View Full Version : President Ahmadinejad to be questioned by Iranian lawmakers
Well well well...
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
The Associated Press
Wednesday, November 24, 2010; 10:50 AM
TEHRAN, Iran (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/iran.html?nav=el) -- Dozens of Iranian lawmakers have signed a petition seeking to make Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the first president to be summoned for questioning since the Islamic Revolution 32 years ago.
However the challenge looks unlikely to succeed because the numbers fall short of the constitutional requirement that at least one-fourth of the 290 parliament members must sign the petition before the president can be questioned.
Still it was a reminder that Ahmadinejad, one of the most polarizing leaders on the international scene, also faces deep dissent within his own country and even within his own conservative political camp. However, his position appears secure as long as he continues to have the support of the country's highest authority, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and the elite Revolutionary Guard forces. With Khamenei's strong support for the president, it is unlikely that enough lawmakers would sign the petition.
Ali Motahari, a hardline lawmaker behind the petition, says Iran's tensions with the outside world and its domestic woes will not stop lawmakers from taking the president to account.
"I don't believe that questioning (the president) will cause tension. Our people should know that putting questions to the president is a right of lawmakers. Perhaps the president's explanations will convince the parliament," a reformist news website, aftabnews.ir news, quoted Motahari as saying Wednesday.
Iranian lawmakers, including conservatives, have complained in the past about being sidelined in key decisions by Ahmadinejad over issues such as foreign policy and strategic economic planning.
Those behind the petition want Ahmadinejad to respond to a long list of accusations. They include making statements that damage parliament, refusing to carry out laws enacted by parliament, withdrawing money from the central bank without proper authorization. They also accuse him of lack of transparency on budget spending.
Ahmadinejad portrayed himself as a champion of the poor when he first swept to power in 2005, promising to bring oil revenues to every family, eradicate poverty, improve living standards and tackle unemployment. Both conservatives and reform-minded politicians have been increasingly challenging him over his failure to meet those promises.
Reformists and even some fellow conservatives say Ahmadinejad has concentrated too much on fiery, anti-U.S. speeches and not enough on the economy - and they have become more aggressive in calling him to account.
The government is still coping with the consequences of a massive bloody confrontation with protesters and is still being challenged by the opposition that claims Ahmadinejad won the June 2009 presidential elections through massive vote fraud
Full article here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/24/AR2010112402837.html).
This is intriguing. If Ahmadinejad messed up so bad he even has some of the conservatives against him now, then perhaps there is a new wind blowing through Iran. It'll be interesting to see where this is going.
Well well well...
Full article here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/24/AR2010112402837.html).
This is intriguing. If Ahmadinejad messed up so bad he even has some of the conservatives against him now, then perhaps there is a new wind blowing through Iran. It'll be interesting to see where this is going.
However, his position appears secure as long as he continues to have the support of the country's highest authority, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and the elite Revolutionary Guard forces. With Khamenei's strong support for the president, it is unlikely that enough lawmakers would sign the petition.
It doesn't look like it really matters what the lawmakers sign.
It doesn't look like it really matters what the lawmakers sign.
Don't forget that the Assembly of Experts can depose the Leader (Supreme Ayatollah), if they get a majority of the Assembly behind them, things might get really interesting.
Louis VI the Fat
11-25-2010, 12:39
This is intriguing. If Ahmadinejad messed up so bad he even has some of the conservatives against him now, then perhaps there is a new wind blowing through Iran. It'll be interesting to see where this is going.I don't see this going anywhere any time soon. Still, at the very least
'it was a reminder that Ahmadinejad, one of the most polarizing leaders on the international scene, also faces deep dissent within his own country and even within his own conservative political camp'.
It does count for something. Ahmadinejad is not going to remain in power indefinately. We'll see.
I don't see this going anywhere any time soon. Still, at the very least
'it was a reminder that Ahmadinejad, one of the most polarizing leaders on the international scene, also faces deep dissent within his own country and even within his own conservative political camp'.
It does count for something. Ahmadinejad is not going to remain in power indefinately. We'll see.
Don't think this is all that insignificant even if it won't lead to anything very soon, fundaments are crumbling. The modernisation of Islam WILL start in Iran I'm sure of it.
CountArach
11-25-2010, 14:15
Whilst nothing will clearly come from it, it is nice to see that there is a continued public discourse of freedom and scrutiny going on in the Iranian underground. Let us hope that this can continue for as long as it takes for people to finally overthrow the Iranian Government and then into the new Government's own rule.
I'm with Louis, don't think they suddenly make him go just like that, although it would be pretty cool.
But then I want to point out a small and completely unrelated thing that always irks (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/spellcheck/british/?q=indefinately) me, I mean this is much nicer anyway (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/indefinitely).
Rhyfelwyr
11-25-2010, 17:40
Shi'a Islam is more disposed to being moderate than Sunni Islam, its strong hierarchy and sort of priestly caste means that there will always be a moderating influence to keep the would-be fanatics under control. It also makes Shi'aness less prone to modernisation/liberalisation. I guess its kind of like the Catholicism of Islam.
gaelic cowboy
11-25-2010, 18:01
Shi'a Islam is more disposed to being moderate than Sunni Islam, its strong hierarchy and sort of priestly caste means that there will always be a moderating influence to keep the would-be fanatics under control. It also makes Shi'aness less prone to modernisation/liberalisation. I guess its kind of like the Catholicism of Islam.
It is the wet dream of pentagon planners to have a moderate government in Iran who has less frosty relations with the West. The benfits geo-politically and blah blah blah are the nightmare of the even more repressive Sunni governments.
Rhyfelwyr
11-25-2010, 18:13
It is the wet dream of pentagon planners to have a moderate government in Iran who has less frosty relations with the West. The benfits geo-politically and blah blah blah are the nightmare of the even more repressive Sunni governments.
At the end of the day it doesn't really affect us how barbarous or backward the type of Islam they practise in some countries is. Even the strictest Saudi Wahhabists condemn Al-Qaeda's vision of jihad. Sure they are as backward as you can be and I wouldn't want to live there, but at least they aren't going to come here and try to blow me up. The hobted of the idea of global jihad is not the well consolidated backward regimes, but the unstable places like Yemen, Somalia etc.
They young Wabbabist of an Indonesian university is infinitely more dangerous to me than some old Wahhabist guy looking after some goats in the desert (or whatever they do).
gaelic cowboy
11-25-2010, 18:28
At the end of the day it doesn't really affect us how barbarous or backward the type of Islam they practise in some countries is. Even the strictest Saudi Wahhabists condemn Al-Qaeda's vision of jihad. Sure they are as backward as you can be and I wouldn't want to live there, but at least they aren't going to come here and try to blow me up. The hobted of the idea of global jihad is not the well consolidated backward regimes, but the unstable places like Yemen, Somalia etc.
They young Wabbabist of an Indonesian university is infinitely more dangerous to me than some old Wahhabist guy looking after some goats in the desert (or whatever they do).
True but then I was more thinking about how Saudi and the like would have to let there grip on power slip as the inevitable backlash came from there own people watching things like elections in Iran/Iraq on telly.
As long as unemployment of young men especially young graduates continues in the middle east an Central Asia then OBL will live on in some form. Notice how there tends to be a lot of engineering and technical people in the upper echelons of Al-Qaeda there is a book there if someone would write it.
HoreTore
11-25-2010, 19:32
Let's get the commies back in power in Iran.
An atheist, social democratic Iran.....
Rhyfelwyr
11-25-2010, 19:57
Let's get the commies back in power in Iran.
So you support foreign-backed regime change in the middle east?!
HoreTore
11-25-2010, 20:27
So you support foreign-backed regime change in the middle east?!
Why on earth wouldn't I?
I don't give a crap about other people's nationalist feelings, Rhy, you should know that by now ~;)
Rhyfelwyr
11-25-2010, 21:09
Why on earth wouldn't I?
I don't give a crap about other people's nationalist feelings, Rhy, you should know that by now ~;)
Yeah but normally the rhetoric from the left is about imperialism or something like that.
Prince Cobra
11-25-2010, 21:11
Ahmadinejad made the mistake to think he is more than a pawn of the Supreme Leader Khamenei. Khamenei demonstrated that he is the boss by throwing the president out of the Board of Governors of the Central Bank of Iran in the beginning of November 2010 and now this follows. I think this decision has nothing to do with the foreign policy, though.
Foregin policy is in the hands of the Supreme leader who relies more and more on the military (the Revolutionary Guard). Ahmadinejad was simply a bit of a show man. In fact, his provocative behaviour harmed Iran greatly. His main advantage was that the Leader considered him popular and easy to be manipulated. And also conservative, of course.
The reasons for the Iranian nuclear programme are a bit complicated. The operations in Iraq and Afghanistan (along with the statute of Iran as pariah state) made the regime leaders (Khamenei and the militarymen from the Revolutionary guard) a bit paranoid and therefore, more than ever the programme is a source to guarantee their political survival. , The programme is also popular amongst the Iranians. In addition, the pressure on Iran (especially the idea of military strikes by Israel/USA) is used by the Iranian propaganda to rally the people around the regime. They won't be successful unless Israel or USA makes the blunder to air strike Iran (which I doubt).
In reality the programme is not that successful (though definately operational) , which makes the situation even more complicated. I wonder what will happen on the next round of negotiations. Yet I am a bit sceptic due to the forementioned reasons.
I guess its kind of like the Catholicism of Islam.
Quite the contrary. Shi'a Islam is not at all bound to listening to the Tradition as much as Sunni Islam is. Therefor, Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa on sexchanges, in that it is legal. The difference between the ayatollah and the mufti is that the ayatollah has way more influence when it comes to (re)interpretation of the scripture. A mufti can only give advice without interpretating a text in different ways, while a Shi'a cleric can have a totally different interpretation of those same texts. It's the same reason why the Hadiths are less vital in Shi'a Islam than in Sunni Islam. Then there's the difference between Ismai'li Shi'a and Twelver Shi'a, but that's somewhat less important for this discussion.
The modernisation of Islam WILL start in Iran I'm sure of it.
Yeah, only that the modernisation of Shi'a Islam will have influence only in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and bits of Azarbaijan. You're making the same mistake here many people do, and that is by thinking that a Shi'ite religious authority has as much authority on Sunni Islam as they have on Shi'a Islam. That's not true. In essence, a Sunni Muslim can reject anything a Shi'a cleric say, simply because he is Shi'a.
If you want Sunni Islam to reform, take a look at this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Abdel_Raziq)'s works, for example.
I know that. What is important is the loss of the legitimacy of a hardline islamic state. The difference between Sunni and Shi'ite isn't as radical as you make it sound, the difference boils down to who is supposed to hold authority
Ah, like that. Well, the difference between Shi'a and Sunni wasn't really important up until certain events, the first being the Islamic Revolution in Iran and the subsequent eight-years war between Iran and Iraq and the commence of Al-Qaeda's warfare against the west. Some of the things certain Sunnites have to say about ayatollah al-Sistani are worse than tribesman's comments on a wet and cold day.
Iraq has all flavours, what matters is legitimicy rule, a dispute on bloodline this schism is really old, after Ali was murdered the bloodline of the prophet died and the two fractions came into existance, one who recognised the new leadership and those who didn't, it has always runned very deeply but they agree they are of the same religion.
after Ali was murdered the bloodline of the prophet died
Not really. Muhammad had other children, most prominently Fatima, from whom the Fatimids claimed descent.
one who recognised the new leadership and those who didn't
It wasn't necessarily about the new leadership, it was about how the new leadership was appointed. The proto-Sunnites believed that the Ummah should elect the successor, and the Shi'ites believed that Muhammad had appointed 'Ali to be his successor.
it has always runned very deeply but they agree they are of the same religion.
Yes, but that doesn't necessarily grant Shi'ite clerics authority over Sunnites.
al Roumi
11-26-2010, 18:26
If you want Sunni Islam to reform, take a look at this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Abdel_Raziq)'s works, for example.
Ooh, "secular Islam". This is the kind of thing we should be talking about, not just "crazy Saudis/AQ/Taleban -who we all know are completely aberrant- are wrong".
Unfortunately, the prevailing wind of increased islamisation of Muslim society (stricter and more literal interpretations) drives against the seperation of Religious, Political and Millitary power within a self determining "Islamic" state. Simply put, for many Muslims nowadays, there is no gap between religion and politics.
I, naturaly would like to see some sort of secularisation of Islam -it would make dialogue between the West and Muslim countries so much easier (not to mention Muslims in the West), but I find it hard to see that as a realistic prospect, certainly not in the short term. I cherish the meetings I've had with Muslims who are staunch believers of the compatability of democracy with Islam, their Islam is what I'd like to see being more widely accepted.
The popularity of Islamism (the desire for Islam to take pride of place politics) rests in great part on the simplicity of its rationale:
1, Muslim nations have tried everything else (communism, socialism, pan Arab nationalism, "democracy") and still lag the rest of the world -it's time to try something new;
2, Current Muslim leaders are corrupt/western puppets/abusive to their population -only a TRUE Muslim will know how to rule correctly and deliver progress;
3, Muslims were strong and enjoyed relative progress when Islam was strong (i.e. under the first Caliphes) -so we need to follow Islam as they did.
But, you'll agree that they aren't particularily strong arguments. For example -even if "what was tried before has failed" and something new should be tried, why and how would Islamism help more than anything else in the modern world? This may explain why many Islamist movements' core public support is from the poorest and least educated areas of society (peasant farmers, urban unemployed etc). Islam is something they trust, particularliy more than the state or its elites, so to them it would be the most familiar and respected of concepts.
Rhyfelwyr
11-26-2010, 18:32
Quite the contrary. Shi'a Islam is not at all bound to listening to the Tradition as much as Sunni Islam is. Therefor, Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa on sexchanges, in that it is legal. The difference between the ayatollah and the mufti is that the ayatollah has way more influence when it comes to (re)interpretation of the scripture. A mufti can only give advice without interpretating a text in different ways, while a Shi'a cleric can have a totally different interpretation of those same texts.
So surely that does make Shi'a Islam more like Catholicism? The tradition you are talking about in Islam is now (as I understand it, hands up if I'm wrong) from the hadiths which, along with the Koran, provide the main authority on religious matters for Sunni's, and has been unchanged from only a few hundred years or so after Muhammad's death. Everything Sunni's do have to be in accordance with these, they are the scriptura of their sola scriptura.
Shi'a clerics on the other hands can make up their own rules which is more what we mean when we talk about Catholic traditions in Christianity.
Way I think of things is Sunni = Protestant, Shi'a = Catholic. Sure it's more complicated than that but it works on so many levels.
Not really. Muhammad had other children, most prominently Fatima, from whom the Fatimids claimed descent.
It wasn't necessarily about the new leadership, it was about how the new leadership was appointed. The proto-Sunnites believed that the Ummah should elect the successor, and the Shi'ites believed that Muhammad had appointed 'Ali to be his successor.
Yes, but that doesn't necessarily grant Shi'ite clerics authority over Sunnites.
Descent, women and Islam. The schizm started at Ali's death, not after his appointment that was never abnormally disputed. He is the last of the good kalifs, but also the death of the 'holy' bloodline. THAT is the schizm.
The schizm started at Ali's death, not after his appointment that was never abnormally disputed.
There were two problems. First of all, the appointment of Abu-Bakr as Caliph, which was contested by the Shi'ites (the word Shi'a stems from "Shiat al-Ali", "Ali's party", who believed that Muhammad had appointed him to be his successor). Then, when Ali ascended as Caliph, there were several people that contested his appointment, including Amr ibn al-As (the conqueror of Egypt) and Aisha (because of the infamous supposed "incident with the necklace"). Political stuff.
When Ali won a battle against the rebels, he agreed to a temporary ceasefire and that certain lands were to be left under the rule of the rebels. The Kharijites (who, henceforth, would be known like that) didn't, however, and they assassinated Ali. That's where things really went wrong.
but also the death of the 'holy' bloodline. THAT is the schizm.
That makes no sense, have you forgotten Hasan, Ali's son, and Husayn, Ali's grandson? There are loads of people that claim descendance from Muhammad.
I have no answer to that, but don't forget that Ali was murdered, that sort of stuff isn't exclusive to Rome
Yeah, that's true. On an unrelated note, why the :daisy: are you awake at 5:48 AM?
On friday? You are right by the way the schism was before Ali's death I screwed up, it is as you say
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.