I just received this comment from Jane Hamsher regarding my comment on her article:
jane hamsher Says:
April 15th, 2006 at 11:32 pm e
I didn’t do that. I saw the comment and thought it was funny.
We have comment monitors who get a little aggressive, but they mean well.
Jane, thank you for the note. I am taking down my previous post in light of these developments. Thanks Jane for the incredibly swift intervention.
Did I mention that I have a big crush on Jane Hamsher 😉
Mash’s post has been censored by Mash. 🙂
I am concerned about Deborah Howell. While other bloggers are attacking her for spinning herself into delirium trying to defend The Washington Post Editorial 
Board, I on the other hand can see past the confusion and feel her pain. I have acquired this skill of sniffing out illness from miles away by watching Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. Using Dr. Frist’s scientific technique I am able to deduce that Deborah Howell is insane.
Not possible you say? How can I make such a diagnosis without actually examining the patient you say? Well fear not I give you the following bizarre statements by this clearly disoriented ombudsman as proof of my diagnosis:
So, you see that clearly she is insane. So, Jane Hamsher, stop picking on this woman. She deserves our sympathy not our scorn. It is incumbent upon all of us to protect the most vulnerable of our citizens. Shame Jane, shame on you for subjecting this woman to your acid pen. The damage you do to her in this weakened state may be irreversible.
Next week, I have some free time between lunch and mid-day snack to do a diagnosis of Fred Hiatt. Stay tuned.
Dear Comedy Central,
It is with great concern that I learn of your censorship of the show "South Park". Your refusal to allow "South Park" to broadcast an image of the Prophet Mohammed has caused great harm to the cause of Muslims in the United States and the rest of the world. You have inadvertently strengthened the hand of extremists on both sides of the issue. By your actions you have given further credence to the growing image of Islam as a religion of violence and hate.
While I understand your genuine concern about the safety of your staff in light of the recent hysteria in the Muslim world over the Danish cartoon controversy, your recent censorship of "South Park" over Scientology suggests that you are bowing more to your pocketbook than to your conscience or a desire for security. This censorship is particularly egregious in light of your airing of the offensive scene involving Jesus in the very same episode of "South Park" and your airing of an image of Mohammed on an episode of "South Park" in July 2001.
Your censorship of "South Park" also displays and propagates ignorance of Islam. The Islamic tradition of not portraying human beings, especially the Prophet Mohammed, stems from early Islam’s desire to change the culture of idolatry that was common in Arabia in the seventh century. Islam taught that God is divine and does not have a human image and any comparison of God to humans is considered blasphemous. Islam made the very clear distinction that Mohammed was only a man and a messenger of God, not God himself or a progeny of God. Therefore it was forbidden to worship Mohammed or any other human being as a God amongst men. Muslims should refrain from portraying the Prophet Mohammed if they choose in keeping with the tradition of no idolatry. However, there is no reason "South Park" cannot portray Mohammed if it chooses to do so.
This does not however mean that Muslims do not respect Mohammed and hold him in high esteem – we do. However, we also recognize that Mohammed was a man and thus susceptible to human failings; therefore, we do not worship Mohammed.
The depiction of the Prophet Mohammed in the Danish newspaper was also very different from that attempted by "South Park". The Danish cartoon’s portrayal of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban was an attempt to equate the religion of Islam with terrorism. In light of the recent resurgence of xenophobia in Denmark and the hatemongering of the right wing there, the cartoons had the force of political flame throwing. I was offended by the Danish cartoons for two reasons. First, it was attempting to advance the stereotype of Islam as a terrorist religion by painting all of Islam in the figure of Mohammed as terrorists. Second, it was a deliberate attempt at inciting hatred on both sides by a newspaper whose job should be to report the news and not make it. I was however more offended by the display of hatred and ignorance by some Muslims. The Danish paper got the response it wanted. Extremist Muslims obliged the paper by coming out of the woodwork and behaving exactly as advertised. It was a display of ignorance and hate that must have made the fear mongers on both sides very happy.
However, having the right to be offended should not be translated into forcing one’s offense on to the entire society. If you are offended, watch something else or write a letter. "South Park" has a long history of satire and poking fun at every segment of our society. Though at times offensive, more often it is just really funny. I reserve the right to be offended by "South Park" but I defend more strongly the right of "South Park" to satirize.
I urge Comedy Central to reconsider its decision to censor "South Park". By doing so you cause division in our society and give hate a platform to thrive. Thinking Muslims everywhere should protest this censorship louder than the fanatics who protested the Danish cartoons. It is time for Muslims to truly begin defending our religion against both the enemy within and the enemy without.
I thank Comedy Central for your kind consideration.
Sincerely,
Mashuqur Rahman
Contact Comedy Central to protest the censorship of "South Park".
I hope the title of this article scared you. It should. Knowing that one madman has the power to harness a country’s resources to develop a nuclear bomb and then wipe Israel off the map is a very frightening thought indeed. It is very convenient to have a hard-line figure like Mr. Ahmadinejad to rally against as we gear up for war. But before you run to the store for extra duct tape it might be worth your while, our while, to learn a little bit about where Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fits into the Iranian Government power structure. I know it is easier to pin the tail on one donkey rather than many and project our collective fear, anger and hate like a laser beam onto it’s ass; but, the facts may give you pause and surprise you.
Mr. Ahmadinejad is no doubt the public face of Iran today. But, how powerful is he? How much control does he exert over Iran’s nuclear ambitions? Over Iran’s military or intelligence services? Not much, actually.
Mr. Ahmadinejad is the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran. As such, he is the head of the executive branch. He is also not the commander in chief of the armed forces of Iran. Iran is the only country in the world where the executive branch does not control the armed forces. Iran is a unique flavor of Islamic Theocracy. The highest-ranking official in the Iranian Government is not the President – instead it is the Supreme Leader. According to Iran’s Constitution, the Supreme leader controls the military and the intelligence services, sets domestic and foreign policy, and appoints many officials in the Government. The Supreme Leader alone has the power to declare war. Iran’s nuclear policy is managed by the Supreme National Security Council, which reports directly to the Supreme Leader and is charged with carrying out his policies. The Supreme National Security Council’s members include the President, the speaker of the Parliament, the head of the Judiciary and heads of the armed forces and intelligence services. The President chairs this council and coordinates the Supreme Leader’s policies.
Mr. Ahmadinejad, as the President of Iran, has very limited to non-existent war-making powers. The primary responsibility of Iran’s President is over the country’s economic policies. In most other areas, the President is more of a ceremonial figure rather than one with actual execute authority.
Iran’s Constitution has written into it a complex power structure, and in its unique way contains checks and balances to prevent abuse of power. The Iranian Government is a complex mix of elected officials and appointed officials. The primary elected body is the Assembly of Experts. This body is composed of clerics that are elected by the public. The Assembly of Experts appoints and periodically reconfirms the Supreme Leader. The public also elects the Parliament and the President. Click here for a comprehensive discussion of the structure of the Iranian Government and the relationship between the different bodies of the Government. The figure below depicts the organizational structure of the Iranian Government. Click on the image below for a larger, clearer image.
The Iranian Government is not a monolithic structure. There are conservatives and reformists in the Government. There have been ebbs and flows in the past in the balance between conservatives and reformists. There is likely to be similar political shifts in the future. Iran is not a cult of personality, and certainly not one in the figure of Mr. Ahmadinejad. Mr. Ahmadinejad has significant restraints in his power to control foreign policy. We in the United States have a tendency to reduce countries to personalities. We do this at our own peril. If we are to engage in effective management of crises vis-à-vis our adversaries we must first understand them. We do ourselves an injustice and we miss significant opportunities by dealing with a caricature of a foreign country rather than the country itself.
We cannot hope to deal effectively with the challenges that Iran poses without an understanding of the Iranian Government, its politics and its history. We have failed in this once in Iraq. We cannot afford to make the same mistake with Iran. The costs are likely to be much higher.
[Author’s Note: This article is the first in what I hope will be a series of articles aimed at understanding the nature of the challenge we face from Iran.]
