Jump to content

Talk:Association of Combatant Clerics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a poor translation of the Persian name. The original word is far from militant.

[edit]

I Agree

[edit]

Someone else created this heading, but I definitely agree. To translate 'mobarez' as Combatant is simply pathetic. Combatant is a militaristic term, usually with negative connotations (you never call your own soldiers 'combatants').

Please fix this or you will make Wikipedia look even more pathetic than it already is.... 06:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.83.206 (talk)

Attention

[edit]

Can we have some more detail - history, analysis of views etc? What we currently have is so thin as to be transparent! Brookie 08:05, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Reformist????

[edit]

Many radicals later became reformists after they were purged from parliament and other posts. But the Association of Combatant Clerics was NOT reformist, it was radical populist.

A book that goes into some detail on the post Khomeini period of Iranain politics is Reinventing Khomeini : The Struggle for Reform in Iran, by Daniel Brumberg, University of Chicago Press, 2001

It has this to say: "The radicals possessed many institutional assets, such as Majles deputies, control of powerful organizations such as the Bonyad-e Shahid, and a dominant role in the Student's Following the Line of the Imam.... Seeking to coordinate their actions, in fall 1989 several radical clerics founded the Association of Combatant Clerics of Tehran.... [which] was headed by Speaker Karrubi, who also chaired the Martyr's Foundation." Their main opponent was the conservative Combatant Clergy Association. (p.162)

I have deleted "reformist" from the lead and added "populist radical". --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Association of Combatant Clerics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Association of Combatant Clerics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Association of Combatant Clerics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Left-wing"

[edit]

The source stating that the group is "left-wing" provides its own definition of what is left and what is right, within the Iranian political context. This does not mean partes labeled with one of these terms would qualify as such outside of Iranian politics. The author of "Political Party in Islamic Republic of Iran: A Review" has divided Iranian parties into two main camps, using generic termology, but never claiming that, for instance, the Iranian "left" and "right" correspond to what Western scholars describe them as. A theocratic, deeply conservatve, and, as the article itself states, pro-free-market, party is by no means a left-wing one – I suggest whoever insists on keeping the label, reads Wikipedia's own article on Left-wing politics.

The label left-wing would put this party to the "left" of mainstream European social democrats, and in the same category as Venezuela's Chavistas, Germany's Die Linke and Greece's Syriza, which would obviously be absurd, and would confuse, even mislead, any reader with even the slightest grasp of party politics. I insist we leave the field empty, as Iranian parties – considering they operate in an ultra-conservative, semi-theocratic state – generally cannot be labeled with Western terms such as "left" and "right". — Μαρκος Δ 14:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you to take a look at the scholarly literature about Iranian politics, published by the western sources, that do lable this party as "left", just like they do for Venezuela's Chavistas. Your claim is merely original research. The party has never been "pro-free-market", although it has gradually moved more towards right over the last two decades. Pahlevun (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Revert one more time before consensus is reached, and you'll find yourself reported for edit warring. It was your own source that listed the Iranian "left" in general, and this party in particular, as "pro-free-market". Maybe read your own source again? That said, please provide more sources calling this party left-wing here on the talk page. — Μαρκος Δ 16:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You not only did not provide even one single source to prove your point, but you did not hesitate to take a look at these new sources:
  • Islam in the World Today: A Handbook of Politics, Religion, Culture, and Society, Cornell University Press, 2010, ISBN 9780801464898, Left-wing Islamists can be separated into three groups that cooperate with one another, the most important being the aforementioned MRM.... Initially left-wing Islamists pursued a strict policy of economic austerity. They subjected the economy to rigorous state controls... {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)
  • Golkar, Saeid (2015). Captive Society: The Basij Militia and Social Control in Iran. Washington D.C.: Columbia University Press. p. 15. after a split in the Militant Clergy Association [Jame'e-e Rohaniat-e Mobarez], Rahmani joined the left-wing party known as the Assembly of Militant Clerics, or Majma'-e Rohaniun-e Mobarez.
  • Rahnema, Ali (February 20, 2013) [December 15, 2008]. "JAMʿIYAT-E MOʾTALEFA-YE ESLĀMI ii. Jamʿiyat-e Moʾtalefa and the Islamic Revolution". Encyclopædia Iranica. Fasc. 5. Vol. XIV. New York City: Bibliotheca Persica Press. pp. 483–500. Retrieved March 15, 2016. ...Society of Tehran's Militant Clergy, became largely overshadowed by the left-leaning clerical faction of Society of Tehran's Militant Clerics (Majmaʿ-e ruhāniun-e mobārez-e Tehran).
  • Yadullah Shahibzadeh (2016). Islamism and Post-Islamism in Iran: An Intellectual History. Springer. p. 94. ISBN 9781137578259. With Khomeini's backing, the leftist faction within the Society of Militant Clergy (Jameeh-ye Rouhaniyat-e Mobarez) left the organization and established the Association of Militant Clerics (Majma-e Rouhaniun-e Mobarez).

—Pahlevun (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The point you are clearly not willing to understand, is that none of these sources describe the party as left-wing in the traditional sense, but the relative left-wing of the Islamist movement in Iran. None of whose elements can be described as leftist in the European sense. Read my first post here again with this in mind, and try to understand the point. The party is described as anti-liberal, anti-secular and it is anti-socialist, despite some formerly clear dirigist leanings. It is therefore not left-wing in the general political sense, but merely the "radical" wing of an otherwise overwhelmingly reactionary party-political landscape. A good example of something similar would be cases in which different branches of the same party or movement are labeled with "left" and "right", referring to their relative position – take the Leftist Socialist Party of Japan v. the Rightist Socialist Party of Japan. Yes, one of them is referred to as "rightist" in a relative sense, but that does make it a right-wing party. The same goes for Norwegian "venstresosialister" and "høyresosialister", as well as for left-wing and right-wing sections of the Islamist movement. Said movement is overall a rightist movement, and even its most left-wing elements relatively speaking, are not left-wing in the sense that they are classic republican/liberal/socialist. The label "left-wing" here on Wikipedia is reserved for that type of parties, not this one. While you have indeed come up with an impressive amount of sources, none of them describe the party's political position relative to other countries, or to leftist parties in other countries. This party would be considered far-right by any Western standard, and should not be grouped together with left-social democrats and neo-communists.
If you want to place some of the party's specific policies in the article, then great; that would give a clearer image of the party's factual profile. Simply calling it "left-wing", which it clearly is not (by European standards, which are, after all, the standard for Wikipedia, considering the European origins of "leftism" and "rightism"), is misleading. — Μαρκος Δ 17:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nice lecture, Professor. Can you provide a source that says this party is "far-right" as you said? Pahlevun (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I somehow need to prove to you that advocating conservative theocracy is incompatible with leftism, then perhaps you should indeed attend some lectures, or in some other way at least try to gain basic understanding of political terminology before attempting to contribute here. That being said, I would advise you to refrain from name-calling and personal attacks; I'm sure you're aware of Wikipedia policy on this matter. I would never have thought I would have to source information as basic as this, but if you insist, here and here you go. — Μαρκος Δ 18:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One of your sources is a self-published source printed by Lulu.com (clearly unreliable) and the other one, which is not scholarly, does not say that the party is "far-right". Pahlevun (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The party has been described as left-wing within the Iranian political context. Does this sound good to you in the lead? Pahlevun (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's redundant; the lead already describes it as a reformist group, which is the term commonly used to indicate centrism and "leftism" when speaking of Iranian parties. If you insist on elaborating on its ideology, just emphasize its reformism more clearly in the lead. "Left-wing" does not belong here at all, though I'm glad it seems to have dawned on you that "leftism" in one country does not imply factual overlap with the internationally accepted tenets of leftism. — Μαρκος Δ 19:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that you maintain a Eurocentric perspective that causes systemic bias, so rather than being persuaded, I'm trying to resolve the issue. Generally-speaking, not all reformists are considered left or centrist. Some even self-identify as rights, like Kargozaran. Pahlevun (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. The terms left and right as used in politics are of French origin, and on English-language Wikipedia there are clear definitions of these terms, with roots in their French bases. This article, and English-language Wikipedia as a whole, is not a place for Iranian interpretation or twists of these terms. — Μαρκος Δ 19:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Association_of_Combatant_Clerics&oldid=1205429097"