IRAN NUCLEA PROGRAM..

As u know iran buld up a nuclea for either electilicity supply or nuclea weapons,.as 4 u view what u think is the risk of this program to world..also other country do the same ask iran the main use of nuclea..

I think the nuclear program is 4 electricity supply not nuclear weapon,who’s wit me.

Turkey increased its role on the global stage by mediating one of the world’s most complicated disputes, Iran’s nuclear imbroglio, and is now working to be part of the major powers dealing with Iran to push the Islamic republic to halt its nuclear program. Experts believe this will most likely change the course of the talks into a positive direction

Diplomatic efforts have brought Russia into the fold of those exerting pressure on Iran.   The Iranian leaders are walking a delicate balancing act. As far as I'm aware, they still have the support of many of the poor and many of the bazaari class as their base.  But Khomeini's theological innovations were really so radical (compared to general Shia theology), I'm doubtful that they will really be continued to be expounded by the clerics for much longer.  International ostracism is not really helping. 

There is a lot of pressure on the US for a military strike against Iran right now from certain quarters, most notably the Gulf Arab states.   I don't think it will come to that, though.  It better not, anyway.  That really won't be good for anyone.

I didn't expect you to write like that, Radonagi! 

"The Iranian leaders are walking a delicate balancing act. As far as I'm aware, they still have the support of many of the poor and many of the bazaari class as their base.  But Khomeini's theological innovations were really so radical (compared to general Shia theology)"

Do you know shia theology and khomeini's one ever! that's always easy to write and to insult and to defame others, but we need to refer to our conscience sometimes, nah!

 You must undrestand that Khomeini, the charismatic leader is the most respectable face not for most of Iranian people only, but for all muslims. All muslims are proud of Khomeni.

We loved him, we missed him, peace be upon him.

And americans know how to scare Arab governments to sell weapons for their recovery over there!

And you may ask yourself! why you didn't refere the Israel as the most notably case instead of the Gulf Arab states!

And you may know who gave Turkey that role to play as a "power", Nah!

Sorry my friend but you made me angry by those words!

:S

Hi Razzaghi!

I'm sorry I made you angry.  Let me tell you what I was thinking that made me write that, and you can tell me why I'm wrong.  I respect your opinion and I'm sure we can learn from each other. 

I used the word "radical" to mean, well, revolutionary, and I don't think you can deny that Khomeini participated in a revolution :) But my reason for saying that came from reading his book Islamic Government (ولایت فقیه) in which he talks about his interpretation of the Shia concept of "Guardianship of the Jurists" (ولایت فقیه). This is a concept that basically says that Islam gives Islamic jurists guardianship over those in need of it. Traditionally, the Ulema who support this concept have differed over how much guardianship is appropriate, but they have generally adhered to the notion that it is in non-litigious matters, like religious endowments, judicial matters, widows and orphans, and common property type things. 

On the other hand, power in litigious matters, matters of national defense, things like that, were the responsibility of secular rulers, usually kings.   Of course, most Shia clerics would have agreed that a king that passed explicitly anti-Islamic laws was not legitimate, so its not like secular and religious power was completely split.

On the other other hand, before Khomeini, I am struggling to find any Shia scholar (I know Khomeini claimed influence from Naini, Naraqi, and Shirazi, but I don't see that they went as far as him) who argued that monarchies were inherently illegitimate or that authority to control the state could be given to clergy.  As this is a post-occultation concept, it was generally thought presumptuous to give a single cleric such control when the Hidden Imam was not yet revealed.

Where Khomeini was revolutionary (in my view) was in his  view that guardianship is absolute, that monarchy was unIslamic, and that complete authority should be held by a faqih.  The only other Grand Ayatollah that supported this view at the time of the Islamic Revolution was Montazeri, and it seemed he backtracked a bit in later years.  Today, a particularly famous example of the Quietist school (People who say that religion should be kept out of the political sphere until the coming of the Hidden Imam) is Ayatollah Sistani, in Iraq, who has come out against theocratic government. Another example, the late Grand Ayatollah al-Khoei was strongly against this concept, arguing that the authority of faqih could not be extended into the political sphere, and that the authority of jurisprudence was not the preserve of one or a few Imams during the absence of the Hidden Imam. Indeed, it seems to me that most of the senior Shia clergy today, in and outside Iran, are not absolutists.

So, yes, I feel that Khomeini's advocation of the absolute guardianship of the jurists was and remains a very controversial point among shia scholars, regardless of their admiration for his personal piety and revolutionary accomplishments. 

It is for partly these reasons, then (also the fact that in his book, Khomeini laid out benefits to the state that would result from the application of this type of Guardianship, whether the benefits are materializing themselves is likewise controversial), that I foresee an eventual return towards more traditional applications of Guardianship in Iran, with support from the bulk of the Shia scholars. I think it is certainly possible to love, honor, and respect Khomeini, and still disagree with his interpretation of Guardianship. 

So what do you think?  If I'm totally wrong (very possible) then please let me know why.  I assure you that I say what I say because I think it is true, not to cause you harm.  Anyway, we could talk a lot about this in email, if you want. That book was really fascinating, even all the stuff I just wrote barely scratches the surface of history and theology.  

Now for the second part - 

I didn't refer to Israel as the most notable backer of the USA attacking Iran just because I haven't noticed them being so since around the election of Obama. Since 2008-9, if they are pressuring us to do it, than either I've just missed that, or they are now exerting their pressure behind closed doors.  I hear rumbles that they themselves will attack Iran, but the USA has taken a very firm stand on that and I really doubt it will happen.  On the other hand, it seems to be more common knowledge around here in the USA that the Arab states in the Gulf are REALLY scared of a big upset in the power status quo, and they are willing to do anything to avoid it.  The Syrian foreign minister was complaining just today that Arab leaders were treating Iran as the main enemy instead of Israel.  In that story I linked to, the United Arab Emirates minister was saying he was wholeheartedly in favor of an American attack. 

None of the Middle Eastern rulers want to upset the status quo.  Similar to how they reacted when Iraq invaded Kuwait 20 years ago.  Not to mention everything that went on in the Iran-Iraq war. 

It is true that within the USA, those in favor of an attack on Iran are the same warmongers that pushed us to go to war against Iraq, and are often characterized by their support of Israel's right wing, but they don't have power anymore, thank goodness.   This is why I think that the biggest external threat to Iran is coming at the moment from Gulf Arab states, rather than Israel.  This is my perception from where I live. 

Anyway, I  believe the USA will never attack Iran no matter what, so the point is kind of moot, anyway.  

Oh, and I didn't say that stuff about Turkey.  

Hey Radonagi!

I am very pleased that you write with your study backed knowledge here, I found an Iranian who use to write unfairly with a least of knowledge about issues.

You are very true that there are different views between shia Ulema!.

Please we must first know where the word “Ulema” and “Faghih” come from, in fact we must know who is deserved to be titled as Faghih and to be considered as on of the Ulema then we must determine for which society we are speaking about.Firstly I must mention that we are speaking about a society of more than 98 percent Muslim .

Faghih is somebody how have studied in the field of Islamic sciences and Islamic based litigious matters, so he must know about the Quran& Sunnah (The prophets traditions in Islamic society) and also as a shia about Imam’s traditions(as Shia believe a mediator exists between the human and the God, the almighty for all races and in all ages).  

 Faghi has a long term study during his life about those issues and every body has the right to study for them. So it’s a great failure if somebody juxtaposes the situation of the Faghih with a king or a secular leader especially in an Islamic society.

Surely a Muslim prefers his society to be ruled by Islamic traditions; you can ask this from all Muslims in the world, American and French Muslims even!..

Again, you are true saying there are different points of views but please consider Khomeini known as Imam Khomeini proposed his idea in front of public and it was an election, so the constitution of us which was based on his views was approved by the people.

Please consider even the Faghih would be chosen via a democratic process (our constitution, we can discuss more if needed) and also I must mention that Shia believe in a democracy for the government in fact they believe it must be a demand by the people for somebody to be appointed as the leader. (We can discuss more if needed).

As they believe Imam Mahdi won’t come until a demand for peace and justice exist by most of the people in all over the world.

All Ulema are respectful and they may have different ideas but Khomeini’s views as you know have his influence between our nations yet.

He was a charismatic leader indeed. For me as a shia Muslim can understand him yet..

I think it is certainly possible to love, honor, and respect Khomeini, and still disagree with his interpretation of Guardianship.

We have people in different parties in our country, but people mostly “agree” with his interpretation of Guardianship.

Please I must add this one:

If you see the history of us, in our country people use to hear the sound of Islam from the tongue of Ulema, so we have many cases that Kings and others that had had the opportunity of governing in my country(like the parliament members who make laws or the prime ministers), couldn't execute their programs specially when they was pursuing unti Islamic laws in our society and it always made paradoxes and struggles so the best governing system in my country is the one based on Islamic constitution because the clergy have their influence between people anyhow and it would make an anarchy.

In fact getting involved with political issues is a religious tradition.

Haha, well, I'm glad that the 2 hours I spent writing that post didn't go to waste!  It was hard, you know, I haven't done much reading on Iran in the last 2 years, I had to go to my books and online, find names of Imams and theological concepts…It was hard! But I always enjoyed studying Shia stuff. 

There's a lot I want to ask you and say about your reply, though I would prefer to do it with the mail.  Suffice it to say that as a foreign non-Muslim, with all the authority that gives me to rule on religious issues in Iran (in other words, none), I tend to favor a more limited interpretation of Guardianship. 

Anyway, back to the original question, I'm not sure if the Iranian government is developing nuclear weapons or not, but they are not stupid, they are definitely aware that many of their neighbors and contacts think they are doing more than just peaceful stuff, and they are attempting to use this perception to their advantage, as any government would be expected to do.  I don't know how this will all end up, but I strongly believe that Iran's natural place is within the international community.  

Oh, and hadi, I know that Khomeini died about 20 years ago.  So did my grandfather, but it doesn't mean we can just forget them, right.  

For this one Radonagi I can tell you that our nation have been suffered since they started they revolution because you know it has been an strange governing system for both superpowers and in some ways they couldn’t tolerate that new governing system.
The people would like their society to be ruled via Islamic rules so that’s very meaningless if they see the rulers pursuing their own desires instead of Islamic traditions.
I saw you have good information about the theology of shia, at least you could catch the information you needed very easy, so I’m sure that the US government has enough information whether Iran has the stimulant enough of pursuing the development of nuclear weapons’ or not.
Our religion and our politics are limb to each other.
Please regard this one:
“I tend to favor a more limited interpretation of Guardianship.”
With all respect, neither you are a Muslim nor an Iranian so you can’t tend to anything about this issue! Of course you are welcome to say your own Idea If you have knowledge enough!
PS, you know there is parliament to select the leader and the members of that parliament are high knowledge clergies are voted by the people during elections, so they can select somebody according to their view of points, that reflects the desires of the nation (who is in the same side) and he may ignore some parts of his governing rights referred to in the constitution (Please consider he must be a Faghih so he also has his own points of view).
You are welcome! I am pleased if we can share via email.