Dutch Renitent

[Dutch Renitent @DutchRenitent]

@wierdduk Vrouwen zonder hoofddoek Iran die Khomeini steunden in 1979:

[Archaeo - Histories @archeohistories]

The iconic 1979 photograph shows two left-wing Iranian students, identified in historical accounts as Sahar Mohammadi (left) and Maryam Rafiei (right), celebrating the victory of the Islamic Revolution while holding a portrait of Ayatollah Khomeini....

During Iran’s 1979 revolution, women joined millions of Iranians opposing the Shah. But the anger behind the revolution had been building for decades.

In 1953, after Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh nationalized Iran’s oil industry, British intelligence and the CIA helped orchestrate the operation that removed him and strengthened Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The Shah then became one of Washington’s most important Cold War allies in the Middle East.

By 1979, opposition to the Shah united an unlikely coalition of Islamists, liberals, nationalists and leftists. Many also viewed the monarchy as a symbol of decades of American and British interference in Iran. They succeeded in removing the Shah, but their alliance quickly fractured. Ayatollah Khomeini and his supporters consolidated power, and many of the secular and left-wing groups that had participated in the revolution were eventually pushed aside.

Many left-leaning and secular students supported the revolution believing it would bring freedom and modernity, but the new theocratic regime quickly turned on its political allies, executing thousands of dissidents, including Maryam Rafiei.

The political affiliations of the women in this particular photograph are unclear, but the image captures the enormous optimism surrounding a revolution whose outcome many of its participants could not yet foresee. The photograph is often said to show Maryam Rafiei and Sahar Mohammadi. The identities are sometimes debated; history is not always careful with captions; but the symbolism attached to the image has become almost canonical. Two progressive students celebrating the revolution that toppled Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, smiling beneath a portrait of the man whose regime would eventually erase people just like them.

It is the smile that lingers.

In the winter of 1979, Tehran was briefly a city where incompatible dreams shared the same street. Marxists, liberal intellectuals, devout clerics, and student radicals marched together in opposition to the monarchy. For many on the left, the alliance with the Islamic movement was tactical, temporary; a revolutionary convergence that would eventually produce democracy. Instead, it produced the Islamic Republic. The same one that has now killed over 40,000 Iranian protestors this year within just 2 days and the body bags to show for it.

Within two years after the 1979 revolution, the new state had consolidated power under the doctrine of clerical rule. Leftist newspapers were banned, universities purged, political parties dismantled. The revolution began devouring those who had helped create it.

The viral story attached to the photograph says that Maryam Rafiei, was executed (beheaded) roughly a decade later during the 1988 Mass Executions of Iranian Political Prisoners. In that summer alone, thousands of prisoners, many of them secular leftists, were executed after brief interrogations inside Iranian prisons. Human rights groups estimate that between 4,000 and 5,000 people were killed in a matter of weeks.

The another woman Sahar Mohammadi, is often said to have fled Iran and now lives in exile in Sweden.

Whether every detail is perfectly documented matters less than the historical pattern the image evokes. The Iranian revolution did not merely defeat its enemies. It eliminated its allies.

#archaeohistories

[Dutch Renitent @DutchRenitent]

@HenMazzig Listen to @havivrettiggur (and see his comments under tweet). Navi Pillay is gonna help change the definition of genocide. Starting with the Rohingya.

[Haviv Rettig Gur @havivrettiggur]

Why they NEED it to be a genocide.

From a live event at Valley Beth Shalom Synagogue, Encino, California. With Rabbi Nolan Lebovitz and Reverend Drew Sams, Senior Pastor of Bel Air Church.

[Dutch Renitent @DutchRenitent]

@eddy_terstall @HenkBakboord “gehersenspoelde dienaren van de dood” is niet zo specifiek.

[Dutch Renitent @DutchRenitent]

@HenkBakboord @eddy_terstall Waarom islam niet noemen?

[Dutch Renitent @DutchRenitent]

Speciaal voor @bpschut van het @_NIW_ die de Joodse inwoners van Judea en Samaria demoniseert.

[Rɪᴄʜᴀʀᴅ Kᴇᴍᴘ ⋁ @COLRICHARDKEMP]

The truth in Judea & Samaria (AKA the West Bank) is different to what much Western media presents. Yes there is a problem with Israeli civilian violence against Arab settlers here but it is dwarfed by Arab violence against Israelis. The IDF is working to control both sides. I saw that for myself today.

[David Wurmser @Wurmserscribit]

Absolutely.

The most important book on in our times on jihad is Majid Khadduri’s War and Peace in the Law of Islam (1955). The name is typically spelled Khadduri; “Kadouri” is a close variant/transliteration. I had the pleasure of being one of his last students at John’s Hopkins back in the early 1980s.

@Grok describes his work thus:

“Khadduri is an Iraqi-born Muslim scholar of Islamic law and Middle Eastern affairs who reconstructs the classical Islamic legal doctrine of war and peace (siyar, the Muslim law of nations) primarily from juristic sources. Book II of the volume is devoted to “The Law of War: The Jihad.”

Key ideas on jihad
• Meaning of jihad: From the Arabic root meaning “to exert” or “strive.” In the broad sense it is effort in the path of Allah. Jurists distinguished four modes: by the heart (against one’s own evil inclinations—the “greater jihad”), by the tongue, by the hands, and by the sword (military fighting—the “lesser jihad”). Khadduri notes the clear military sense in Medinan Quranic verses and later legal doctrine.
• Instrument of expansion and universalization: In classical doctrine, jihad served as the means to universalize Islam and establish an imperial world state. The Islamic polity was conceived as ever-expanding so that God’s law would become supreme. “The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state.”
• Permanent state of war (not continuous fighting): The world is divided into dar al-Islam (abode of Islam) and dar al-harb (abode of war). Relations are characterized by a permanent (doctrinal) state of war until the former absorbs the latter, though this does not require unbroken military campaigns. Peace arrangements are temporary; the ultimate objective is the extension of Islamic rule. Khadduri summarizes the universalism of Islam as imposing “a continuous process of warfare, psychological and political, if not strictly military.”
• Legal rules and limits: The work details classical rules on the initiation of war (normally by the imam/caliph), types of jihad, military methods, land and maritime warfare, treatment of non-combatants, spoils, termination of fighting, and the status of non-Muslims (dhimmis, harbis, musta’mins). These are presented as part of a developed legal system with constraints, not as unrestricted violence.
• Classical doctrine versus modern conditions: Khadduri analyzes the traditional theory as it stood in the formative period while also noting how modern Muslim states have adapted (or largely set aside) the expansionist aspects in order to participate in the contemporary international system based on the UN Charter and sovereign equality of states. He treats the classical framework as historical legal doctrine rather than as an unchanging contemporary mandate.

In short, the book is a scholarly reconstruction of classical Islamic legal thought on war, peace, and jihad—emphasizing its role in the expansion of the early Muslim polity—while situating it within the broader sources of Islamic law and its later evolution. It remains a standard reference on the classical siyar literature.”

As such, it is pretty clear that Khadduri as one of the most respected scholars of Islamic jurisprudence understood “Jihad” as integrally linked with Islamic expansionism and largely with warfare in the Dar al-Harb. He acknowledges that there is a spiritual definition of Jihad in some traditions, such as Sufism, but the core Medinan Quranic tradition (Sunni and Shiite) is entirely about war to convert the world.

So, when we talk of Salafi and Muslim Brotherhood traditions, and frankly all Sunni tradition that regards the Quran and the Hadiths, which is primarily the Medinan foundation, as literal, uninterpretable, and immutable, Jihad pretty much means the imperative of relentless expansionist war and subversion.

[Martin Bosma @Martinbosma_pvv]

Uitstekende recensie hieronder. Maar het meest verwonderlijke van de hele avond is de totale aanbidding door het publiek. Elke flauwe grap van La Halsema wordt beantwoord door een lachsalvo van de hele zaal. Ze aanbidden haar. En haar teksten inzake Gaza: meteen een daverend applaus. Halsema is de écht de koningin van de linkse grachtengordel.

[Mark Bollobás @bollobas]

Hungary PM Peter Magyar announces that the government will ratify Istanbul, which brings new protections for women, changes the definition for rape to be dangerously broad and requires Hungary to invest in new services. And it opens a backdoor for trans people.

[Hans van Tellingen @hansvantelling]

Overigens, als er iemand (waarschijnlijk) een miljonair is, is het Jesse Klaver wel. Als je jaar in, jaar uit, 1,5 ton per jaar verdient, dan heb je het goed voor elkaar.

Maar als je dit geld hebt verdiend met werken voor de overheid en de inkomsten zijn dus niet onderneming-gerelateerd, dan hoef je er geen extra belasting over te betalen in box 3.

En dat terwijl het inkomen van een parlementslid komt uit de schatkist. En wie voeden deze schatkist? Juist, de ondernemers. Voor de volle 100%. Want ook de belastingen die Klaver afdraagt worden (uiteindelijk) betaald door de ondernemers.

[Dutch Renitent @DutchRenitent]

@Wurmserscribit @NewSamawal And then Damascus/Turkey will be the next challenge.

[Dutch Renitent @DutchRenitent]

@fransweisglas Nee, inhoudelijke en politieke correctie is nodig zegt @DilanYesilgoz Relatietherapeut niet nodig.

[govertvanbrakel @govertvanbrakel]

Dilan Yesilgöz: ‘De eerste keer dat mijn persoonlijke vrijheid en veiligheid bedreigd werd kwam door de achterban van DENK’’. (Tweede Kamerdebat, eind 2023).
Bontenbal verraadde zijn coalitiegenoot voor drie zilverlingen.

https://t.co/IvLhznmb7U

[Bart Nijman @BartNijman]

De Navel van de Wereld

[Marcel Vink @marcelvink888]

De documentaire ‘De burgemeester - Halsema en de hoofdstad’ is een kritiekloos portret waarbij de maker vooral heel erg met de hoofdpersoon meeleeft: „Dat ontroerde jou en mij dan dus ook gelijk.” https://t.co/NhFdK0Aj8i

[Stefan Floor @FloorStefan]

@kuitenbrouwer Juist Janus vissenoog, gewoon luisteren naar Theodoor, die heeft meer verstand in zn kleine teen dan jij in dat Karpatenhoofd.

[Gerard de Boer ⚓ @Gerard1945X]

@geertwilderspvv Het verbond van het CDA met islamo-links.
Bontenbal had samen met links ook al in maart jl. tegen het verbod van de moslimbroederschap gestemd.

[Dutch Renitent @DutchRenitent]

@eddy_terstall Bij die omschrijving kan je de islam natuurlijk niet ongenoemd laten.

[Dutch Renitent @DutchRenitent]

@DalesGeert63675 @SanderSassen @JanStruijs @50pluspartij Waarom zo’n linkse @JanStruijs als nr. 2 binnenhalen?

[Chris is erbij @ChrisIsErbij]

Interessant moment hier: als Halsema in de film de regering van Israël bekritiseert klonk applaus in Carré. Veel lachjes, over taalfouten in een aankondiging, dat een vergadering niet ziet dat Halsema’s haar eraf is, etc.

[Martin Bosma @Martinbosma_pvv]

De regisseuse vertelt dat ze zo blij is dat Halsema ‘onze burgemeester’ is. Ze is diep dankbaar.

Kritische distantie.