Talk:History of fundamentalist Islam in Iran

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the History of fundamentalist Islam in Iran article.
Article policies
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

I am very impressed by this page! Great job --Rayis 13:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks alot. Sina Kardar 18:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, this is alot of hard work and lots of good research here! Khodavand 04:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Khomeini as fundamentalist

For this issue, I suggest this article: [1]. I think if we look at academic sources, it becomes difficult to accept Khomeini as "fundamentalist":

"Even though the word ‘fundamentalist’ has gained wide currency, I would like to argue that the transference of a term invented by Protestants in early twentieth-century America to a political movement in the contemporary Middle East is not only confusing and misleading, but also downright wrong. It is so for a number of reasons. First, if fundamentalism means the conviction that one’s scriptural text is free of human errors, then all Muslim believers would have to be considered fundamentalists; for, after all, it is an essential article of Islam that the entire Koran is the absolute Word of God."
"Second, if the term implies that the believer can grasp the true meaning of the religion by going directly to the essential text, bypassing the clergy (ulama), then Khomeini was by no means a fundamentalist. As a senior member of the Usuli School of Shiism, he opposed the Akhbari dissenters of the previous centuries who had argued that believers could understand Islam by relying mainly on the Koran."

Khodavand 13:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is difficult to classify khomeni under these cats. The article that you are refering to is already in our page. I have read it before. Khomeini was a mixture of traditionalism, populism, fundamentalism. He was also a reformer. There are lot's of controversies here. I also believe that all these terms have a different interpretation in the context of christianity and the usage of these terms in westren media is not based on scholarship. There is an interview by Javad Tabatabei at the end of the article which covers the problems with terminology. Khomeini is not like Mesbah. His way of thinking was very comlicated. I tried to cover some of these points in the page. There are also many links and references, for a deaper coverage. Please help to improve the article. I really want this article to be based on academic works rather than on the materials in the media. We also need to include the view points of Iranian fundamentalists themselves on fundamentalism. Sina Kardar 16:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There are a bunch of fantastic articles (on terminology) linked to Javad Tabatbaei's article (mentioned above). I think the terminology itself needs to have a section in the article. Sina Kardar 18:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] irrelevant

I hope Sina forgive me but this article is full of irrelevant issues.--Sa.vakilian 05:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Like what? --Rayis 13:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definition

Because there isn't clear definition I added a new part for it. If there's consensus about this definition, then we can separate irrelevant information on the basis of definition.--Sa.vakilian 07:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You can refer to Definition of Shi'a fundamentalism and find why I have chosen this definition.--Sa.vakilian 07:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
In the first paragraph a definition has been offered that contains the following points:

Fundamentalists in Iran are "millitant, anti-modernists and do not adhere to the understanding of historicity".

It means they believe in:

  • 1. literal interpretation of the text
  • 2. opposed to Modernism
  • 3. millitant

In section on "Theories of State Based on Divine Legitimacy", I explained that fundamentalist theroy of state is based on:

  • 4. absolute religious authority

Last paragraph in Viewpoints section reads: "The problem with identity is at the heart of fundamentalism, no matter it is Islamic, Jewish or Christian. If people's religious identity becomes more prominent than the national identity, fundamentalism will rise. In other words fundamentalism can be seen as "identity-ism". Many of the religious remarks that are made in Iran, especially from official platforms, basically rest on identity-oriented thinking and the inculcation of an identity known as a religious identity." Therefore this is another characteristics of Iranian Shia fundamentalism:

  • 5. Identity conflict

In the first paragraph, I stated that there is a newly emerged fraction of fundamentalists (so called nefo-fundamentalists) who have the following specific characteristics in addition to the above mentioned general characteristics:

  • 6. They borrowed from Western countercurrents of populism, fascism, anarchism, Jacobism, and Marxism.

So my defenition up to now is based on these 5+1 ponits.

Sina Kardar 09:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

A composed(Talfiqi) definition may useful. But my idea is different.
  • 1-literal interpretation of the text:This is against Shiism fundamental or not. You can find more about it in the theory of "effect of time and palce in Ijtehad" and also Esoteric interpretation of the Qur'an. Shi'a beilive in infallible sources but do not interpret it literaly. Thus I suggest believe in "infallible sources".
  • 2-opposed to Modernism: I suggest "opposed to modern ideologies like Marxism, liberalism and so on. They are Islamist.
  • 3- millitant: It's not good criterion because other groups may be militant too. I prefer "fundamentalism involves the willingness to do battle for one's faith"
  • 4- absolute religious authority: If absolute means that there isn't any restriction for governor or it means that there isn't any supervision on him its not fit to the case of Iran because Islamic republic constitution specified that Supreme leader is under supervision of "Assembly of Experts ". I don't have any suggestion in this case.
  • 5- I agree with Islamic identity.
  • 6- They borrowed from Western countercurrents of populism, fascism, anarchism, Jacobism, and Marxism: I'm sure that first generation of fundamentalists in Iran were borrowed more of these things. New generation doesn't have new ideology and I disagree with your suggestion to separate them in this way. There is another way to separate them Beheshti vs. Mesbah. I mean republicans versus authoritarians.--Sa.vakilian 10:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
What's your idea about this one:Definition of Shi'a fundamentalism#Conclusion--Sa.vakilian 10:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think:

  • 1. "Historicity" is a better word here. I agree that there is a confusion here. How can we put "Progressive Ijtihad" and "not adherence to historicity" next to each other? I don't know.
  • 2. I have to think.
  • 3. In Mehdi Mozaffan's chapter on a comparative study of Islamism in Algeria and Iran, he says, "I define Islamic fundamentalism or Islamism as a militant and anti-modernist movement ... not every militant Muslim is a fundamentalist. but an Islamic fundamentalist is necessarily a militant".[1]
In the case of Islamic revolution it seems incorrect. I heared a letter of Imam KHomeini in Iran's TV which says not to kill agents of Shahs and insist on public demonstration and this letter was in response of Istefta from Heathaye Motalefe.--Sa.vakilian 14:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • 4.The term "absolute religious authority" is not used in this article. I just used it in the talk page to make a correspondance between your definition and my definition. What is mentioned in the article is "Theory of State based on divine legitimacy" as explained in the text.
  • 5.OK
  • 6. This is what Abdolkarim Soroush and Darioush Ashuri claimed.
OK. We can make a different part for neo-fundamentalism and write it as according to their quotations. --Sa.vakilian 14:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

About that definition in the conclusion:

  • I think the only problem is with the refrence to Islamism article. I am interested to use sources from Iranian experts or experts on Iran. I am not comfortable with the word Islamism either. While Islamism is bad semitism is good! Anti-Islamism is good while Anti semitism is bad. I don't like the terminology made by western journalists.Sina Kardar 11:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Me too but do you have better expression.--Sa.vakilian 14:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Suggestion: I suggest taking a look at this article and the links at the end of the article. These articles can give us an idea of the ongoing debates on the terminology including the words conservatism and neo-conservatism.Sina Kardar 13:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I've read Bashirie's book about "conservatism". I suggest not to use these expression in this article because of they don't fit in modeling of Iran sociology.--Sa.vakilian 14:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
We can use "activist" instead of "Islamist" and Lewis has used and described it.[2]--Sa.vakilian 15:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mullahcracy

The term Mullahcracy is a neologism and is not in the dictionary. Please see WP:NEO. Furthermore, it is a pejorative term that makes the article POV. Please see [3] for the full discussion. I will remove it from this article if there are no objections.

[edit] My removal of 'stuff'

I had to remove a bunch of conspiracy and POV-pushing material from a variety of unreliable sources (blogs, special interest groups, etc). Please don't use Wikipedia for activism; the encyclopedia is supposed to be neutral. Thanks. The Behnam 03:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the changes made by User:The Behnam improved the article. Still more work is needed. Sina Kardar 18:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit

This article needs a lot of copyeditting particularly by those who are familiar with the topic. I wrote something as a staring point. I do not support the content of the article personally. It needs a lot of copyeditting before it become a neutral and reliable article. Please help. Sina Kardar 14:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable example

Please someone include the following in the article:


Thanks. Sina Kardar 10:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


This page really needs a re-write in terms of grammar. The amount of articles and prepositions missing is very high, it sounds like a non-native speaker of English wrote it (with all due respect), and it needs to be cleaned up.

[edit] Difference between Islamists (neo-funds) and fundamentalists

The Islamist version of political Islam emerged in response to the perceived shortcomings of fundamentalism. The Islamists, with their cosmopolitan backgrounds, introduced various tools they had borrowed from the West into their organizational arsenal. Ideologically, they drew on antimodernist philosophies that embodied Western dissatisfaction with the consequences of industrialization and positivism. Reference: [4]

Sina Kardar 18:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coming soon... more removal of 'stuff'

I came back to this article and I am still concerned about it. There are still unreliable sources being used, unencyclopedic writing, and blatant POV. I have already removed CAIS-derived information as CAIS has been deemed an unreliable source (by multiple admins, not just me) after a number of incidents. I will now proceed to clean this article up further. The Behnam 14:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Background

I need verification as to whether or not certain statements are supported by references or not, as I am not able to access the Chicago journal or read the hamshahri page. I have tagged them as 'cn' within the section. The Behnam 15:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emergence

I cut out a bunch of plagiarism. The section still serves its purpose so I don't think it has been harmed. However, I question the relevance to 'emergence' of some of the points that I left. The Behnam 15:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic Republic & De-Iranianisation Policy

Big problems here. I'm going to continue to remove anything that is not sourced, lacks reliable sources, isn't directly relevant, or is plagiarized. The Behnam 15:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, many of the events mentioned aren't explicitly related to the 'history of fundamentalist Islam in Iran' in their sources, so it is OR to associate them so. You will find that I removed many of these parts. The Behnam 15:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Ekhrajiha.jpg

Image:Ekhrajiha.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Marmulak poster.jpg

Image:Marmulak poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)