First Case, Second Case (قضیه شکل اول... شکل دوم.)

First Case... Second Case

Those at the last two rows!

You're going to say who was responsible,

or otherwise you should leave the classroom and not to come back until the weekend

Your son is one of these pupils.

What do you expect of him?

Does he have to tell the teacher who disturbed the classroom and then get back into the classroom?

Or is it better for him not to say a word and withstand until the weekend?

Should I give an answer?

It's pretty difficult to make a statement in reply to that...

Is it recording? Should I answer? - Yes it is. Go on.

My son did a right thing. Because they may learn solidaity from childness on.

Therefore, when they'd mature, they'll stand firm if there would be a battle

Ofcourse, if he wants to ingratiate and desert his classmates

It would be possible for the teacher to ?*?*

But when he'd grow up, he will definitely become an ass kissing, bootlicking and ostentatious kind of a guy

But by enduring and not saying a word, he will become resistant and then he always will have the opportunity to advise,

his classmate -in person- not to brattle at the classroom, and listen to what the teacher is saying, and show respect towards the teacher.

But it's disgusting for him to rat.

What? - They haven't done a good job.

They should study. What are they doing standing outside the class? Not a thing!

I have worked my bone for him to study, not to do other things.

Yes! He ought to go and study.

I suggest him to retain his solidarity.

and not to get back in the class.

I do place emphasis on his keeping solidarity with his classmates.

Because if he tells who is responsible for such an act, the solidarity would be lost.

According to the thing shown, I believe it was the last one.

It's possible that the last one sitting in front of Mammad Reza is responsible.

No. It wasn't Mammad Reza.

Let's see. There were some people in the classroom.

One of them is hitting the table with blackboard-eraser.

The teacher couldn't find out who was responsible, so he sent children sitting at last two rows out and your son is among them.

Your son knows who brattled. Now, what do you expect from your son?

He's not a naughty boy. He never cheats nor breaks the rules in football.

My son is studious. He's really studious, even more than his older brother.

I don't know whether children did something wrong against him or not. I don't know what it's all about.

Look! Let me explain something. It wasn't Mammad Reza and we know that he wasn't.

There was someone else responsible. Due to the fact that the teacher couldn't find out who the brattler was, he has discharged everyone from the class which are totally 7 people.

The thing is that Mammad Reza knows who brattled. Now, which one do you prefer?

To rat about the battler and sit in his chair or to wait and stand up in the corridor for a week? Give us your viewpoint.

My viewpoint is that this boy behaved badly at the last row or they did hit the table with something.

Afterwards, they told that it was Mammad Reza Barati's fault. Mammad Reza Barati never does such a thing.

My viewpoint is that I have worked hard to bring money home and he is spending it and studying here.

According to this, it can't be this way. No. It's not. I'm not in agreement with his doing such a thing.

Does it mean he has to tell the teacher?

Yes. tell? tell whom? myself?

Does that mean he has to tell the teacher?

Yes. He must tell. He must tell who did hit the table and sit in his chair.

Should I speak?

I think that the pupil who did disturb the arrangement of the class must be introduced by other members of the classroom, so that not everyone get involved in the a-week-lasting punishment.

The father is laboring. The teacher is laboring. So that the pupil would learn a lesson and enjoy it.

If they resist to offer the name of the disturber, they have to miss the class for a week and it's not right.

They have to do it and introduce the disturber.

And I expect my son to associate with his teacher and introduce the disturber.

Saturday

Sunday

Monday

Mister! It was Mohammad Reza Ne'mati.

In your opinion, have this pupil done a right thing?

Please express your reasonings concisely.

Let me say that, if their solidarity is favorable to us, naturally, it would be unfavorable to break such solidarity.

In my opinion, the pupil who doesn't resect their solidarity, -at least merely this particular solidarity, regardless of factors, reasoning and the place in which it took place-

If the group has done something and one of them breaks that work, it'd be regarded as unfavorable.

No. The pupil hasn't done a right thing. The one who has made him express this wrong reaction is the teacher.

The teacher has destroyed the pupil's personality. The act is wrong but the factor leading to such an act is the teacher, not the pupil.

Therefore, the teacher is the guilty one. The act is wrong. I don't blame the performer but the factor.

Undoubtedly, there occured a fault. In my opinion, it wasn't the pupil who did this fault.

At first place, it was the teacher who did a fault that asked him to rat. I mean, he did put him in the espionage situation.

Second, the pupil's parents who didn't train their child to react properly in such situation, and not to participate in the crime he's been asked to do.

Therefore, I don't blame the child but the environmental parameters, which is frustrating.

This child acquired a wisdom. When he realized that he had abused other's rights and it wasn't a right thing to do, he returned to the classroom. I admire his courage.

Although he did abandoned his friends group, when he realized that the way he is taking is the right one, it wouldn't matter anymore. The other pupils will return tomorrow or the day after tomorrow.

In my opinion, it's obviousely not right. We have to see how this pupil has been trained, what has happened in his home, to his spirit, which led him to do this act.

It's easy to prospect what'd be the outcome of this kind of behavior and imagine what kind of a man he will become.

For a pupil who couldn't resist, in his own opinion, he did a right thing. But it's the teacher who must not make a situation which leads to these problems.

Otherwise, you can't ignore the fact that resistances are different.

No. Definitely not. I believe that lesson is not just the framework which we see that the activity'd be justified.

In other words, it seems worthy to betray and get back in his seat in order to continue his studying. But actually, the lesson held in the back of the class is more important.

It's not right. I do even disapprove this pupil's work. Because this has caused harm to their group-work.

Since they have done something in return of the oppressive, painful session and the whole-group have left the classroom, therefore the ratter is a betrayer and in my opinion,

the other members should beat him to a pulp so that he won't dare to repeat his action.

This pupil's behavior, after he sat in the bench, is precisely showing that he's not calm and indeed was pretty stressed-out.

Maybe he was suffering a conscious guilt due to the fact that he had acted against his age-related principles. Therefore, I don't approve such a work. Because he had done it against his will.

He was showing it by his mental demonstration. Maybe he was ashamed of his conscious that he was playing with his hands.

All in all, he wasn't calm and he was suffering and probably he would become abandoned from his group because he didn't support the group.

The answer is shown in the shame this pupil have.

I think he has made a rightful decision. Because he has realized of the crime he was involved in. He knew the truth and he wasn't telling it.

therefore, after two days due to his inner challenges and conflicts, he suddenly felt that it's better to reveal the truth and he does it. In my opinion, his action was a positive one.

I am speaking about the teacher's approach which is to punish the pupils joinly. Regarding the fact that there's nothing going on in the class and it is only him painting on the wall,

so the pupils become tired and the teacher failed to bring out the cooperation between himself and the pupils. The pupil was shown coming back and ratting against his classmate.

I, on the other hand, blame the teacher who punished everyone and caused someone to become a ratter. To rat is a sin in human-manner and in religious-manner.

In my opinion, the pupil's work was undoubtedly wrong because he abandoned himself from the group. The human lives inside the community.

he got his place on the bench but he suffered his conscious for the next semester or maybe longer.

In my opinion, yes. Due to the fact that the subject of solidarity is illegal. The solidarity fails to find its high-value. Whenever, you suppose,

Resistance against injustice is a highly-valued resistance. However, resistance against justice becomes wrong idea. Resistance against crime is esteemed but against prohibiting-crime is wrong.

this pupil's work is right and I think he have to defend his right and society's right and rat against the responsible-one who isn't anymore a valued-companion.

Well, I disapprove this pupil's action. Like I've told, by this action the roots of this evil and naughtyness isn't going to diminish.

I believe if there's someone who wants to detect, investigate, report or discover social diseases, he'd better do it in a more principled and deep percpective rather than in a private framework.

In my opinion, no. The way in which the thought-organization becomes valued is that it could distinguish individuals from eachother and could convert the members' relationships from communialism to individualism and

could expand this approach beyond political and social limits.

That means, here we are facing a regimented organization which is confronted against a group-resistance and

is desiring to break the group resistance by one of its member's betrayal.

and it's symbolic and it can expand into all social levels.

I do condemn this pupil's action from such viewpoint.

I belive this pupil has became mentally-troubled due to the fact that he's feeling he had betrayed his belonging-group.

These feelings and these confrontings'd become a major trouble in future-era political society. (by this way of education we chose)

I think this pupil's action has two faces. In one hand, ha had a hard-to-solve problem (not be able to educate) to solve

In other hand, the friendship-solidarity issue, however it's in a false context, which has positive aspects.

I thin k before performing such act, this pupil should have discussed it among his members so that they could find a solution together.

A solution which wouldn't comprise abandonment. He has provoked 6 other member's hate against himself, not to mention his other classmates' opinion.

He has produced some difficulties in his relationships with his classmates, which otherwise was friendly.

However, he had a right idea that he wanted to solve this problem. It's impossible to whether condemn or approve his work.

Totally, I blame the school proncipal more than anyone else. It's him responsible for not letting pupil's put in this situations.

He should find a soft approach to solve in-school problems.

To force the pupil to confess is a kind of inquisition. Inquisition is private investigation which foreigns call it "Ingisision"!

That means you want to reveal someone's idea/thought and you want to fribble with him.

I think by such act, you are victimizing a pupil's humanity in order that he becomes your puppet; in what form you please.

I think this would harm the pupil's spirit and gradually will make the pupil disloyal towards his own personality.

It's possible that such pupil who confess against his friends would someday decide to betray (in an important situation)

This procedure is a wrong procedure. It's not compatible with Islamic lessons to force someone to testify against someone else.

I can even tell you a poem about this and that's Hafez's poem which goes like this: