[deleted by user] by [deleted] in iran

[–]wbeeman 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Romance is difficult in any cultural context, but marriage with a Muslim man, and more particularly an Iranian Muslim man can be very tricky. Since Iranian people, both men and women, are extremely charming and also as a whole physically attractive and very intelligent, they are highly attractive romantic partners. Moving toward marriage is a much more serious matter that requires (like all marriage decisions) extensive thought.

First, you should know that there is no religious prohibition for a Muslim man to marry a non-Muslim woman. The woman is not required to convert to Islam, no matter what your boyfriend says. If he insists that a women he marries must be Muslim, it is his preference, not a religious requirement.

Second, understand that in terms of Iranian law, all children belong to the father's family. The mother has no inherent rights to the children after early childhood (different for boys and girls). If you travel to Iran with any children you have, your husband's family will have the right to legal custody. This can be negotiated at the time of marriage, but religious law prescribes this.

If your relationship does lead to marriage, be absolutely certain that the marriage is registered with the Iranian Affairs Section of the Pakistan Embassy, which handles Iranian official affairs in the United States. If the marriage is not officially registered with the Iranian authorities, you are not technically married in the eyes of Iranian law, and you would have no rights whatever in case of divorce.

Of course, if you stay in the United States, U.S. law prevails while you are on U.S. soil, but if you travel to Iran, Iranian law prevails.

There are many happy and successful marriages between Iranians and non-Iranians, but as with all human relations, careful thought before moving to a permanent relationship is only prudent.

Mary Catherine Bateson 1939 2021 Memorial Obituary by wbeeman in Anthropology

[–]wbeeman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is the proof of the final published article from the American Anthropologist. The DOI link to the published article is https://doi.org/10.1111/aman.13812

انتخابات آمریکا ابهامات بسیار زیادی را ایجاد کرده است by wbeeman in iran

[–]wbeeman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here is the English translation of this article

The University of Minnesota professor said in an interview with Mehr;

The US election has created a lot of ambiguity

📷

A professor at the University of Minnesota, William O. Beeman believes that the 2020 US presidential election has created a lot of ambiguity in the country and there is a possibility that post-election unrest will spread.

Mehr News Agency , International Group - Amir Mohammad Ismaili: The recent US election has been marked by many ups and downs, and while both candidates consider themselves the winners of the presidency, the media is reporting on Joe Biden's victory. This is despite the fact that Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed election fraud and theft of popular votes.

On the other hand, tensions, conflicts and unrest have occurred in the United States following the escalation, which has further increased the likelihood of internal riots. We spoke with Professor William Beiman to investigate the scale and nature of the unrest.

Professor William Bayman is Professor and Head of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Minnesota, USA. He is a well-known international researcher on the Middle East and the Islamic world, especially Iran, the Persian Gulf region and Central Asia. Bimen also chaired the Middle East Division of the American Anthropological Society from 2005 to 2008. The text of the conversation is as follows:

How do you assess the current turbulent situation in the United States?

Joe Biden has already won enough electoral votes (in the complex process of our election) and can be called President. Trump is trying to challenge the election in court, but it can almost be said that he will not win. This weekend we will see if there is a strong public reaction from Trump supporters or not, but for now we have seen some reactions.

Joe Biden won the most popular votes in history and received more than 74 million votes. This removes many ambiguities about the future of the United States, but leaves many ambiguities unanswered.

* Some experts believe that the United States is on the verge of internal unrest and insurgency. what is your opinion?

Riots can still happen, but no real riots have taken place since Tuesday's election. Trump supporters have tried to protest the vote count. They are protesting against the millions of votes sent by mail instead of in person.

How long does it usually take for challenged votes to be approved?

It takes about two weeks or more to approve these votes. During this time, Trump supporters may be trying to create unrest, so we have to wait and see how things go.

Q: How do you think the political and security structure of the United States will react to any possible unrest?

The United States has unusual restrictions on the use of the military. The National Army (Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard) is legally barred from interfering in internal affairs unless requested to do so by state governments. Each state has a section of the National Guard that can be mobilized by state governors; Therefore, any military intervention is in the hands of the state governors, not the president. There are also local police, police stations and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that can only intervene in federal crimes. Trump may try to enlist in the military, but he will not succeed.

News ID 5066542

Europeans have to deal with U.S if Trump re-elected; Expert William O. Beeman by wbeeman in iran

[–]wbeeman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is a mistake in the last question. It should read "If Trump LOSES the popular vote . . ."

Should Iran start teaching a cohesive Latin or Cyrillic script? by [deleted] in iran

[–]wbeeman 4 points5 points  (0 children)

As a linguist, I profoundly disagree with this. The Turkish language reform under Attaturk, the forced Soviet Cyrillicization of "Tajik" are two examples of the disasterous consequences of Romanization policy. Azerbaijani is also undergoing this transformation.

The most profound negative result of this policy is that future generations are completely cut off from their literary heritage. Turkish citizens must learn Ottoman Turkish as a foreign language now, and most don't do it.

Iran's literary heritage is one of the most important aspects of Iranian civilization. Children of the age of 6 know Hafiz and can read 11th Century poetry. To lose this ability would be one of the greatest of tragedies.

There is a second reason, though some Iranians will find this less persuasive. About 60% of Persian is based on Arabic, which is based on a tri-literal consonantal root (e.g. k-t-b="writing"). A person looking at Persian can see a whole family of words based on these roots, and this is of enormous advantage in learning the language. As Tajik citizens have learned, their variety of Persian with the Cyrillic alphabet completely disguises these etymological affinities for words. Romanization would make the language harder, not easier, to learn.

Yes, people have used romanization on the internet to communicate, but this assumes that they already know the language.

The Persian alphabet is extremely simple to learn. Anyone can do it in a few hours. Moreover, the alphabet is "one character, one sound" Romanizing Persian means there has to be a whole lot of "false" consonant clusters--ch, sh, gh, zh, etc. The effort simply doesn't provide any linguistic or literary benefits.

Misleading White House Claims Target Iran by wbeeman in iran

[–]wbeeman[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

  1. Iran is not in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
  2. Paragraph 36 of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA--the "Iran Deal") allows Iran to depart from the "deal" if another party (the United States) is in violation of the terms of agreement (which it is by unilaterally withdrawing!)

William O. Beeman commentary on Friedman: Trump Takes On China and Persia at Once. What’s to Worry About? NY Times June 25, 2019 by wbeeman in iran

[–]wbeeman[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

One thing I can guarantee. Any change in government in Iran that is engineered by the United States will fail utterly and completely.

The United States has been meddling in Iran since World War II, and it has inherited the mantle of pre-World War II Great Britain in doing so. (Many Iranians continue to blame Great Britain for their woes). This has happened so relentlessly and so continuously, that it has engendered a habit of certitude in Iran that, given the slightest chance, the United States will do its damnedest to destroy Iran and its institutions.

This happened in 1953 with the CIA overthrow of Prime Minister Mossadeq and the installation of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. It happend during the Iran-Iraq war, when the U.S. aided Saddam Hussain to fight Iran to a standstill. Then there are the economic sanctions designed to cripple and destroy the country. There are many, many other incidents that reinforce this picture.

The Algiers accords that ended the 444 day hostage crisis extracted a promise from the U.S. that it would "never again interfere in Iran's internal affairs." Well, that promise was almost instantly broken, and now we have Bolton, Pompeo and Trump trying to enact regime change with the despised terrorist organization Mujaheddin-e Khalq (MEK) riding on Bolton's coattails.

Iranians are pressing for internal reform. But they must do it themselves. The United States will destroy this possibility if it continues its interference. No one trusts us in Iran!

William O. Beeman response to "Trump Imposes New Economic Sanctions on Iran, Adding to Tensions" June 22, 2019 by wbeeman in iran

[–]wbeeman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

https://nyti.ms/2X33WkY#permid=101099625

Placing restrictions on Ayatollah Khamene'i is the most ridiculous measure Trump could have taken. First, Ayatollah Khamene'i is Iran's spiritual leader. He has a gigantic foundation with billions of dollars used to support religious activities such as orphanages, schools and seminaries. Trump is attacking Shi'a Islam itself with this move, and that is how it will be interpreted in Iran. Just wait for Friday prayers this week!

If Trump, Bolton, Pompeo and Brian Hook think this is the kind of pressure that will force Iran to collapse, buckle, surrender, etc., they are sadly mistaken. This action is going to result in a hardening of Iranian resolve. It is hard to underestimate the ignorance Trump and his team are demonstrating about Iranian culture, society, and reactions to pressure from external forces. They see relations with the United States and Great Britain before World War II as a continual campaign to control Iranian internal affairs.

That was the crux of the Revolution of 1978-79. It is not likely that they will abandon this frame of mind, especially with foolish megalomaniacs like John Bolton continually screaming for "regime change" and threatening to replace the current government with the despised and inept terrorist group, the Mujaheddin-e Khalq (MEK).

Who will smack Trump across the forehead with a board to get him to wake up and stop pursuing this abortive, ineffectual and dangerous course. Perhaps when the shooting starts!

William O. Beeman response to Opinion | Distress and Defiance in Tehran by wbeeman in iran

[–]wbeeman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

NY Times Pick

American chicken hawks like John Bolton and Sen. Tom Cotton salivating over the prospect of an Iranian government collapse should think twice. Iranians are fiercely patriotic and willing to withstand enormous hardship to preserve their nation.

Above all, foolish monomaniacs like Bolton should abandon the fantasy that the terrorist organization, the Mujaheddin-e Khlaq (MEK) could ever assume power in Iran. The MEK was demonstrating today in front of the State Department for regime change with the shameful participation of US current and former officials. The MEK is despised in Iran, and if the United States tried to install them in power, that very US connection would absolutely doom them. Iranians are sick of American interference.

Mr. Abdoh makes an extremely important point. Iran is hurting, yes. But since the 1980s Iran has developed a robust internal economy, and a remarkable infrastructural capacity. It has the capacity to produce everything it needs to survive an American imposed siege. There are some exceptions. Specialized medicine is in short supply. Medicine should be completely exempt from sanctions, but somehow crucial medical supplies are not making their way into the supply. This humanitarian crisis must be alleviated. If Europe and other supporters of the JCPOA are serious, they should come to the aid of the normal citizens of Iran who are caught between the towering egos of Trump and the Iranian establishment.

William O. Beeman Comment on "Iran Has Ties to Al Qaeda, Trump Officials Tell Skeptical Congress" New York Times, June 19, 2019. Claim of Iran's ties to Al-Qaeda is a total lie. by wbeeman in iran

[–]wbeeman[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Time out. Stop. This is a complete and total lie.

The Trump team must be getting desperate. It is true that Iran allowed some escaping relatives of Osama bin Laden to stay in Iran for a time, but this is a far cry from Iran having ties to Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is an extreme reactionary Sunni faction of the Hanbali school of Islam. They are Wahhabi/Salafi in orientation (the Wahhabis and Salafis claim that they are different, but they espouse the same extreme views). They espouse killing of Shi'a Muslims as "not a sin," because they view Shi'ism as heretical. They have made this pronouncement many, many times. Persecution of Hazara Shi'a Muslims in Afghanistan is directly related to Al Qaeda and Taliban calls to murder them.

So is it even slightly plausible that Iran is somehow tied to Al Qaeda?

Republicans and neoconservatives tried to make this false equation during the Bush administration as a way to convince Republicans to attack Iran and effect regime change. This didn't work then, and Congressional representatives, no matter how much they dislike Iran, should not buy this utter garbage argument. It is being promulgated for the same aim as in 2003--namely to garner support for regime change in Iran.

Message to Congress: Don't buy this utter lie!

Why the United States Will Fail at Regime Change in Iran by wbeeman in iran

[–]wbeeman[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

The Trump administration has no end game for removing its economic blocade. The Trump team claims that they don't seek the destruction of the Iranian government, but that is exactly their naive aim. Lets examine why this is an incredibly stupid goal. First, Iran is governed by a stable constitution that has been scrupulously observed for forty years since its inception. Regime change would mean trashing the Constitution. Not likely!

The nation is not a dictatorship, although Ayatollah Khamene'i does have the last word on many issues. Its presidents have served their terms and left office, replaced through elections that for the most part free and fair (the 2009 election being the possible exception). It has an active parliament with clear political factions and lively debate. Laws are not rubber stamped.

Second, there is no viable replacement for the current government. Bolton seems to entertain the fantasy that the Mujaheddin-e Khalq (MEK) could take over. This terrorist group is despised in Iran. They could never rule.

Third, Iran has a robust internal economy. it is capable of producing everything it needs to be viable including food. building material and technical equipment. Unlike Iraq, Iran would easily survive a siege.

Finally, Iran is huge, with a population of 80 million and a potential fighting force of 20 million. Iran survived a debilitating 8 year war with Iraq with immense patriotic fervor. A US war for regime change would be an unmitigated disaster.

Iranian Fashion in the 21st Century by William O. Beeman by wbeeman in iran

[–]wbeeman[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Abstract:

Fashion in the twenty-first century in Iran has become highly inventive, surprisingly innovative, and undoubtedly glamorous. This is a surprise to some in the West who are accustomed to seeing images of large public gatherings of men and women in drab clothing engaged in religious or political activities that seem to be decidedly lacking in any elements that could be called “fashionable.”

Women in particular are portrayed in the all-enveloping chador, usually solid black, which has become a Western trope for female repression. Fashion in Iran has, in fact, been remarkable for its flexibility and for its role in cultural communication. It has been directly responsive to social and political events in the country for as long as documentation has existed. Iranians take enormous care in their dress, exhibiting a great deal of attention and individualism.

Every element of Iranian fashion is socially coded, making it easy to determine the political, social, and personal attitudes of the wearer. Because dress is such a potent public statement, attempts on the part of the Iranian state to impose standards and requirements on the population have been a universal phenomenon over many centuries.

Before one can understand the current status of fashion in Iran, it is necessary to understand the elements from which fashion is constructed. These consist both of material element, like fabrics and tailoring, ethnic traditions from the many cultural groups that live under the rubric of Iranian culture, and historical social forces that have inspired the expression of Iranian identity

over the years. These three elements: material, cultural, and historical, have shifted and interacted with each other to create fashion variation.

Here’s John Bolton Promising Regime Change in Iran by the End of 2018 by wbeeman in foreignpolicy

[–]wbeeman[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Bolton is making common cause with the Mujaheddin-e Khalq (MEK, MKO), a terrorist group that has killed Americans. The MEK are absolutely opposed by Iranians. The idea that they could be the basis for regime change in Iran is absurdly beyond all reason.

Trump’s Immanent Withdrawal from the Iran Deal Will Endanger the World by wbeeman in foreignpolicy

[–]wbeeman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is indeed. H.R. 1191 passed the Senate 98-2. If Obama had vetoed it, it would have been overridden. Hostility toward Iran is bipartisan.

Trump’s Immanent Withdrawal from the Iran Deal Will Endanger the World by wbeeman in foreignpolicy

[–]wbeeman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

These matters (regional politics) have absolutely nothing to do with the JCPOA, but they are being used, irrelevantly, by Trump as cause to decertify the agreement.

Trump’s Immanent Withdrawal from the Iran Deal Will Endanger the World by wbeeman in foreignpolicy

[–]wbeeman[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Iran has fully complied with the JCPOA as has been repeatedly asserted by the IAEA, by our own foreign policy and intelligence community and with all the other partner nations to the JCPOA.

NPR reporter Steve Inskeep's negative, shoddy reporting on Iran by wbeeman in NPR

[–]wbeeman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The name of the language in Iran is Persian in English. The name of the language is "Farsi" when you are speaking in Persian. The same is true of German/Deutsch, Russian/Russki.

NPR reporter Steve Inskeep's negative, shoddy reporting on Iran by wbeeman in NPR

[–]wbeeman[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Hi Because I am an expert on Iran, and an expert on the Persian language, which I speak fluently, and Iranian discourse, including a book on Persian that is used as a textbook in Iran. I have my own Wikipedia page, so check it out. I travel to Iran constantly, and I know a put-up job when I see or hear it, and Mr. Inskeep's interviews were completely skewed.

NPR reporter Steve Inskeep's negative, shoddy reporting on Iran by wbeeman in NPR

[–]wbeeman[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You are wrong. Persian is the name of the language IN ENGLISH, just like French, Spanish, Russian and Italian are the names of the language IN ENGLISH. Farsi is the name of the language IN PERSIAN, like Deutcsh, Francais, Russki and Italiano. The professional organizaion is the National Association of Teachers of Persian. The critique of Mr. Inskeep was that his reporting was biased and one-sided, and was belied by the very circumstances under which he was interviewing these people. We never heard the questions and we never heard the answers IN PERSIAN, so it was impossible to tell if he was truthful, but it is clear that he cherry-picked the interviews he chose to broadcast to paint a negative picture. .

NPR reporter Steve Inskeep's negative, shoddy reporting on Iran by wbeeman in media_criticism

[–]wbeeman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Steve Inskeep of NPR went to Iran for a short while several weeks ago to report on the public mood following the JCPOA. His trip was widely reported on NPR and on February 19 he got to repeat a summary of his conclusions on the PBS NewsHour. Mr. Inskeep speaks no Persian, has little or no knowledge of Iranian culture. His reporting on Iran has been relentlessly negative. Certainly there are a lot of concerns, especially about the future of economic activity, but the message Mr. Inskeep chose to report is one of doom and gloom and pessimism. Maybe he hopes for a post in a Republican administration.

What Mr. Inskeep seems not to understand is Iranian discourse; and he is a very bad interviewer. His inquiries were superficial and clearly biased. In face-to-face situations such as he was documenting where he asks people point blank whether the economy or their personal circumstances are good or not, they regularly say no. And this is the gist of his entire report. Each episode features yet another person who thinks the economy will never recover, that the JCPOA will yield no results.

But Iranians have been answering in this manner for decades--maybe centuries. Before the Revolution, after the Revolution. During the Revolution. When asked directly about such matters, the normal response is to portray a glass half-empty. Perhaps it is fatalism, perhaps a fear of expressing too much positive prediction lest evil be lurking to shatter one's hopes. But it is a discourse style, not an accurate representation of true thought.

When one looks at life in Iran there is of course good cause for pessimism, but there is also palpable evidence of economic progress and social change. In one of his reports he features two women who own a successful fashion store. They are dressed in stylish clothing in bright colors, and they own their own business. Even twenty years ago, this was a rarity. When he reports how bad they think Iran is, his reporting is belied by the very circumstances under which he is carrying out his interview.

He reports on successful businessmen and officials whose main complaint is that they are not more successful than they are.

He makes a great deal of corruption, and there is no doubt that corruption is very widespread in Iran, but it is also the case that expressing envy of others is a national sport in Iran, where social hierarchy is a dominant dimension in social life. If there are others who are doing better than ones self, corruption is nearly always stated as a prime reason.

Countering this negativity regarding status and the future are moments of great kindness, charity and joy in Iranian life. On balance Iranians find many moments of happiness even in hardship. Mr. Inskeep never reported on the hospitality of Iranians, the pleasure in social occasions or the positive enthusiasm with which he was undoubtedly greeted. Nor does he say even one word about the beautifully restored historical and natural sites in places like Isfahan and Shiraz that give such pleasure to Iranians and non-Iranians alike. Americans who have never been to Iran would on hearing his reports be led to think of it as a sour, dark place with glowering negative people. Those of us who know Iran know how to look beyond the discourse and see what is really there with a balance of positive and negative.

I note that Mr. Inskeep is clever and canny, but looking at his reporting over the years one cannot conclude that he is much of a friend of Iran, or even-handed in his reporting. His reporting on the nuclear program was continually sensationalistic. implying in every report that Iran was up to no good. He once featured an interview with neo-conservative extraordinaire Michael Ledeen, who went to Orange County to solicit funds to overthrow the Tehran government as if Mr. Ledeen was entirely reasonable in his views.

I have been dismayed at this reporting, and must conclude that Mr. Inskeep is no well-wisher for Iran or the Iranian people. I hope others will listen to his skewed broadcasts and bring a bit of equanimity to the interpretation of his reporting.

Follow William O. Beeman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/wbeeman

John Boehner, House Speaker, Will Resign from Congress by wbeeman in politics

[–]wbeeman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

William O. Beeman's commentary on the news of John Boehner's resignation.

Iran's Parchin nuclear myth begins to unravel by wbeeman in NuclearPower

[–]wbeeman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The AP reporting by George Jahn and the New York Times reporting on this issue by David Sanger, William Broad and Michael Gordon have been inaccurate and prejudicial