Gouya Roshan From Darkness to Light

 The Struggle for Power at the Cost of Human Lives A small group of people within a society may, based on their own beliefs and interpretations, decide to oppose the government. They may advance various demands: from the defense of language and culture to freedom, religion, justice, independence, or the rights of the people. But a fundamental question arises: Why should the beliefs of a small number of people become a problem for which millions of others must pay the price? No government abandons its political system and governing structure merely because a group of people holds different views. In no society does the mere demand of a particular group legitimize fundamental changes to the political system. If every group that succeeds in gaining a certain number of followers considers itself representative of the people and, in pursuit of its objectives, draws society into confrontation, violence, and instability, the result will be nothing more than the transfer of the costs of a ...

: Iran’s Victory: When Political Objectives Define the Outcome The speech delivered by President Dr. Masoud Pezeshkian was undoubtedly one of the most remarkable, sincere, and compelling speeches in history. During the months of direct and intense confrontation between Iran, the United States, and the Zionist regime, he addressed the world. However, the central message of his speech was clear and unequivocal: Iran will not surrender, and its destiny will not be determined by external threats or coercion. He spoke with remarkable precision about the “victory of Iran” and explained that victory in war “does not mean possessing more weapons or inflicting greater damage on one side. What matters is the objectives of both sides in this confrontation and the extent to which those objectives have been achieved.” It should be noted that the United States abused its military superiority to inflict damage on Iran. However, military superiority does not necessarily translate into political victor...

A Path Within Throughout life, human beings are constantly searching for something beyond themselves; sometimes for success, sometimes for love, sometimes for meaning, and sometimes for a sense of peace that they imagine is hidden somewhere far away from them. Yet the more they run toward the outside world, the more exhausted and lost they may feel. Modern life, with its speed, noise, and pressures, has drawn human beings outward. Their attention is increasingly focused on the external world: on the judgments of others, on comparisons, and on what they possess and what they lack. In the process, people gradually distance themselves from who they are; from the silence within, from the voice of the heart, and from the questions that, if truly heard, could alter the course of their lives. A path within is, in essence, a return to oneself. It is a return to a place where a person can exist without roles or masks; a place where there is no need to prove oneself or compete with others. Withi...

Morality Is the Interpreter of Reason “Ethics is the interpreter of reason. A person is as intelligent as their manners, as honorable as their reason, and as valuable as their reputation.” People commonly measure intelligence by the amount of knowledge one possesses, academic qualifications, wealth, or professional success. But are these criteria sufficient to determine a person’s true worth? History has demonstrated that the answer is no. Many individuals have possessed exceptional intelligence, yet have used that intelligence in the pursuit of deception, war, oppression, and injustice toward others. Therefore, intelligence alone is neither a virtue nor a source of genuine honor. Reason gives human beings the capacity to think and make decisions, but it is ethics that gives reason meaning and direction. Reason can discover thousands of ways to achieve a particular objective, but ethics determines whether that objective and the means used to achieve it are worthy of a human being. Hon...

When the Crimes in Gaza Become Normalized in Muslim Countries For seventy-five years, Muslim countries have repeatedly discussed the issue of Palestinian rights, issued resolutions, condemned violations, and made promises. Yet occupation, displacement, mass killings, and violations of Palestinian rights have continued unabated on the ground. The problem is no longer the absence of discussion; rather, it is the question of what has actually changed in these statements over the past seventy-five years. Therefore, the true face of Muslim countries today no longer requires political or academic terminology, nor hypocritical rhetoric, to be revealed. Their shameful silence regarding the genocide of Palestinians is the clearest evidence of their position and deserves criticism and condemnation. Despite horrific massacres, the destruction of homes and hospitals, widespread famine, and mass displacement, this situation has continued for decades before the eyes of Muslim countries. It is as tho...

Erdoğan’s Islamist Rhetoric Contradicts His Policies For years, the regime of the Justice and Development Party (AKP), led by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, has sought to portray itself as a defender of the Islamic world. In numerous speeches, Erdoğan has expressed solidarity with Palestine and the Gaza Strip, voiced support for the rights of Muslims, and presented Turkey as an independent and influential power in the Islamic world. However, “the Turkish government has never taken concrete steps regarding Palestine.” Yet politics cannot be judged solely on the basis of rhetoric; the true political dimension of a government’s decisions becomes apparent when its political and economic interests conflict with its declared intentions. Against this background, the current position of the Turkish government toward Iran raises serious questions about this contradiction. On the one hand, the Turkish government publicly expresses solidarity with Muslims throughout the Islamic world; on the other, it ma...

The State Treasury Is Not the Exclusive Property of Presidents There is a common misconception about politicians around the world: the assumption that they own all the money held in the public treasury and can spend it however they wish. Yet this money comes from the pockets of citizens—from the taxes they pay today to secure a better future for themselves and their children. Therefore, a simple question arises: Do politicians have the right to decide, without consulting the people, how the money that determines their future should be spent? If a government wants to assist another country, it can at least provide a loan. Why should it donate the entire national budget? Is the public treasury the private property of the government, the prime minister, and the president? Of course not. The national budget is not the private property of the government, and politicians do not own the public treasury. Although governments possess decision-making authority, they must not forget that they di...