This is not a complete sentence, so it cannot be translated accurately. Please provide the full Farsi text.
Mohammad Mohabbai

In Iranian culture, good thinking and good intentions and bad thinking are even considered positive qualities for enemies. As the wise Tousi said: “Whoever has bad thoughts/ will ultimately harm themselves.”

The slogan of death directed towards the enemy country and burning its flag is undoubtedly a clear, fundamental and extremely dangerous form of insult to the government and people of that country. Since these actions can lead to further animosity and increase the likelihood of military confrontation, and considering that the worst human rights atrocities in history have occurred during wars, this note attempts to analyze these actions from two perspectives.

Insult.

Insult in its literal sense means to belittle (according to jurists: the act of disrespecting) and insulting in legal and judicial terms refers to attributing any action or omission that is commonly considered contrary to the dignity and respect of an individual, group, or nation. Or performing an action that causes a feeling of insult to one or more individuals or a nation.

The title of insult is a general term and, as lawyers say, its instances are numerous, and cursing is one of its instances.

Profanity, in slang, refers to any ugly, offensive, and vulgar language that causes discomfort and harm to the listener. Swearing and speaking inappropriately in terms of vocabulary means going beyond the limits of moderation in speech. In slang, profanity refers to any ugly language that is used to humiliate, insult, and belittle the other person; it also includes defamation.

“Death to countries” slogan, in its most optimistic state and in the minimum view, is a clear example of blasphemy. Because nothing bothers the listener as much as the desire for death. And burning the flag is also a clear example of insulting a country’s national symbols and nationality.

Unfortunately, in the criminal justice system of Iran, insulting national symbols of different countries is not considered a crime and only two acts, “intentional harm to foreign authorities” and “insulting foreign authorities” within the borders of Iran, have been criminalized and very light punishments have been considered for them.

Article 516 of the Islamic Penal Code (approved in 1996) states: “Anyone who intends to harm the life of a foreign head of state or their political representative within the territory of Iran shall be punished as stated in Article 515; provided that there is also a reciprocal transaction with Iran in that country. Otherwise, if a lighter punishment is applied, they shall still be sentenced to the same punishment.”

Article 517 of that law states: “Anyone who publicly insults a foreign head of state or their political representative will be sentenced to one to three months in prison, provided that the same offense is also committed against Iran in that country.”

In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there is no explicit mention of not insulting the name, flag, or symbols of countries. This may have been because such a restriction could lead to broad interpretations of what constitutes insult and could be used as a tool to limit freedom of expression. However, according to Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which addresses freedom of expression, it is stated:

Everyone has the right to express their opinions without interference or obstruction.

2- Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right includes the freedom to seek knowledge, receive and impart information and any kind of opinions, regardless of how it is presented verbally, in writing, in print, in artistic form, or through any other medium of their choice.

3- The rights provided in paragraph 2 of this article, which are accompanied by special duties and responsibilities, may be subject to certain restrictions. These restrictions must only be imposed based on the following necessities and by means of the law:

a) To respect the rights or dignity of others.

b) Preserving national security or maintaining order, peace, and public morality.

The specified limitations in this article are completely clear and leave no room for any ambiguity regarding disrespect towards national symbols of countries. Without a doubt, disrespect towards the names of countries and their flags is in direct contradiction to the dignity and rights of the people of those countries. Insults also seriously harm the health and public morality of any society, and if insults become a “habit” in a society, it will be very difficult to restore morality to that society. On the other hand, unlimited insults towards the name, flag, and symbols of a country only increase hostility and can jeopardize national security and peace, which will be further discussed in detail below.

Increase in hostility.

Undoubtedly, when someone explicitly says “death to America”, it means both death and America. The word “America” does not necessarily only refer to the government of America, or its potentially hostile policies; the word “America” at least refers to the entire country of the United States of America, with over 9 million square kilometers and a population of over 300 million, and at most refers to the entire continent of America (with over 40 countries in North, South, and Central America and the Caribbean). The reason for all this insistence on insults and wishing death upon all of this human diversity cannot be understood!

Respect for human beings is one of the principles of a Muslim upbringing, and a sign of cultural growth and development. It is also necessary for fostering a spirit of humanity and strengthening the foundations of morality, peace, and friendship. It is one of the fundamental principles of human rights. On the other hand, the lack of this noble quality has led to conflicts, bitterness, enmity, and even large and small wars, massacres, and mass killings, imposing heavy and burdensome costs on individuals and society.

Respecting nations means valuing what is dear and esteemed to them, and individuals are connected to it. These may include the dignity and social status of nations, their possessions, physical and mental well-being, the nationality of countries, their names, flags, and national symbols, which are the most beloved and cherished things to humans. Often, they are not hesitant to sacrifice their wealth and lives to protect and preserve these things.

Now let’s consider the possibility that the two governments of Iran and America reach stages of tension where they are inclined towards military confrontation; in such a possible war, will the images of burning the American flag in Iran not be manifested in the minds of American soldiers and officers? Will this issue not lead to an increase in motivation for individuals in war and the commission of war crimes? James Mattis, the Secretary of Defense in the Trump administration, who is a former Marine, still holds a grudge against the planned explosion by Iranian-backed forces that killed hundreds of American Marines in Lebanon and has not forgotten it. Will the slogan of death and burning flags not increase these grudges?

Final words.

There are hundreds of ways to criticize, oppose, retaliate, respond to enmity, and even retaliate against enmity, but I don’t know why in some countries, including Iran – especially during the rule of the Islamic Republic – the worst and most inappropriate ways are chosen? I don’t know why in our discourse as Iranians, death, the rights of the enemy and opposition are the only topics? Surely we have all heard the slogan “Death to…” at various times. This is not about America or Israel. Most likely, many Iranians do not see themselves as enemies of America, and this slogan is created by the ideology ruling over Iran. I take the utmost assumption, let’s assume that Iranians and every single Iranian man and woman are angry at the US government for the coup on August 19, 1953, for shooting down a passenger plane and killing nearly 300 innocent people on board by the US Navy over the Persian Gulf, for the issues that happened during

A civilized and educated nation, if it has any opposition or enmity with someone, a country, or a way of thinking, does not go to battle with a “slogan”, but with “reason”. It is interesting that the difference between “slogan” and “reason” is only one word, but in meaning, there is a world of difference between the two. A civilized nation with knowledge, science, industry, and effort goes to confront its opponent or enemy. Even if it has a military war, it goes to battle with weapons and fights bravely. What slogans of death and burning flags are these!? In Iranian epic literature, especially in the Shahnameh of the wise Abu al-Qasim Ferdowsi and in the various wars mentioned in this great work, the necessity of dealing with the enemy in a noble and wise manner has been emphasized. In this “national epic”, war and enmity are placed against wisdom, and all heroes and warriors try to

The world is amazed by your actions.

Both broken and fixed because of you.

Do not shy away from either of these two, love.

Intelligence does not reveal itself in a bad manner.

The child will open the store.

What a fish in the sea, what a grave in the plain.

People suffer from pain and hardship.

One should not inherit enmity from their children.

Hami said to Rostam, “Never underestimate the whale.”

I did not see him come to war like this.

I was humiliated by the war with the white demon.

Today, the heart of a man became hopeless.

I’m sorry, there is no Farsi text provided. Please provide the text that needs to be translated.