Iranian society and government were broadly secular until after foreign intrusion
The Sha was restored after the UK and Soviet interference (not exactly the west) and his authoritative policies lead to the revolution. He eliminated the islamic clergy influence in the government and public life in the 60’s, forced them to get official accreditation to preach and effectively banned them from parliament in the 70’s, the less radical islamists tried to create a democratic government, still islamic, but then the US embassy was taken and Khomeini took power.
And again, the occupation of Cyprus by a Muslim nation is more recent than the Iranian revolution.
The current state of Iran is a consequence of Islam, not the western, but go ahead, leftists of the world keep defending a religion that hangs homosexuals, forces genre change on people (this happens in Iran), fights sexual freedom, prosecutes people that think different, forces women to cover, allows child marriage, etc, etc.
Just because something is bad doesn’t make other thing good. Just because the west is bad, doesn’t make islam good. Just because at some point Iran was secular and prosperous under the Sha doesn’t mean the Sha wasn’t authoritative, the world rarely is black and white, you know what is black and white? Islam. The book is very clear. Islam is a scourge on the Earth as the Soviet Union was, the British Empire, American exceptionalist or the CCP.
Finally I have to point out how essentially you are in a thread about what being extreme-left means while defending a country in a time that was under an absolute monarchy rule, with and absolute king, the same one that was deposed in early 50’s was the one reinstated in the 60’s, so what are you exactly? You are obviously no muslim, because they are proud of the things I say (why wouldn’t they? they believe they are right) and you are obviously no leftist since you are defending an absoltue monarch.
The 1953 Iranian coup d’état was orchestrated by the CIA and MI6. It was a project of Western colonialism to restore control of Iranian oil fields to Western corporations.
Iranian society has been Muslim for over a thousand years, but the Islamic Republic emerged only in the last half century.
You don’t understand historical causation, and you don’t understand how to engage arguments respectfully and constructively.
That you have concluded I am defending Islam is proof enough that you have not engaged seriously.
The 1953 Iranian coup d’état was orchestrated by the CIA and MI6. It was a project of Western colonialism to restore control of Iranian oil fields to Western corporations.
10 years before that the Sha was deposed by the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom or that one doesn’t count because doesn’t fit your narrative? You defend Rezah Shah only when interests you.
Iranian society has been Muslim for over a thousand years, but the Islamic Republic emerged only in the last half century.
Persia / Iran wasn’t secular for a thousand years.
That you have concluded I am defending Islam is proof enough that you have not engaged seriously.
It’s the only reason why you engaged in this. First with lies saying no muslim nation conquered or colonized the west, then moving the goal to modern times. You haven even acknowledged the invasion of cyprus by a muslim country and you focus on Iran because you think it fits your narrative, ignoring all my examples in the process.
The only reason Iran was secular under the Sha is because the Sha fought against islam clerics and that’s an historical fact and what’s more, the only way for a muslim country to be secular is through an authoritarian ruler strong enough to fight the clergy.
The rhetoric of the Islamic Republic identifies the 1956 coup as among the paramount grievances against the US. It therefore carries elevated importance from a standpoint of understanding seriously the Islamic Revolution.
Generally, you seem not to be understanding that the current political configuration in Iran has specific historical antecedents that are vastly more nuanced and and expansive simply than the observation that Islam is the dominant religion of the region.
I suggest you try learning to apply a critical historical lens, freed from a preconception that Islam is more relevant to various events than all other possible antecedents. You can understand the complex politics of any particular Muslim-majority society without being an apologist for Islam.
The Sha was restored after the UK and Soviet interference (not exactly the west) and his authoritative policies lead to the revolution. He eliminated the islamic clergy influence in the government and public life in the 60’s, forced them to get official accreditation to preach and effectively banned them from parliament in the 70’s, the less radical islamists tried to create a democratic government, still islamic, but then the US embassy was taken and Khomeini took power.
And again, the occupation of Cyprus by a Muslim nation is more recent than the Iranian revolution.
The current state of Iran is a consequence of Islam, not the western, but go ahead, leftists of the world keep defending a religion that hangs homosexuals, forces genre change on people (this happens in Iran), fights sexual freedom, prosecutes people that think different, forces women to cover, allows child marriage, etc, etc.
Just because something is bad doesn’t make other thing good. Just because the west is bad, doesn’t make islam good. Just because at some point Iran was secular and prosperous under the Sha doesn’t mean the Sha wasn’t authoritative, the world rarely is black and white, you know what is black and white? Islam. The book is very clear. Islam is a scourge on the Earth as the Soviet Union was, the British Empire, American exceptionalist or the CCP.
Finally I have to point out how essentially you are in a thread about what being extreme-left means while defending a country in a time that was under an absolute monarchy rule, with and absolute king, the same one that was deposed in early 50’s was the one reinstated in the 60’s, so what are you exactly? You are obviously no muslim, because they are proud of the things I say (why wouldn’t they? they believe they are right) and you are obviously no leftist since you are defending an absoltue monarch.
The 1953 Iranian coup d’état was orchestrated by the CIA and MI6. It was a project of Western colonialism to restore control of Iranian oil fields to Western corporations.
Iranian society has been Muslim for over a thousand years, but the Islamic Republic emerged only in the last half century.
You don’t understand historical causation, and you don’t understand how to engage arguments respectfully and constructively.
That you have concluded I am defending Islam is proof enough that you have not engaged seriously.
10 years before that the Sha was deposed by the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom or that one doesn’t count because doesn’t fit your narrative? You defend Rezah Shah only when interests you.
Persia / Iran wasn’t secular for a thousand years.
It’s the only reason why you engaged in this. First with lies saying no muslim nation conquered or colonized the west, then moving the goal to modern times. You haven even acknowledged the invasion of cyprus by a muslim country and you focus on Iran because you think it fits your narrative, ignoring all my examples in the process.
The only reason Iran was secular under the Sha is because the Sha fought against islam clerics and that’s an historical fact and what’s more, the only way for a muslim country to be secular is through an authoritarian ruler strong enough to fight the clergy.
The rhetoric of the Islamic Republic identifies the 1956 coup as among the paramount grievances against the US. It therefore carries elevated importance from a standpoint of understanding seriously the Islamic Revolution.
Generally, you seem not to be understanding that the current political configuration in Iran has specific historical antecedents that are vastly more nuanced and and expansive simply than the observation that Islam is the dominant religion of the region.
I suggest you try learning to apply a critical historical lens, freed from a preconception that Islam is more relevant to various events than all other possible antecedents. You can understand the complex politics of any particular Muslim-majority society without being an apologist for Islam.