Printemps arabe: La sainteté n’est plus ce qu’elle était (Sainthood is not what it used to be)

Gandhilike KhomeiniTu as complètement pris possession de mon corps. C’est un esclavage insupportable. Gandhi (lettre à l’architecte allemand Hermann Kallenbach, 1914, reproduite dans « Grande âme: Mahatma Gandhi et sa lutte avec l’Inde » de Joseph Lelyveld, 2011)
L’écriture de cette biographie est perverse par nature. Le peuple du Gujarat ne tolérera jamais une telle insulte vis-à-vis de Gandhi. Narendra Modi (ministre en chef de l’Etat du Gujarat)
Dans l’expression ‘gouvernement islamique’, pourquoi jeter d’emblée la suspicion sur l’adjectif ‘islamique’ ? Le mot ‘gouvernement’ suffit, à lui seul, à éveiller la vigilance. Foucault (dec. 1978)
Khomeini is a Gandhi-like figure. William Sullivan (ambassadeur américain à Téhéran)
Khomeini (…) is not a « mad mujahid », but a man of “impeccable integrity and honesty. James Bill (conseiller de Carter, Newsweek, February 12, 1979)
Supposer que l’Ayatollah Khomeiny est un dissimulateur est presque iconcevable. Son style politique est d’exprimer son point de vue réel d’une manière provocante  et sans concession. Peu importe les conséquences. Il a peu d’incitations pour devenir brusquement sournois pour flatter l’opinion publique américaine. Ainsi, le dépeindre comme fanatique, réactionnaire et porteur de préjugés bruts apparait heureusement et certainement faux. Aussi, ce qui est encourageant, c’est que son entourage de proches conseillers est uniformément composé d’individus modérés et progressistes. (…) En dépit de ces turbulences, beaucoup d’Iraniens non religieux parlent de cette période comme l’heure de gloire de l’Islam. Après avoir créé un nouveau modèle de révolution populaire fondée, pour l’essentiel, sur les tactiques nonviolentes, l’Iran pourrait bien finalement nous fournir le modèle de gouvernance humaine dont ont désespérément besoin  les pays du tiers-monde. Richard Falk (universitaire de Princeton et conseiller de Carter, NYT, February 16, 1979)
No less a moralist than UN Ambassador Andy Young has said that Ayatollah Khomeini may be a saint, but sainthood, like everything else, is not what it used to be. In Iran today, burly sinners do the saint’s work which involves many firing squads. George Will (April 1979)
Yes, that does worry me. But my own experience with the press leads me to be very sympathetic and understanding and forgiving of the way people are caricatured by the press. I would be willing to bet that, in another year or so – it probably won’t take that long – Khomeini will be some kind of saint when we finally get over the panic of what is happening there. He is not to be dismissed. I certainly cannot agree with what I hear people say he says. But I don’t agree with what people say I say either. Andrew Young
An eternal written testament to Falk’s sheer, triumphal idiocy — and a harbinger, perhaps, of his moral cretinism as well — was published in the New York Times February 16, 1979. The very title of Falk’s opinion editorial, « Trusting Khomeini, » is pathognomonic of two devastating Western maladies — cultural self-loathing, and jihad denial. Indeed these trends have worsened over the intervening three decades, as the civilizational war waged by Shiite and Sunni jihadists — consistent with Islam’s classical jihad theory — has intensified. Distressingly ignorant appraisals of the contemporary Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood (MB), which have accompanied analyses of the current unrest in Egypt, may represent the apotheosis of these trends. (…) Historian Robert Conquest identified a salient feature of the delusive mindset of apologists for Soviet era Communist totalitarianism shared by today’s useful idiots for totalitarian Islam — willful blindness. Andrew G. Bostom

Does Obama agree with Jimmy Carter that Khomeini & leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood are Ghandi-like figures?

Trouvée sur l’internet cette tonitruante question

A l’heure où, de Gandhi (bisexualité) à Martin Luther King (alcool et petites femmes), nos pauvres saints laïcs du siècle dernier sont soumis à rude épreuve par leurs hagiographes …

Alors qu’emportés par leur soudain enthousiasme pour le prétendu « printemps arabe » qui depuis quelques mois soulève l’ensemble du Monde arabe, nos gouvernants actuels ne semblent pas trop, y compris surmontant sa passivité naturelle le Tergiverseur en chef de la Maison Blanche, hésiter à financer voire à armer le premier jihadiste venu.

Apparemment oublieux de l’incroyable erreur de jugement de leurs prédécesseurs vis à vis notamment de l’Ayatollah Khomeini …

Dépeint justement, on s’en souvient à la veille de la Révolution islamique, comme une sorte de futur « saint » (l’ambassadeur américain à l’ONU Andy Young) ou une sorte de « figure gandhiesque » (ambassadeur américain à Téhéran) …

Was Khomeini Iran’s Gandhi?

Ramin Parsa

12-Dec-2009

This is how Andrew Young, Carter’s US Ambassador to the UN, described Ayatollah Khomeini in 1978, long before the revolution succeeded: « Khomeini will eventually be hailed as a saint. »

And this is the New York Times characterization of Khomeini, a tolerant leader whose “entourage of close advisers is uniformly composed of moderate, progressive individuals.” The editorials went on to say Khomeini would provide “a desperately needed model of humane governance for a third-world country. »

William Sulivan, Carter’s ambassador to Iran, said, “Khomeini is a Ghandi-like figure.”

Carter adviser James Bill, the author of the very baised « Lion and he Eagle, » said that Khomeini is not a « mad mujahid, » but a man of “impeccable integrity and honesty.”

A man of impeccable integrity and honesty? Mullah Khomeini? « Humane? » A « Ghandi-like » figure? A « saint? » « Moderate? » « Progressive? »

Add to this backdrop, the BBC’s daily promotion of their well-groomed mullah. And some people actually think Jimmy Carter merely « abandoned » the Shah. It seems much more likely that he (and the UK) actively promoted and deliberately orchestrated Khomeini’s ascendancy.

 Voir aussi:

The ‘Trusting Khomeini’ Syndrome, Redux?

Andrew G. Bostom

American thinker

February 06, 2011

International Law Professor Richard Falk has become infamous for his calumnies against Israel, based upon deliberately (and transparently) deceitful « investigations. »

An eternal written testament to Falk’s sheer, triumphal idiocy — and a harbinger, perhaps, of his moral cretinism as well — was published in the New York Times February 16, 1979. The very title of Falk’s opinion editorial, « Trusting Khomeini, » is pathognomonic of two devastating Western maladies — cultural self-loathing, and jihad denial. Indeed these trends have worsened over the intervening three decades, as the civilizational war waged by Shiite and Sunni jihadists — consistent with Islam’s classical jihad theory — has intensified.

Distressingly ignorant appraisals of the contemporary Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood (MB), which have accompanied analyses of the current unrest in Egypt, may represent the apotheosis of these trends. (For an accurate appraisal of the Egyptian MB’s current views and goals in its own Arabic words, carefully translated from the original, see this report.

Historian Robert Conquest identified a salient feature of the delusive mindset of apologists for Soviet era Communist totalitarianism shared by today’s useful idiots for totalitarian Islam — willful blindness.

[A] con job needs a con man and a sucker. In their case many suckers even managed not to take in what they saw with their own eyes, or rather somehow to process unpleasantness mentally into something acceptable…Mind-set seems too strong a word: these were minds like jelly, ready for the master’s imprint…[T]his was an intellectual and moral disgrace on a massive scale.

What follows are lengthy extracts from Falk’s February, 1979 New York Times essay. However intellectually deficient Falk and his New York Times editorial page abettors may have been — and remain — it is still worth reflecting upon their clear, and nefarious goal, as elucidated by Protestant theologian and social critic Jacques Ellul.

The goal of modern propaganda is no longer to transform opinion but to arouse an active and mythical belief.

Corrective annotation is provided as embedded links to sources documenting Khomeini’s longstanding, clearly articulated views (as well as the views of what Falk terms his « entourage » of « moderates and progressives »), and what actually befell non-Muslim minorities, and « the Left » under the Shiite theocracy Khomeini re-installed. The best source on the human rights tragedy engendered by Iran’s retrograde 1979 Khomeini « revolution » remains historian Reza Afshari’s seminal 2001 publication, Human Rights in Iran: The Abuse of Cultural Relativism

A compendious online source of refutations to the fatuous claims by Falk was assembled here, entitled, « Promises Before and Results After Khomeini’s Islamists Took Over. » More specific sources are cited within the three notes, below.

###

Richard Falk, professor of international law at Princeton University, recently visited the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in France.

Part of the confusion in America about Iran’s social revolution involves Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. More than any third-world leader, he has been depicted in a manner calculated to frighten.

In recent months, before his triumphant return to Tehran, the Ayatollah gave numerous reassurances to non-Moslem communities in Iran. He told Jewish community leaders that it would be a tragedy if many of the 80,000 Jews left the country. Of course this view is qualified by his hostility to Israel because of its support of the Shah and its failure to resolve the Palestinian question.

AGB: [Note: Shortly after the executions of Jewish community leaders, on manufactured charges of « espionage, » following Khomeini’s ascension to power, in fact 75% of the Jewish community did flee. See here pp. 141-150 and here about these events, the overall plight of Jews and other non-Muslims in Iran, notably, Zoroastrians, Bahai, and Christians, and Khomeini’s apocalyptic, genocidal Islamic views about the Jews of Israel because they did not live as « dhimmis, » subjugated under the Sharia, Islamic Law-sentiments that were independent of the so-called « Palestinians, » or any relationship between the Shah and « Zionists »]

He also indicated that the non-religious left will be free to express its views in an Islamic republic and to participate in political life, provided only that it does not « commit treason against the country » by establishing foreign connections-a lightly-veiled reference to anxiety about Soviet interference.

AGB:[Note: Reza Afshari (p. 22) has summarized what actually transpired: « Politically, the highly repressive character of the regime emerged during the process by which the clerics severely restricted the basic freedoms of political activists. They achieved their goal by forcibly removing all secular, leftist, and liberal political forces and individuals from the wide and unwieldy array of political activities that the revolution had opened up in 1979. » See here and pp. 5,8, 68,87,110,112,123,139-141,144,206 for additional discussion of Iran’s theocratic constitution regarding the rights and status of the « non-religious, » and Sharia based punishments for apostasy, and blasphemy; See here for a brief discussion of Khomeini’s brutal campaign against the left, involving murder, torture, and incarceration.]

To suppose that Ayatollah Khomeini is dissembling seems almost beyond belief. His political style is to express his real views defiantly and without apology, regardless of consequences. He has little incentive suddenly to become devious for the sake of American public opinion. Thus the depiction of him as fanatical, reactionary and the bearer of crude prejudices seems certainly and happily false. What is also encouraging is that his entourage of close advisers is uniformly composed of moderate progressive individuals…[T]hey are widely respected in Iran outside religious circles, share a notable record of concern for human rights and seem eager to achieve economic development that results in a modern society oriented on satisfying the whole population’s basic needs.

AGB [Note: Apparently Falk saw nothing « fanatical, reactionary or (rife with) crude prejudices » in Khomeini’s indeed unapologetic, openly espoused call for open ended offensive jihad genocide (pp. 226-29) to achieve regional, then global Islamic hegemony; his views (pp. 141-50) on Jews and other non-Muslims, including the dehumanizing Shiite concept of najis; and his grotesque misogyny including sanctioning of female child abuse. These views were shared and sanctioned by his « entourage. » Falk’s willful « intellectual and moral disgrace » in Conquest’s apt formulation, apparently included no understanding of the religiously sanctioned practice of taqiyya/ kitman (« ketman » as per Milosz), or « dissembling » to promote Islamic goals.

[Note: The concluding sections of Falk’s essay, below, reach such dizzying heights of willful delusion that no annotated comments are necessary.]

Ayatollah Khomeini said recently, in France, that in any well-governed society « the ruler does not live very differently from the ordinary person. » For him, to be religious is to struggle for these political goals, yet the religious leader’s role is to inspire politics, not to govern. Hence, it is widely expected that he will soon go to the holy city of Qum, at a remove from the daily exercise of power. There he will serve as a guide or, if necessary, as a critic of the republic.

In looking to the future, Ayatollah Khomeini has spoken of his hopes to show the world what a genuine Islamic government can do on behalf of its people. He has made clear frequently that he scorns what he considers to be the so-called Islamic Governments in Saudi Arabia, Libya, and Pakistan.

Despite the turbulence, many non-religious Iranians talk of this period as « Islam’s finest hour. » Having created a new model of popular revolution based, for the most part, on non-violent tactics. Iran may yet provide us with a desperately-needed model of humane governance for a third-world country. If this is true, then indeed the exotic Ayatollah may yet convince the world that « politics is the opiate of the people. »

Voir également:

Young Praises Islam as ‘Vibrant’ And Calls the Ayatollah ‘a Saint’

The New York Times

February 8, 1979

Andrew Young, the chief United States delegate to the United Nations, praised Islam yesterday as « a vibrant cultural force in today’s world » and said that Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Iranian Islamic leader, would eventually be hailed as « a saint. »

Mr. Young, going considerably further than has the Carter Administration, declared that it would be « impossible to have an Islamic fundamentalist state » in Iran  because « too much western idealism has infiltrated that movement ».

Islam is a vibrant cultural force in today’s world and not something that died with the Middle Ages said the delegate in an hourlong meeting with the New York forum, a group of New York City reporters at the City University Graduate Center. He said that Islam had been revitalized with young people with western educations and added I don’t think the Ayatollah realizes the force he is in control of.

Mr. Young has frequently strayed from Administration policy and yesterday he seemed to be assuming that the government of Prime Minister Shahpur Bakhtiar would not survive the challenge by the Ayatollah. On Tuesday, the United States reiterated its support of the Bakhtiar government and of the constitutional process in Iran.

Asked whether he was writing off the Bakhtiar government, Mr. Young backtracked somewhat and said « It would be very good if there were some accomodation with the Bakhtiar government ».

Although he acknowledged that Ayatollah Khomeini had been accused of anti-Christian and anti-Semitic remarks, Mr. Young, who is an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ, predicted that « Khomeini will be somewhat of a saint when we get over the panic ». While anticipating « a rough year ahead » in United States-Iranian relations, the United Nations delegate predicted that « in two years, our relations with Iran will be on a pretty even keel ».

Mr. Young, who sat at the head of a conference table during the interview, appeared to take a harder line than the Administration toward the deposed Shah. While acknowledging that the United States could not « walk away from the Shah », he said that his downfall was not a case of too much technology or too much development, « The problem was basically repressive », he said.

Voir enfin:

Trusting Khomeini

Richard Falk

The New York Times

February 16, 1979

Princeton, New Jersey: Part of the confusion in America about Iran’s social revolution involves Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. More than any third-world leader, he has been depicted in a manner calculated to frighten.

In recent months, before his triumphant return to Tehran, the Ayatollah gave numerous reassurances to non-Moslem communities in Iran. He told Jewish community leaders that it would be a tragedy if many of the 80,000 Jews left the country. Of course this view is qualified by his hostility to Israel because of its support of the Shah and its failure to resolve the Palestinian question.

He also indicated that the non-religious left will be free to express its views in an Islamic republic and to participate in political life, provided only that it does not « commit treason against the country » by establishing foreign connections-a lightly-veiled reference to anxiety about Soviet interference.

To suppose that Ayatollah Khomeini is dissembling seems almost beyond belief. His political style is to express his real views defiantly and without apology, regardless of consequences. He has little incentive suddenly to become devious for the sake of American public opinion. Thus the depiction of him as fanatical, reactionary and the bearer of crude prejudices seems certainly and happily false. What is also encouraging is that his entourage of close advisers is uniformly composed of moderateprogressive individuals.[T]hey are widely respected in Iran outside religious circles, share a notable record of concern for human rights and seem eager to achieve economic development that results in a modern society oriented on satisfying the whole population’s basic needs.

Ayatollah Khomeini said recently, in France, that in any well-governed society « the ruler does not live very differently from the ordinary person. » For him, to be religious is to struggle for these political goals, yet the religious leader’s role is to inspire politics, not to govern. Hence, it is widely expected that he will soon go to the holy city of Qum, at a remove from the daily exercise of power. There he will serve as a guide or, if necessary, as a critic of the republic.

In looking to the future, Ayatollah Khomeini has spoken of his hopes to show the world what a genuine Islamic government can do on behalf of its people. He has made clear frequently that he scorns what he considers to be the so-called Islamic Governments in Saudi Arabia, Libya, and Pakistan.

Despite the turbulence, many non-religious Iranians talk of this period as « Islam’s finest hour. » Having created a new model of popular revolution based, for the most part, on non-violent tactics. Iran may yet provide us with a desperately-needed model of humane governance for a third-world country. If this is true, then indeed the exotic Ayatollah may yet convince the world that « politics is the opiate of the people. »

Richard Falk, professor of international law at Princeton University, recently visited the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in France.

Laisser un commentaire

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:

Logo WordPress.com

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte WordPress.com. Déconnexion / Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Google+

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Google+. Déconnexion / Changer )

Connexion à %s

%d blogueurs aiment cette page :