Kamangir (Archer)

Reader's Comments

1. آقبال خان | August 31st, 2006 at 2:24 am

   Refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Schema_gvt_iran_en.png .

   The Assembly of Experts is designated as 86 mullahs, whose purpose is to review the actions of the supreme leader. I think for the simple fact that the supreme leader of the Islamic style government is always a religous man (cleric) it is wise to have 86 other religious men who are set simply to review his actions. The majlis-e Iran is 290 members, and I believe the majority of them are not clerics/”mullahs”, right?

2. kamangir | August 31st, 2006 at 10:17 am

   I am an Iranian and I have never voted for having a Mullah on top of the pyramid of power in Iran. So, as I see it, the supreme leader is not legitimate.
   How do you draw the conclusion that as a Mullah is on top the people who analyze his performance must be Mullahs, too?
   About the Majlis (parliament), you probably know better than I do that the MPs must be approved by another Mullah organization which is also holding the gateway for any bill to be passed by them.

3. آقبال خان | August 31st, 2006 at 4:02 pm

   I am an American and I have never voted for having a war mongering Christian fundamentalist on top of the pyramid of power in America. Too bad for me though, that’s the way it is. How do you draw the conclusion that simply because you dont like these people because they are Muslims (pardon me if it seems like I am jumping to conclusions, but based on the wording of your post “Mullahcracy”, “Mullahs approving Mullahs” - the only gripe I can identify that you have with these people is that they are Mullahs - used as somewhat of a derogatory term as of late, which means Islamic scholars) that they are not-legitimate?

   In the time of the Prophet (ص), during the early years of the Caliphate, and the later years of the Caliphate in the Ottoman Turks - the raais ul-jamhur - leader of the republic - was always a learned religious scholar of Islam - or a Mullah, as you like to put it. Iran is a Muslim country and it’s government a declared Islamic Republic. Why would you expect it to be different?

4. kamangir | August 31st, 2006 at 4:10 pm

   I use Mullah because that’s the only word I know for them. Actually, Mullah is not a negative word. If you know a better translation for “Rouhani” please kindly share it with me, too.
   Iran is an Islamic “Republic”. Would you please show me the “republic” side?
   No offense, but I think you should be very brave to comment so decisively on Iran’s political system if you have not spent a day there.

5. ella | August 31st, 2006 at 11:37 pm

   ٓقبال خان

   You know, during the time of the Caliphate there was Caliph but no president and no republic, therefore I do not understand your comparison of IRI to the times of Caliphate. Furthermore Jamhuriyat is a 20 century word, there was no such concept among muslims neither at your prophet’s time nor in the Ottoman empire.
   Caliphate in its conception was totalitarian system where caliph had the last word on everything. And ul jamhur means people not republic.

   If you have never voted for a war mongering Christian fundamentalist on top of the pyramid of power in america it seems that you would not have such objection to vote for war mongering muslim fundamentalist on top of the pyramid of power in Iran.

6. آقبال خان | September 1st, 2006 at 1:47 am

   No, you are right, and I agree with you, the current government of Iran has to go and is not representative of the Iranian people at all it seems, I just like to get the other point at times. Thanks

Comment