a threat to the islamic theocracy/ the established islamic state

The mention of this syncretism between islam and ancient religions reinforces the authors emphasis on the need to employ reason and develop virtue.

Reminds me of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who is surprisingly taken as a sort of "spokesperson" for islam despite being an apostate.

again, the author is vague with what he wants to suggest. Should Islam be more progressive? and if so what does progressive islam mean? He however agrees that something should be done, but does not explicitly endorse progressive islam or secularism or democracy as a solution to increased conversion in Iran

Not sure if the author implies that there should be a sort of progressive approach to Islam that acknowledges that blind faith may be hard to achieve in countries like Iran especially in the 21st century.

I agree with this point. There is a struggle to maintain strict adherence to rituals and practices to Islam in a constantly changing Iranian society

Again, this supports his argument of secularization as being inevitable

Author compares narrow-mindedness of older generation to the more liberal rebelling teenagers. Constructs islam as a religion whose practices and traditions have remained static in the years but society is constantly changing.

This supports his argument that mass secularization is inevitable; as long as society continues to change

Here the author agrees that secularization may not work for Iran, since secular Turkey still has a huge conversion toward deism. So the author does not exactly advocate for secularization which makes me wonder even more what is meant by "oppressing people less"

Thinking about our class on Muslim American identities, I wonder if Iranians may adapt a sort of popular religion where they remain Muslim but fail to perform fully the rituals that the Islamic republic requires. In other words, religiosity is hard to measure, and for that reason we could underestimate our measures by relying on testimonies from the few outspoken apostates. In reality we can never know the exact number of people who are disillusioned/ questioning their faith.

Author makes a good point in separating the Islamic republic from Islam itself. The islamic state of Iran claims to represent the will of God by enforcing shariah law, but it is the resultant theocratic regime that is responsible for oppression. Also alludes to the Western construction of Islam as an antithesis to democracy and other Western ideals like feminism and liberalism

Which is why in Azam is of the west when he conflates Islam with the islamic republic.

Suffering in the name of religion could include oppression by fellow Muslims (and not the state authorities) after conversion, which happens even in minority islam countries like Britain. It may be the case that reducing oppression by the government of Iran will only incentivize muslims to take the power into their own hands: especially those who would still support the islamic republic (if any)

To reduce the oppression would mean to reform the Islamic republic as defined post '79 by Khomeini. The author is pretty vague about how exactly this can be achieved, especially without challenging the power of the Iranian government.

And while I agree that secularization in Iran is almost inevitable, we must again acknowledge that democracy and within the islamic republic (more so the amount of control that the Iranian government would want to maintain) is hard to achieve

Data actually shows spikes in conversions of immigrants into US post 1979, to escape the theocratic regime

I'd take this with a grain of salt: there is the possibility of of bias through the fact that these reports are made by christian organizations, who are sometimes only concerned with their proselytization

But it is true that most islam apostates in the US are from Iran and convert to christianity.

Refers to the opposition to the white revolution led by Khomeini which led to the 1979 revolution and establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Khomeini advocated for Islamic faith as the central principle of government, which is what is established post 79.

This reminded me of the definition of islamism as being not necessarily a conservation of the past as it is an attempt to offer interpretation of the past to serve a modern political mission (Kohn & McBride). In this case, it would be to maintain Iran as an oppressive Islamic state.

I though this was a splendid suggestion for the world in establishing freedom of religion in especially religiously diverse communities, but in thinking specifically about Iran, we must think about the specifics of what democracy or freedom means.

This reminds me of identity crisis developing in American muslim teenagers, or even Muslims in other societies when they are unable to combine their identities as Muslims with other identities.

authoritarianism (at the family level) meant to bring about strict religious observance ends up being the reason they become apostates, hence the term self defeating'

Azam takes on the western stance of Islam as being the evil, which attributes the sins of a few to the entire religion.

This book speaks of apostasy as an unthinkable act in Islam, and mentions that it hopes the memoirs will help people come out of the closet.

author uses this book to put across the severity of suffering in the Iranian regime, to the extent that most muslims opt for apostasy and risk even more suffering.

the opposite of oppression is freedom or democracy according to most dictionary definitions and I find it interesting that the author avoids both the words freedom and democracy, and opts for the longer phrase "oppress people less"

This could either be an acknowledgment that the islamic republic as defined by Khomeini as being the very opposite of democracy, hence we really cannot have both the theocratic regime and democracy/freedom at the same time. I also find it interesting that Khomeini did not explicitly refute, but what he defines in the concept of the guardianship of the jurist is definitely not democracy as we know it. If democracy is a rule for the people by the people for the people, then in Iran, it is essentially the will of not the people, but will of God through the jurist who has supreme power to make decisions.

The author could be alluding to the inclusion of shariah law in a way that allows some form of freedom of religion, maybe democracy to prevail; in which case there would have to be no theocratic regime at all.

discovering that the islamic republic is not as beneficial as they thought it would be/ is not what they expected it would be in terms of awarding freedom of religion

This paper defines deism as: 'God is the first reason to create the world. But God does not interfere in the order of the universe, and is not interested in human and history" Hence religion is natural and cannot be enforced by a state as is the case with Islamic republic of Iran.

In contrast, in Iran, the state enforces shariah law, and the citizens follow the state'a law which dictates observance of certain rituals and practices. then, religion in this case is not natural.

**original linked paper was in Turkish translated to English via Google translate