on item: Israel's Arabs, Living a Paradox
in response to reader comment: Posturing the Islamic Republic of Iran Against All Indications of the Holy BIble

Submitted by Debanjan Banerjee (India), Apr 29, 2012 at 09:54

" By your own argument, you are trying to say "Iran is steadfastly upholding the Biblical laws….;' an empty argument since every Islamic discourse I have encountered, including some of yours from earlier exchanges, call the Hebrew Holy Bible corrupted. Does that mean that Iran's following a path to corruption? "

My Answer : I request you Mr. Tovie to understand Islamic laws or the theological position of the Islamic republic by an ope mind. Actually Islamic law's or Sharia fundamentals are based upon the fundamentals which make The TEN commandments i.e. Mosaic law. It is true that in Islam does consider a lot of aspects of the implementation of Judeo-Christian law as corrupt but Islamic theology considers those portions which are corrupted , are the man-made portions which were added to the basic God-given portions by later Judeo-Christian luminaries. The basic law which was communicated through Musa (PBUH) or Nuh (PBUH) or Ibrahim (PBUH) are considered the supreme law for emulation and this are the fundamentals upon which Shariah is based. Those God-given portions are considered God-given and authentic since they are considered just and fair for all ages and all people , by Islam.

So please consider that Islamic republic of Iran is trying to follow in this unjust World a modicum of justice by adhering to the just and God-given portions of the Judeo-Christian legal systems. The other portions of Judeo-Christian laws (and most of modern Western laws and cultural practices) are considered as unjust and thereby unworthy of following.

to take this exchange a step further, you must realize that the 1979 incident is relevant, irrespective of your attempt to separate them; for all of it is based on Iran's theocratic introspection of its world view.

My Answer : For the sake of taking this exchange forward then let us consider the whole of 1979 incident from a historical perspective.

1. 1979 is not a separate part of history , it is a culmination of events. To realize this we need to go back to the early 20-th century.

2. UK had made an unjust and immoral division of profits from the Iranian natural resources in the early 20-th century whereby it got 84 per cent of all profits and Iran only 16 per cent.

3. The Iranian elected parliament in 1951 offered the British a 50-50 profit-sharing deal , the British replied by saying that the native inhabitants of a Muslim nation has no moral authority to question British laws irrelevant of the fairness of the law.

4. The elected Iranian parliament then decided to nationalize the Oil industry in Iran.

5. The British then decided to involve their American counterparts to overthrow the elected Iranian government and install a pro-Western regime.

6. The US embassy was used in this nefarious and immoral job.

7. Now what we see is that after 1979 Islamic revolution , the US embassy was busy in organizing a counter-revolution in Iran so the Iranian people who were aware and rightly resentful of the past immoral Western actions decided to act to preserve their sovereignity.

8. Now through out this hostage crisis no one was hurt , no one was killed or harmed in any way. The main objective of the hostage takers was to collect all the documents which talked about Western immoral involvement with the Shah regime in Iran.

9. All the hostages were released without any harm. None of them were tortured in any way which cripples them in both body and mind.

10. Compare Iranian embassy hostage taking to the hostages who are currently held by the American state in places like Guantanamo bay , Bagram in Afghanistan and numerous torture centres run by the CIA all over the whole World. Even American citizens without any legal involvement are held in these prisons without any trial and being tortured by their CIA captors without any rights. So since you consider yourself as Christian please consider whether torturing of innocents is considered as unjust in Judeo-Christian realm.

Until now I am yet to see any sufficient criticism of the torturing and hostage taking by the American state from the Christians like you in the USA. That is unjust I believe.

Regarding homosexuality , if a homosexual person desists from his immoral and unnatural and unjust actions then the Islamic republic desists from treating him as a law breaker.

Only when a homosexual person in question tries to spread this immoral actions to others , that person is judged as spreading falsehood and corruption and acting against the will and word of God.

That person is still given a chance by the Islamic justice system in Iran , to repent to Almighty , mend his ways and then he ca be acquitted.

If the person in question does not act in these ways , then of course he is considered as guilty and given the sentence of justice according to the Islamic laws which are based upon the fundamentals of Judeo-Christian laws.

Regarding Iran's doing of business , can you kindly provide to me what is the Judeo-Christian way of doing business ? Is Interest taking also now days fall within the moral way of doing business which I believe is exactly the way business now days is being carried out in the Judeo-Christian West and Israel ? Before we judge about Iran's way of doing business , can you kindly tell me whether the Judeo-Christian west is following its own laws what it considers as its legal heritage ?

Another point here is that why there is no strong Christian movement in the West or in Israel to abolish the immoral practice of interest taking ?

If the statement by President Ahmadinejad desiring to 'wipe Israel off the map' is fictional in your mind, then practice your Farsi and listen to his address some time back in which he said just exactly that. You have rebutted nothing and neither has President Ahmadinejad recanted his position.

My Answer : Israeli high-level official Dan Merridor has himself said that President Ahmedinajad was intentionally misquoted for political issues by the Israeli side. Here is the URL (http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/talktojazeera/2012/04/2012413151613293582.html)

I request you to clearly review this thoroughly and come back to me with your feedback.

Regarding Iran's peaceful intentions in the region , if I am correct Iran is yet to attack a single sovereign country in the region.

If I am correct it is Iran which has engaged in the political reconciliation in places like Lebanon and Iraq (and even now in Syria) and undoubtedly this is what has helped in bring better piece in Lebanon and Iraq.

Consider Lebanon in the times of Israeli and US intervention and consider what it is now. I would definitely love to live in current Lebanon as a citizen than what it was two decades ago under Israeli occupation.

I would love to know your viewpoints on this one.


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".

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2024 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)