Iran's Second Islamic Revolution?

Last week, Ali Gharib made the important point that what's happening in Iran is thus far not a rejection of the Islamic republic, but a struggle over its founding principles. Reviewing Moussavi's formal statement Saturday, Gary Sick described it as diagnosis of "a revolution gone wrong," writing that Moussavi has "issued a manifesto for a new vision of the Islamic republic."

In an especially good post, Spencer Ackerman flagged a key passage from Moussavi's statement:

If the large volume of cheating and vote rigging, which has set fire to the hays of people's anger, is expressed as the evidence of fairness, the republican nature of the state will be killed and in practice, the ideology that Islam and Republicanism are incompatible will be proven.

This outcome will make two groups happy: One, those who since the beginning of revolution stood against Imam and called the Islamic state a dictatorship of the elite who want to take people to heaven by force; and the other, those who in defending the human rights, consider religion and Islam against republicanism.

As Spencer notes, that last bit is a pretty clear rebuke to those Western critics who, in criticizing the brutality of the Iranian regime, have tried to present Islam and democracy as irreconcilable.

Speaking of which, conservative scholar-activist Martin Kramer, in a comically mendacious (and, as usual, Rashid Khalidi-obsessed) dispatch, tries to argue that the "events in Iran have left Obama's simplistic mental map of the Middle East, first learned from a few Palestinian activists and an old Hyde Park rabbi, in shreds."

But, in fact, what is in shreds is the representation of Islamism -- peddled for years by Kramer, Daniel Pipes, and ideologically affiliated think tanks and publications -- as wholly and irretrievably hostile to modernity, to human rights, and to democracy. Having spent years vilifying the Islamist discourse of struggle and sacrifice as deployed by Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah, these pundits have now been pantsed by the Iranian demonstrators deploying the very same discourse on behalf of freedom and reform. Moussavi has declared himself "ready for martyrdom" -- will conservatives now condemn his "death cult"?

The point here is not to call out those whose skewed analysis of the Middle East strongly informed America's disastrous and costly attempt to implant democracy there by force. Okay, that's part of the point. But the larger part is to note how significant it is that the Iranian clerical-dictatorial regime is being challenged from within Islam, and that a very credible scholarly-religious critique that has long been suppressed by the regime now seems to have found a vehicle in Moussavi and the movement around him.

Even in the best outcome, I think it's likely that the Iranian government will continue to be, in key respects, Islamist-controlled (matching the Islamist-controlled government in neighboring Iraq.) But it's important to understand that this, much more so than any Western-implanted concept of "secularism," has the potential to really spur the already vigorous debate in the region over the arrangement of a fair and just society, by underscoring Islamism's contribution to that debate. As with President Obama's wise caution in regard to the demonstrations, the most productive thing the U.S. do, while continuing to voice support for human rights, is to get out of the way and make space for the debate to occur.

Follow Matthew Duss on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mattduss

Comments

[bergerkos]

Mohammad was a warrior, jihad was in the heart of HIS religion. This he has shown by his entire life. Don't ask a "rabbi", nor the propaganda sources -- just study your history. Watch the Indonesian video-epizode at Al Jazeera about the modern Islamic tendencies in that country and see for yourself.

Yes, the "Churches" have marred themselves in innocent blood nearly the same. But this is NOT who Jesus and his 1-Century followers really were -- peaceful and kind people, preaching the Good News and ready to sacrifice their lives for others. The values of their teachings have effected the Western world significantly, even despite the apostasy of the Churches.

This peaceful character of the ancient Christians is why muslims deny the authenticity of the Jesus of the Gospels. As per Islam, a prophet is a warrior, and not a "sheep".

So much about the roots of the two religions in question. But, very justly stated above, the question is, how far the majority will be ready to go on the path of "jihad". Will the majority prefer to end the war , just like a single mobile video turned the majority's sympathies away from Taliban in Pakistan a few days ago?

Now can this happen in Iran and other countries as well? Yes, whenever God should decide it is the time for such thing. And the time seems to be very near at hand.

[dsws]

It is inappropriate to blame Islam for the bellicosity of some Muslims while excusing Christianity for the bellicosity of some Christians. Both religions contain contrary tendencies, which contribute to the contrary tendencies in their adherents. There's certainly grounds to argue for differences, but not for completely declaring Christianity essentially peaceful and Islam essentially warlike.

No Muslim country has had its CIA overthrow our government and install a bloody king, after all.

[S1m0n]

What struck me this week was the cheering in the Israeli press (both leftish and right) as if completely unaware that their own nation routinely does exactly the same suppressing dissent among the Palestinians. Hello?

[Ozarks]

Your article contains this statement: "Mousavi says his call for annulment of the election and a revote, supervised by an impartial national body, "is a given right." The objective is nothing less than "to achieve a new type of political life in the country."

So what????? In the end you still have " The Supreme unelected infallible Leader" , a mullah, running the country. So what if you unrig the vote & elect a new toadie?? Mousavi is not doing anything but asking to be The Supreme unelected infallible Leader's puppet. He is not asking for a reformation of the republic. He is not asking for the mullahs to be ousted from running the alleged republic. You can't see the forest because of the trees. Nothing, I repeat nothing will change if Mousavi takes Admindiaja (sp) place. Until you get the mullahs out of politics-- Islam, which has been clearly demonstrated in Iran, is irreconcilable with democracy.

[dsws]

According to the Iranian constitution, the supreme leader is supreme. But iiuc he is not quite considered infallible. I think only the Prophet, his daughter, and the twelve imams are supposed to really be infallible. Shiite religious leaders with political power since then are theorized by some to have some degree of protection from error (and no surprise, the closer you get to those leaders, the closer the theorized protection comes to outright infallibility), but I don't think they've claimed to be equal to the twelve imams.

According to the Iranian constitution, the supreme leader is supreme. But it's simply impossible for one person to run a modern state. In practice, the president and parliament do have some significance. There has been some difference between for example Khatami and Ahmadinejad, and it has really reflected the voters' choices (from among their decidedly limited range of options).

According to the Iranian constitution, the supreme leader is supreme. But some commentators have plausibly been saying that Khamenei's position is weaker than the constitution would suggest. In particular, it sounds as though Ahmadinejad has been consolidating power over the last four years.

[Aaror]

The Basij must be punished, but not with violence. Shun them!
Talk to their Fathers, their Uncles, their Grandfathers. Tell them to teach honor and honesty and respect for fellow Muslims. Shame them in front of Allah.
Women, go to their mothers and ask what they did wrong to raise such sons.
If you see a Basij in the streets, especially if out of uniform, point him out, call him out. Make sure everyone knows he is Basiji.
Call him Basiji, Murderer, Butcher.
Do not serve a Basij in your restaraunts. Do not sell to them in your stores.
Call them out in the streets, do not let your children play with their relatives.
Stare at them constantly, make them know you know who they are.
Remind them that they answer to Allah for their acts against fellow Muslims.

not sure why this isn't posting...

[StJames]

What's really fascinating is that the same people who are so very critical of an Islamic Republic would turn the U.S.A. into a christian republic if they could.

[Aaror]

Well yeah,
They would be fine with Khatami and Amadinijad if they were Christian Fundies...
But we are talking about fundimentalist Christains, they are identical to Islamic fundimentalists in every way, but because they have slightly different beliefs about the new testiment, they will fight eachother to the death.
I just hope we can keep the christian fundie terrorists from killing as many Americans as they did last time they didn't like our president.