First off let me say how impressed I was at the in-depth discussion we had today in class. We will continue this on Tuesday. As a linking point from Friday to Tuesday what I would like you to do is BRIEFLY respond to the prompt below as well as to your classmates blog entries.
Discuss whether or not you think this book has done a decent job so far of clarifying any misinterpretations you may have had about Islam and/or Iran. Explain.
Is there any one specifc thing that you learned or that surprised you about Iran?
As a sidenote for Monday, I would like to continue the discussion of whether or not democracy and Islam can be work together.
24 comments:
I think this book has done a decent job so far of clarifying my misinterpretations. I found Soroush’s explanation when asked about the relationship between Islam and democracy to be quite thought provoking. As we realized in class today, many people, including myself, are under the impression that Islam and democracy do not go hand in hand. But as Soroush says, “…Islam and democracy are not only compatible. Their associations are inevitable. In Muslim society, one without the other is not perfect.” He then goes on to explain that one can not be a “true believer” unless they are allowed to follow their own beliefs. One has to freely submit to Islam and therefore has the choice whether or not to do so. I think we should trust the experienced philosopher on this one. Although the Islamic leaders of Iran do not appear to be running a democratic society, strictly speaking, Islam gives way to democracy.
Another specific thing I learned and that surprised me about Iran was the people's undying commitment to their traditions. Their strong feelings of identity and pride are the reason why many traditional Iranians were opposed to Reza Shah’s pre-revolutionary regime. The Shah essentially eliminated tradition, going against everything the people believed in. One particular passage sticks out in my mind:
“My mother refused to take off her chador,” Soroush told me, smiling as he recalled her ardor.
“When she and her sister wanted to go to the baths, because there was none at home, they had friends in the street signal them when there were no police. Then they ran swiftly to the bathhouse so they wouldn’t be caught with their chadors. My mother was very staunch.”
I previously thought that the Iranian people were against revolution. But when I read this passage, I realized that many of them, particularly the older generation, wanted to go back to the way things were and exist in a religion-permeated society.
This book has sufficiently explained Islam and Iran to me to this point. It has made clear the surprising link between Islam and democracy and has revealed more pride than I knew the Iranians have. I look forward to more clarification in the chapters that follow.
There is much discussion and debate today over the most ardent followers of Islam. Hence, some of us have formed unsubstantiated notions about Islam and its followers.
It has been speculated that Iran poses one of the most serious threats to world order. Author Robin Wright seeks to inform her readers of Iran's past and struggle for reform while eradicating any misconceptions about Islam.
Prior to this novel I was not aware of Iran's once enjoyed level of modernity. Nor was I aware of the reluctance to change, for fear that change would compromise and infringe on the Iranians' religious beliefs. Emma noted this very same strong connection and commitment to Islam.
I previously thought that Islamic nations may not enjoy democracy as we know it. And this novel strengthened this notion. Democracy will not thrive, however, in most Islamic nations(with the exception of Turkey) if state and religion are separated. Though this is democracy as we know it, it is not the only way democracy can be. And this is precisely the point that Soroush vehemently tries to make.
Iran does not have to return to a monarchy, nor does it have to be a theocracy. A democracy, if sought by the Iranians, is not out of reach.
This book has done a wonderful job of really uncovering truths about Iran that many Americans may not know. Before this book I viewed Iran as a place of fundamentalism controlled by a very controlling religion. Iran is actually a place trying to find an identity that the citizens are proud of and an identity that coincides with their religious views. I thought like many people did that the "Islamic bloc is today the last bloc to hold out against the tide of democratic reform..." Through this the Islam world would never change. The Islam world does change and adapt the problem that the country faces is should they change and adapt their religion to reflect their political policies.
My greatest shock came when I read Soroush's idea of the relationship between democracy and Islam. As Emma pointed out he believes both followings can exist in harmony and even prosper. I completely disagree with this fact. However it was very interesting that people in the muslim world believe that it can work. This gives me hope about the situation in Iraq. At the same time it discourages me because Iran ended up failing in obtaining a democratic government.
Another suprise I had was how modern some Iranians were in the social scene. I expected a place where people would never step out of the box. However when given the chance to explore outside of a fundamentalist world some Iranians took to the freedom. This feeling and opportunity did not last for long which is why again I fear that democracy cannot work in an Islam based country.
I believe that a monarch based government is best for the Iranian people. The way the book has described how the Iranians take to democracy and freedom is mixed. A religion with so much structure is difficult to fit to a democracy. A separation of church and state would work but the idea of a society that follow religious democratic values is a little upsurd. Despite my thoughts the book helps the reader to understand the true Iran. Even with this book it is difficult to know what it means to be an Iranian citizen.
While reading the second chapter, i was slightly taken aback by Soroush's proclamation concerning the relationship between Islam and democracy. The only reason i had not made the connection prior to reading this book was because, a democratic state has never really flourished in the middle east (with the exception of Turkey which is completely different because their government is completely secular). Because democracy has never succeeded, i automatically concurred that it must be the clashing of value and ideologies that prevents democracy from succeeding. The book served as a reality check to myself because Soroush's explanation instantaneously clicked when i read it. The basic islamic values and ideologies lent themselve to democracy, the execution however is what prevents it from taking root. This may come as a shock, but David, i have to disagree with you...Again. I feel that unless you accept a different perception of the basic islamic values and idea of submission then you will understand how they really are connected. Islam is not a religion that promotes violence and radicalism. It, like many other popular religions, is subject to extremisim. However, unlike other religions, it's followers are very dedicated to the clergy and religious leaders making it difficult for defiance. Especially in a political sense. A religious revolution is simply uncomparabale to a regular political revolution BECAUSE religion and loyalty is also questioned. If Iran is able to find a political and religious figure head that is moderate, modern and yet respectful of old values and customs then democracy does have a chance at success. There are islamic democratic states that do combine fragments of the old monarchial system such as Morocco, and even purely democratic states such as Egypt that have been adapting to modern times while sustaining their religious ties. So, it is possible and acheiveable, it simply is a matter of reaching a compromise between the two, as Yasmeen mentioned in her blog response.
The book i think does a decent job of clarifying basic misinterpretations about Islam and the Iranian people, and i found that the connection that was made between democracy and Islam was crucial in breaking many of those misinterpreations. By explaining the basic foundations and beleiefs of the muslim people and the religion as a whole, the book not only clarifies the connection that Soroush sees between Islam and democracy, but also clarifies common basic minunderstanding about the religion and it's followers.
Going into this book, I did not know much about Iran at all, other than having the stereotypical misinterpretation of Iran as being a dangerous nation very similar to Iraq. However, after reading the first two chapters of "The Last Great Revolution" I have come to realize the complexities of the Iranian government and its people, and the struggles they have had to face. While the book presented a lot of history and information that was somewhat confusing at points, I found myself really interested in the political and cultural changes that Iran has undergone over the last 30 years. Before reading these chapters I would most likely have felt indifferent to the political struggles of Iran, however while reading I found myself strongly disliking the clergy, or rooting for Khatami.
I greatly agree with Emma that many people believe that Islam and democracy can not work together, however after reading these chapters and hearing what the philosopher Soroush has to say, it seems that the two are perfect for each other. Islam is a religion that its followers may base their whole lives on, however unless there is a democracy in which they can decide how it is present in their lives, Islam is simply being dictated to them by one president or Supreme Leader, which only allows for one person's interpretation. If democracy, which is arguably the most effective government to have yet been established, was applied to Islam, a nation with strong ideals and a fair and just way of carrying them out would arise. Because of this, I must say that I disagree with David, and I believe that it is certainly not necessary to have a separation of church and state in regards to an Islamic democratic nation. And to a certain point I actually believe this would be impossible since the Islamic religion plays such a major role in the lives of the Iranis. Instead, I think Sara does a great job in explaining how democracy and Islam are in fact very compatible as long as there is the right leader in place who yields the proper policies and ideals that make the two work together.
I can't wait to keep reading the book and learn more about the Iranian revolution, and see how the government of Iran is currently working and how it develops in the upcoming years.
I think Robin Wright’s book does a good job of explaining misinterpretations. History classes in school never really elaborated on the Iranian Revolution, so I was totally unaware of the background knowledge going into this book. However, I think that I was biased. The media gives the interpretation that the Muslim culture only revolves around religion and people only focus their lives around religion. I was shocked to read passages in the novel that reminded me of daily life in the United States, a nation which is not religiously culture based.
The passage that shocked me was when Robin Wright was visiting the shrine of Khomeini’s tomb. It welcomed all visitors, men, women, foreigners, and non foreigners. Wright sees a women “weeping softly, reciting a prayer.” This didn’t surprise me at all; it was what I would expect from a Muslim who lost such a powerful religious ruler. What surprised me was when Wright leaves the tomb she noted that the atmosphere was “festive”, not the dismal atmosphere I would expect. There were outdoor cafes, souvenir kiosks, and lively school children and bustling workers. The imagery I got was similar to something that I would find here in the US. Wright clears up the misconception that Muslim people only focus on religion and that they are much like us too.
In other passages that followed, Wright explains how some of the older generation was very reluctant to change and brought back Iran to fundamentalism instead of modernization. I believe that concept creates a misconception about all Iranian people. This is also how Yasmeen and Emma felt, and I’m sure many others too. I still remain puzzled on the Islam and democracy connection. Sara has valid points that Islamic ideologies leads to democracy, but the fact that the only legitimate leaders are religious leaders, I am unsure how democracy can thrive. Does democracy HAVE to have separation of church and state?
I think this book has done a decent job clarifying misinterpretations so far. I think that the book is helping me to understand Middle East and Islamic culture and conflicts. Islam has been portrayed as an unstable and violent place, and because of the media and the news, Islam seems intimidating and frightening. This book helps to show that Islam, although sometimes unstable and violent, is not something to be afraid of. The people of Islam want the same things that we do, and they are much the same as we are. Their religion and government may be different, but they want education, freedom of speech, and recognition in the World.
This struck me when, in the first chapter, Robin Wright writes about visiting the Khomeini's tomb. It reminds me of the Statue of Liberty, or any of the monuments in Washington DC. Not only is it a monument, built out of respect, but it is a park, a tourist attraction, and a refuge from the city life. It seems so Western, or so American.
Khomeini's tomb is just an example. I agree with Emma when she states that Soroush's explanation about the relationship between Islam and democracy is very thought provoking. When Soroush states that Islam and democracy are compatible, I didnt agree at all. I didn't think that democracy could be anything but secular. But, my opnion changed as Soroush explains his statement, saying that "In order to be a true believer, one must be free. To become a believer under pressure or coercion wont be true belief... This freedom is the basis of democracy." He goes on, stating that "To have true belief, one must live in an environment with universal human rights." Universal human rights is a democratic ideal.
Now I believe that Democracy can thrive in Iran and in Islamic countries becuase of a few reasons. Without a single interpretation (the Shah's) of religion, there can be a much more universal interpretation. The freedom of speech, religion, and education will help Islam to flourish. Education will help connect Iran with the World. Also, Democracy allows people to make their own decisions. If the older generation wants to live by religion, they can choose to do so.
When thinking about Iraq, I actually agree with David that the fact that democracy and Islam can work together gives me hope. The only problem is, we are trying to push OUR democracy on them. Iraq doesnt want the United State's democracy. They want a government that will work for them. Our secularist government cannot work in any Islamic country. If we want to be successful in Iraq, I think we should follow Soroush's ideas and try to unite religion and democracy.
I think that this book has done a great job of clearing up some misinterpretations that I had regarding the Iranian Revolution. Prior to reading this book what little I knew about the Iranian Revolution was based on what I had experienced through the media. Obviously the information I received was biased and it was hard to really sort out the truth.
One of the key ideas that this book has cleared up so far is the importance of religion in the Muslim world. In my opinion, the media’s portrayal of Islam and Muslim society in general lacks certain understanding. Much of what we see and hear about Iran centers around how extreme and militant they are, making it seem as though Islam is the reason for the failure of democracy within the country. I found Soroush’s claim that democracy and Islam are inseparable to be particularly interesting. I agree with Soroush in that you must be free in order to submit yourself to religion. In the US, religion has never played an important role in government because one religion has never dominated the country. Seeing the importance of religion in the Iranian history and culture has shown me that in order for democracy to succeed in Iran, it must be based around Islam.
Needless to say, I disagree with David on the fact that democracy won’t work in Iran. The success of democracy in any country depends on its ability to adapt to the people. In Iran, we are seeing a political system form itself around its people, which will take time. Even the first attempt at democracy in the US failed. I don’t think it is fair to base the success of democracy Iran on what we have in the United States because we are two different cultures. I also think that this must be applied to Iraq. I don’t believe that we can successfully establish an American democracy in Iraq because of the cultural differences. I think that we have successfully established the basis for democracy in Iraq, but we must let it adapt itself to the people.
Finally, the main thing that I have enjoyed about this book so far is that it has connected a culture to the things that I have been hearing about through the media. This book has allowed me to understand that many Iranians do not fully support their leaders or the actions of the government. Seeing the different parallels between Iran in the US has changed my view of Iran. I can understand now why it is important to see the culture of a country before you look at its government.
Before reading the first two chapters of “The Last Great Revolution”, I had the same stereotypical view about Iran as Jenna did in that it was a dangerous nation, similar to Iraq undergoing drastic change. Religious extremists would kill one another just because of their values. On the contrary, this book did succeed in clarifying my view on this mysterious nation because Iranian citizens are also people, similar to people in the U.S.A and around the world with similar likes and dis-likes. The only major difference between us is our religion and how it is integrated into the political system. Clearly, Iranian citizens were dis-satisfied with their government and were “the last bloc” to hold out against democracy.
I agree with David (surprisingly) that a democracy cannot work in Iran and essentially, the religion of Islam. Soroush did bring up the idea that the two can coincide and work together, but it has clearly failed. Islamic values are destructive and too far away from democracy values and a balance can’t and won’t be achieved. (They work against each other) Therefore, the people must choose to either adapt to a democracy and secularism, or continue with fundamentalism. The answer is fundamentalism, because religion is a huge part of their culture in society than in the U.S. so in conclusion, Iran will be better off with a monarch because it is better compatible with Islam. Their culture is too far apart from them turning into a democracy. This book has done a great job explaining the history and what problems Iran + Islam face today, but time will only tell what they will chose to do next.
Upon reading the first 2 chapters of the book, I have developed a deeper understanding of the Iranian Revolution and at the very least, learned a basis of the Iranian conflict.
To start off, I agree with Mandy in that it is very unfortunate that all of our previous history classes have focused on either American or European history. As a result, without looking for valid information outside of the classroom, many of our views of the Middle East and its history and conflicts are presented by a biased media.
In terms of clearing up misconceptions, I believe Robin Wright presents a sufficient argument to prove that the Iranian people are not that different from American citizens. It is true that religion is a very important part of their society, but it is simply part of the political culture and identity. Therefore, in order for them to accept democracy, it is inevitable that religion will play a very important role. Our countries are different, but that doesn't mean one is right and one is wrong.
I found most interesting the opposition to the revolution. However, upon further reflection I realized that it isn't that suprising. The majority of oppostion is from the older generation, and it is expected that they are trying to implement their traditional, and seemingly conservative, way of life. This happens in ALL socities, not just religious based ones. I think that is a very important point to make. It may seem that all of Iran's conflicts arise from the push towards Islam, when in fact, it is not the religion itself. Strictly speaking, many of the ideals of the Christian religion and Islamic religion are not that different. In the end, it is a individual's interpretation of his religion that propagates conflict. Therefore, it is not whether democracy and Islam go hand in hand, it is whether the PEOPLE of Iran go hand in hand with democracy.
The Last Great Revolution is doing a good job clarifying the main misrepresentations that plague Islam and Iran. I realized how ignorant I am of Iran's history and struggles to create their ideal government. They have been through so much socially and politically, domestically and internationally, and I think that many Westerners would benefit from reading this book - even these first two chapters - so as to understand and support Iran's attempts at forward movement.
Although much of the informatin in this book is new to me, what really surprised me was the clergy's power and influence. "The power of the clergy is the main reason that Iran's revolution... came under the unifying spell of a religious leader. In a predominantly Shi'ite country where political opposition was largely outlawed or exiled, the clergy had special authority and legitimacy as an alternative" (pg. 52). Essentially, as Soroush later elaborated, the clergy had been successful in retaining power and allowing the "revolutionary spirit" of Iran to cool (pg. 53). I think Soroush's honesty is what Iranians have needed in order to facilitate change, which starts with interpretating their religion, which they hold dearly, for themselves: "All I'm saying is that it's neither the state's right nor its duty to impose one particular understanding on the people... In Islam, it's the right of all people to believe in God and in the Koran. And it followns, then, that they all have an equal right to their own justafiable understanding of Islam" (pg. 52).
I agree with David, that for the level of committment and structure Islamic Iranians believe in concerning their religion, it would be very difficult to establish a democracy. However, as Elena stated, and Sara elaborated on, Iran does not have to necessarily establish a cookie-cutter, secularist democracy. Democracy, to the Western world, typically means separation of church and state. But who is to say that our way of democracy is the only way? It is implemented or structured differently in many democratic nations around the world. I believe that Iran, if they truly want it (which they seem to), can come up with a compromise that does not short-change their strongest religious beliefs or most important political desires.
I think this book does a decent job of clarifying the misinterpretations I have had on Islam. I would like to start off by agreeing with Emma in that though they do not appear to be running a democratic society, Islam certainly does give way to democracy. Through our debate on Friday and statements in the book, I have realized a separation of church and state in my opinion is needed in some countries, but not in others. Iran is so much smaller than the United States and culture in America is spread much thinner and more diverse. Down south in many areas I believe they could live by the bible as law. I think this has a lot to do with size. Iran is so much smaller than the United States. People like Soroush, who have faith to lead the country, create a stronger movement, and the country has less conflict than a country with a more diverse culture would have. Iran does not have a diverse culture other than the separation of youth and elders.
To answer Elena’s question on how democracy can thrive through religious leaders solely in charge I believe is based upon culture. When you have a nation that for the most part believes in Islam, and it is so much a part of their daily life, it is easy to let you religious leaders take a leadership role in forming legal decisions that are morally believed by all. I understand that the younger generations may have a hard time grasping this, but many of them are too Islamic believing in the Quran. Though, the elders were brought up with strict religious fundamentals that made who they were. They then have that structure to pass down to younger generation. I do understand Iran has not reached in any means utopia. The book does give a good job of helping me come to these conclusions and helping me to understand that a separation of church and state is not needed in all countries for numerous reasons.
I believe that 9/11 has greatly influenced the way that our generation views the Muslim world and has negatively stereotyped the way people think of the Islamic religion. Many people immediately think of fundamentalist terrorist groups, when they think of Muslim people. These judgments are both unfair and untrue, and through education we must learn to better understand and accept Islam and its people. I think that so far Robin Wright’s book The Last Great Revolution, has helped me correct some of my misinterpretations about both Islam and Iran.
Like Emma and Jenna, I could not see how Islam and democracy could work well together. Though I am still not thoroughly convinced, Saroush’s explanation has helped clarify some things about how in theory Islam and democracy lend themselves to one another. He explains that freedom is key in democracy and is also an essential part of Islam, as people must have the freedom to submit to religion, in order to be a true believer. He also explains that the Iranian government as a theocracy goes against the Islamic religion, as it gives power to an elite group of people. I think that in theory democracy and Islam can work together perfectly as Saroush explains. This is just theory however, and in Iran it has not come to find the balance needed in order for religion and secularism to thrive as a democracy together. Like David and Kaz, I don’t see how Iran will ever come to reach this point. In saying, “A theocracy actually contradicts Islam’s basic tenets,” Saroush made clear that the Iranian theocracy does not represent the Islamic religion’s beliefs and is not a true Islamic government.
Before reading this book, I could not see the benefit of not having separation of church and state, however, Saroush made a great point when saying, “The use of religion made them comfortable with it [the revolution and modernization].” This statement helped me see how the Iranian people could benefit from the use of religion in their government. Because it is such a big part of their culture, the proper use of religion can actually make Muslim people accept new governments or ideas from the Western World.
Finally, after reading these two chapters, I can see how much the people feel a connection to their religion and how they want it to be involved some way in their government. Before, I thought that religion was forced on them and they would be happy, when the government became less religious and lifted some of the restrictions placed on Iranians lives. However, when reading the book and the quote Emma pointed out, I see how wrong I was and how much more religion plays a role in the lives of Iranians, than most Americans.
After reading the first two chapters of this book, two things in particular surprised me.
First, I was actually shocked when I read Soroush's claim that Democracy and Islam are compatible with each other. It seemed to be such an unbelievable claim, mainly because there really haven't been any successful Islamic Democracies. However, these attempts at Democracy haven't worked out because the governments of the Islamic nations that are attempting to become democratic are going about it the wrong way. As Yasmeen and Sara said, Islamic nations just can't abandon their religious ties, because it is an important and essential part of their political culture. Separation of State and Religion, which is a common theme in Western Democracy, just can't work in a Muslim society. Rather, the religion and government need to find a balance. Once I understood this need to keep religion as part of the the nation's values, and knowing that most Muslims don't advocate violence and extremism, but peace, it made sense that Islam and Democracy can work.
The other revelation that shocked me was learning that Iran actually tried to modernize before it became exclusively traditional and religious. I had no idea that Shah Pavlavi tried to modernize the country and bring it into the modern world. I thought that Iran was always an extremely religious and devout country, and I didn't really understand why there was a revolution in Iran, and what was changed. Knowing what I do now, I realize that the Shah's mistake was trying to do too much too fast. He made the same mistakes that monarch's throughout history have made. Like Louis XVI of France, and Czar Nicholas of Russia, the Shah lost touch with people, and didn't listen to their demands. As a result, he tried to change the whole country too quickly, and the people didn't like it, so they overthrew him, and reverted to an extremely traditional and religious society. Iranians during the revolution, led by Ayatollah Khomeini perceived modernization to be wrong because it was taking their society in directions they didn't want.
I think this book has performed well so far in that it dispels some of the common misconceptions about Iran. The introduction of Soroush in the book is particularly beneficial, because it shows that people with polarizing views can gain a following in such a fundamentalist country.
Before reading this book, I am not sure I would have believed that a prominent figure could live after voicing opinions like “…Islam and democracy are not only compatible. Their associations are inevitable." At first, I thought that a religion defined as "submission" would run counter to the ideology of democracy, but it then dawned on me that a true believer freely submits to Allah. Submitting to Allah does not necessarily equate to submitting to the authority of the clergy, which seems to have expanded and retracted in the last 60 years. The shift in governments from a secularist monarchy to an Islamic Republic strengthened the authority of religious leaders and it is this clash of secularism and the role of clergy that threatens the growth of democracy. With that said, it is possible for countries with strong religious ideals to become democratic, using some of the basic tenets while not submitting to religious leaders. The U.S, which was founded upon Judeo-Christian ideals, stands as an example.
It is also interesting to note that Souroush is well versed in the writings of John Locke and that he seems to embrace a similar opinion to people in this country about religion, that Muslims, Jews, and Christians are all well-guided servants of God.(pg 76)
I feel that this book has helped to clarify my view on Iran, and specifically the Islamic culture within the country. Before beginning this book, I didn't know much about Iran or its international importance. It has brought to my attention the significance the counrty has and how its government and people affect the rest of the world, inlcuding the oil-dependent Western world. The book also explains the influence of religion in the daily life of the Iranian people. Though it is important to them, and they follow their traditions closely, it does not negatively impact or limit their lives. I also found that their lives and traditions were remarkably similar to ours, as I mentioned in the debate with the example of the author's visit to the large temple.
I agree with Yasmeen and Sara that deomocracy can work in Iran and other Middle Eastern countries, but it must be modified to work with Islam. At this point, too much of their lives and traditions are based in their religion, and such a large majority of the population is Muslim that an attempt to take relgition out of government and replace it with a foreign system would not go over well. Instead, they can incorportate their positive religious values with the positive values of Democracy.
I believe that to an unedcuated reader, Soroush's statement that Democracy and Islam can, and are meant to, coincide may come as a shock. This is because the American media often portrays only the rare incidents where members of Islam interperate their religion the wrong way and act negatively. After learning about the basic values of Islam through sources such as World Civ, as I believe the rest of the class should have as well, Soroush's statement made perfect sense. For me, the book only reinforces this view, rather than changes it.
Before I began reading "The Last Great Revolution," I believed myself to be unbiased, having never previously heard of or discussed the Iranian Revolution. I believed that the book would give a more accurate and objective look at the Muslim culture in a predominantly fundamentalist state. However, I found my socially acquired misinterpretations becoming prominent throughout the first two chapters.
I feel that one of Robin Wright's aims in writing this book was to reveal the culture of a Muslim nation to a world that it had closed itself off from (or a world that had closed it off). In doing so, she has exposed the essential problem with global relationships: misunderstandings. I have found the parallels between citizens in our nation and the Iranians striking and actually thought to myself, “why is there so much conflict?”
The familiar phrase "they are people too" came to mind when reading this book. Oftentimes, Westerners look upon the Muslim world with such disdain and a sense of superiority. However, it is not the actions of the few that should determine the opinion of the many. They too, disapprove of their leaders. They too have families, traditions, and believe in morality and values.
Largely due to the influence of mass media, the misconception is that the Muslim nations are anti-democracy and very radical, taking root in Islam to rule every aspect of their lives. I discovered the opposite to be true: I have come to the realization that the Iranian people live by principles, many of which coincide with their faith but are not predominantly ruled by it. They choose to be Islamic. Islam does not choose them. I found this particularly important to Soroush’s claim of the interdependence of Islam and democracy. If the people are free to choose their religion, should they not be free to choose their government? And if the two do coincide, there should be serious consideration placed on the emphasis one has on the other.
I have to say that I agree with Kaz that the definition of “democracy” as used by Americans is vastly different compared to that of other, well ranked, democratic nations. I do not believe that the intervention in Iraq has been helpful in even laying the foundation because it has disregarded the wishes of the people, and no true democracy can be based on what foreigners think is best, and what the people will never support. The government in Iraq, should it have become democratic, would have undergone a similar process to that in Iran, forging its own path and route to stability.
My favorite thing about the book is the thoughts that it provokes while reading. Oftentimes I find that policies contradict Islam, and that comments made allow me to weigh both options and acquire my own personal opinion. I believe it does a great job of displaying multiple points of view and connecting the role that political culture plays in the process of government.
This book has helped to clear up the vision that I had of Iran and the Muslim world as a whole. The media portrays the Muslim world as a place filled with oil rich Muslim fundamentalists. This is not necessarily the case, which the book, The Last Great Revolution, makes a point to bring out.
Before beginning to read this book, I, like most of the mainstream American people, believed that Islam had a negative connotation to it. However, through reading this book, I have begun to realize that Islam is for the most part, a conservative, peaceful way of living. To the people of the 'Muslim bloc', religion is an important part of every day life. It helps to impress good habits and morals among the majority of people in the region. Those that take Muslim and expand the religion too far are fundamentalists, and this is where upheaval in this region can begin, among other things.
Because of the fact that religion is such an important part of the daily life of the regular person in Iran and the Muslim world, I disagree with David, in that I believe Islam and democracy can indeed function together. Islam is the mechanism which can be used to implement democracy in Iran and the Muslim world. Because of the deeply religious nature of the region, people support Islam and therefore, it thrives, if democracy were to be attached to Islam, it too would have the support of the people and it would also thrive. The people would not understand democracy being implemented without religion as its focus, and because of that, they would resent it, as we see in Iraq. Soroush makes this his point, that democracy may come in a different form that what we see it in the Western world. Who is to say that it is wrong to join church and state in a deeply religious society?
In the chapters that follow, I believe that we will get a clearer understanding about the culture of the people. This can help us to understand why the misinterpretations of Iranian culture and Islam itself exist.
Before reading this book, I saw Iran as a dangerous country, and I lumped Iraq and Iran together. I also thought that Iran was a fundamentalist country that was controlled by a dominant religion. Many Americans feel the same way as I do. After terrorist attacks on the United States, many Americans have stereotyped all Muslims as terrorist threats, including Iranians. I think that this book clears up many of these misinterpretations.
One specific thing that surprised me in the book, and also was the topic of much discussion in class was Soroush's opinion of democracy and Islam. He says that he feels that Islam and democracy coincide. He says that " a theocracy actually contradicts Islam's basic tenets", because theocracy gives the power to an elite group, which goes against Islam ideals. Also, Soroush points out the benefits of combining church and state. In a country where religion is so important, the use of religion in government makes people more comfortable with modernization. Change can be scary, and using what they know, religion, makes the change seem less prominent.
I liked the point that Mandy made about passages in the book reminding us of everyday life in the U.S.. This is another way the book can help to clear up misinterpretations of Iranians. It can show us that Iran is very similar to the U.S. . They are a country that is struggling to create their ideal government.
From the introduction to the end of chapter two Robin Wright has shown me a new side of Iran. Ever since the Iraq war many people when they think of Iran automatically think of Iraq and I was one of those people. In my mind when i heard Iran i thought oh well they are the same as Iraq but now i know you can not assume a book is the same as the one you read just because the cover is similar. There is so much untold history and personality with in Iran that i can not believe we have not learned about it before this class.
"Interpretations are also influenced by the age you live in, by the conditions and mores of the time, and by other branches of knowledge"(42) This quote though not said by Wright but by Soroush struck me the most. Though the quote was meant to explain the different interpretations of Islam it also helped me to understand how democracy is not as clear cut as it is on paper. That is what was frustrating me it seemed as though some of the class and even my self at a time was stuck on the clear cut definitions of democracy or was comparing it to ours. To the first part of this no definition for any system is perfect for every era or country and must be interpreted to fit the people of that time or country. To the second place our country is a melting pot of different cultures and religions which forced our country to separate church and state. However, in Iran the majority of the population is Islam making it easier to run a government connected to religion. This discussion was brought up in class because of Soroush's quote "Islam and democracy are not only compatible. Their association is inevitable."(40). This quote also brought up the confusion some had about freedom and submission. This was both answered by Sara and Yasmeen in the discussion in class but also by Soroush in the book when he said "To freely surrender or submit doesn't mean that you've sacrificed your freedom. You should be free as well to leave your faith or belief"(41). In order to submit one must choose to do so because they are not a true believe if they submit under pressure.
I continue to want to learn more of Iran. Where it all began? Where it may be going? How little we truly know about it is becoming more evident as we read more into "The Last Great Revolution".
Prior to reading The Last Great Revolution by Robin Wright, Iran had not occurred to me as being a place that actually had its own culture, government, and ideology. I never actually had the time to consider Iran, especially as a developed country. Like most people I saw it as a place ridden with feelings hostile to the West and not modernized. I am now actually able to acknowledge that Iran is not only a modern nation, but has a combination of state and religion to form a unique form of government that prospers through its join Islam and government. Also, by showing Iran’s
The combination of democracy and Islam hypothetically appears to be a good fit for each other, as Emma and others state. After reading it seemed to be the best way for the people of Iran to decide how Islam affects them is by being in control of it. Democracy, government by the people, is would be the ideal form of government for Islam. It is apparent that Islam is very strong and holds an important place in the life of the people. As Jenna said, rather than having it dictated to them by the clerics and the Supreme leader, Islamic people allows them self-rule. I do question whether or not democracy is actually the best form of government for Iran. As David says, Islam is a very structured religion. Democracy or Islam would have to be compromised to truly succeed. Obviously Iranians would not compromise Islam, as it is impossible to compromise beliefs, so democracy would be the likely place of compromise.
The book explains how Islam countries have survived into the second half of the 20th century as monarchies and authoritarian regimes. It explains how Iran’s transformation leads to other countries transforming to democracy. I question the need for a revolution in Muslim countries. Democracy has succeeded in the West because of a clear separation between church and state. Is it possible to combine such a strong religion with democracy? Debates are endless. The results in Iran vary.
Wright says, “Yet whatever happens, Iran’s revolution will still rank as the modern Era’s last great revolution, because Tehran paved the way for using Islam to push for empowerment—not only politically.” Iran’s revolution may be as big a failure as a revolution. Although Islam has helped people unite under a nation, it still provides confusion because its principles are so strong that any government it attempts to coexist with will be compromised to some extent, or the right of the people will be compromised. I do not believe a real democracy would be able to function successfully in Iran for a long period of time due to such strong religious beliefs. Luckily, the nation is modernizing rapidly, enabling it to make better decisions as collective citizens. Hopefully it will be able to find a form of government that works best with its beliefs.
Whichever way it goes, I am interested in continuing to read the book. It has awakened me to Iran the nation and people, not just the hostile oil-power of the Middle East.
**pretend the "Also, by showing Iran’s " that never actually turns into a sentence isn't there.
oops
I have to agree with everyone else about the face that this book has done a wonderful job so far in clearing up many misperceptions about Islam, and Muslim societies. One thing in particular that I was thrilled to learn was the difference between Sunnis and Shiites. I had known that there was a difference before, but did not know what it was or how it occurred. I was pleased to learn that it was in a conflict over leadership and that many of the different morals and values of the two parts were derived from the sides taken in this split. What surprised me, though, was that the revolution is taking place in a dominantly Shiite nation, rather than in a Sunni one first. This perplex ion is based on a passage from the book on pages 51-52. It says that "the idea of infallible authority is also a defining feature of Shi'ite Islam", and that, "the rulings of senior Shi'ite clerics, in theory, are law." Whereas, "Sunni Muslims believe man's relationship with God is more personal, face to face, with less dependence on priesthood. Their clergy serve largely as advisors to the people." Although there is more cause for unrest in Shi'ite Islam when it comes to religion, and this could be what triggered the revolution, I would think that it would be more likely in a Shi'ite nation. This is probably because of the obvious parallels between Sunni Islam and Protestantism. They both encourage a more personal relationship with God and rely less on the clergy than the other branch. Since the Christian split was powered mostly by the protestant section, I expected the similar section in Islam to do the same. I simple noticed the parallels and expected it to follow the same pattern, but I suppose that the Shi'ite section should be the one to rebel because they are fighting for concessions when the Sunnis already have numerous freedoms within their religion.
I disagree with Sara that a political revolution is incomparable to a religious one. Both government and religion have a strong effect on people's lives. In Islamic countries religion is the main source of unification, but in countries like the U.S., I would say that we are unified by strong national pride, and though we may not approve in government leaders at the time *cough, Bush*, we have confidence in our government system. These things govern both peoples' lives and when they do not approve of how it is working, they are no longer unified by them making them illegitimate and their will be civil unrest.
A big issue here is the separation of state and religion. I think having an Islamic democracy could work secularly. The clergy would not monopolize the government. However, the morals and values that come the religion of the people will be the same values and ethics that they use in politics. Therefore, the Islamic ideas and values will still be communicated through the people representing who practice it, even though Islam itself is not the foundation for the government.
Post a Comment