Your wish is granted:
Hejab is the artificial and ineffective protective veil instituted by the men of Islam, via a total misinterpretation of the Qoran's recommendation that women ought to carry themselves "as if with a veil of purity". The men of Islam took this to mean a real physical veil or head-to-toe covering in their minds in order to protect women from the "animalisitc and uncontrollable "urges" of moslem men."
Meanwhile the largest 3rd of the Qoran spends almost 4/5ths of the entire Qoran talking about the importance of "Self Control", especially the "Urges" kind.
Finally, there are both civil and Islamic specific and exact laws protecting women from rape or assault, or any kind of uncontrollable male "urges".
One or the other but there is no need for the misinterpretation of the hejab. Either the law or the dictates of the Qoran on self control, protects women. The Hejab certainly doesn't.
This is a long winded way of saying, that in spite of all this, Sabeti has managed to outshine everyone, while not wearing a hejab, while surrounded by all the wild men in the world who apparently can't control themselves unless he wears the hejab.
Or this is my way of saying the hejab is really a dog collar for women. A way to own the dog. A way to identify the woman as a dog. The hejab is also a muzzle for the dog.
This is what I think the hejab is designed to do. If you are a tyrant and want to instantly control half the population, while scaring the other half into submission, instituting the hejab as a reminder of rape, is a great idea.
What do we have in Iran today? Half the population under complete control. And the other half emasculated into total domination.
You don't see any sort of Sabeti in Iran do you? Yet Sabeti outside of this oppressive system, shines like a diamond, and is above all a proud Iranian.
Inside Iran under the hejab, Iranian women do/achieve nothing. Outside of Iran, without the hejab, they explode the universe and humanity's imagination in Mathematics and now Genetics, wide open.
Clearly, it's the Hejab. Read more
Your wish is granted:
And it states a secular growth of slums and shantytowns during monarchy. Last time I checked increase in slums doesn't count as progress.
It would help to actually understand & comprehend different topics before you discuss them. Read more
The only thing that I know of is a Facebook page. She's certainly not getting the attention that the Palestinian professor is getting--most certainly not on this site.
You need corrections on at least two accounts: firstly only democratic socialism is defensible. And everything worthwhile you enjoy today from your social rights to your social benefits you basically owe to democratic socialism. So, you're welcome.
Secondly pointing out to progressive aspects of monarchy is called objective analysis, not gravitation. The early 60's land reforms, as botched as it was implemented, it wad a big step in the right direction. A simple comparison of Family Laws also defies your simplistic assumptions.
Workers' movements in Iran don't need permission from anyone, we run the country, we create all the wealth, and we'll teach mullahs the ultimate lesson, as we did with shah. But this time even better, having learned from mistakes of the past. Read more
That is actually NOT true Mr. Ala. here are two examples:
Harvard University: Professor Fired for Newspaper Column [deemed critical of Islam]:
TX Prof. Resigns, Then Asks for Job Back, After Muslim Students Complain He Called Islam a ‘Cult’
And to be clear, I am against any academic being fired for exercising his / her right to free speech--including Mr. Salaita. Read more
I thought, from your constant one sided diatribes, defending anything and everything socialistic...arguing in favor of the "so called" worker's haven that communism NEVER was...NOW seem to be gravitating to and making comments in defense of monarchy! A characteristic flaw in tune with Toudeh party's agenda and practices...they continuously, opportunistically, morphed and invented themselves, and it was, usually, hypocritical and to the highest bidder, in a chameleon way. I remember, some of them were British servant/agents belonging to Toudeh organization and others were attached to the Soviet Union wing! They both were made up of MEK type traitors!!! Yet, nothing changed and facts remained the same...In other words, HAD we not had suffered from and experienced the misery of Pahlavi reign of terror, we would not have ended up with this equally if not more miserable theocracy!
Facts are that one begets the other...let's not forget that we are not living in a vacuum and there are natural opposing forces at play...some constructive and others destructive...in this case, we happened to meet the destructive ones!!!
So whether or not monarchy provided more protection or not is moot...facts are that we should get rid of them both and move toward democratic means of one man/woman one vote, in an open, free and fair election, otherwise we are doomed!
PS: Bares no ill feelings toward having any political party or affiliation, in fact the bigger and/or more numerous the number the better, so long as they are 100% Iranian and are not either subservient or controlled by the outsiders or from outside! Read more
All due respect you still sound like a tape recorder; analogue though, not digital.
But you're still welcome to visit our humble abode in "Tehranto." Let us know when. This coming Saturday we'll be in NYC, you wanna meet there?
FYI my father or non of his brothers owned any land. My old man was an ordnance specialist (as he called himself) in the Army practically all his life. Read more
The above comment is bold and vulgar. The commentator is trying to get to his imposed idea by using belligerent tone of voice. That is clearly "Personal Attack" because it doesn't address the main issue. The comment has something to do with me on a "personal level".
it is not political, it is rather "personal". That is funny because commentator keep talking about democracy, but has zero tolerance for other people's opinion. Everybody can see that.
Anyway, to refresh your memory, once I said: " Say hi to hoshang Tarehgol even though he is used profane language against me, but I think his profane language had something to do with his old age".
In respond, You mentioned that Hoshang Tarehgol is here in Toronto in Canada, we see each other once in a while. You made it sound like you guys have get together sessions once in a while. So you said if I ever travel to Toronto, I will be able to visit him. Furthermore, you mentioned that Hoshang Tarehgol is NOT as old as I was thinking. Does it ring the bell ?
I responded if I travel to Toronto once, I will stop by to see him in person.
About your relatives and feudal father,
The conversation took place when user name @ShazdehAsdolaMirza was present.
In respond to your claim of your father & relatives being Feudal, I said that I found the reason you were being against shah. Shah took the lands from your father & Feudal relatives and divided those lands between peasants. That's why you became anti shah. I am surprise you don't remember anything. Read more
If you indeed do have a mind why do you sound so much like a tape recorder?
I have written here about my High School years in California on this very site, but your "vivid" memory says I was in Canada!?
Do you have anything other than stupid personal distortions or monotonous tape recording repetitions about clown kings, petty dictators and alpha male aholes? Read more
A lot of pushing, little scoring.
"because some people would call him khan doesn't mean anything. In some parts of Kurdistan even kids call each other khan. In Kermanshah"
No dear, you specifically mentioned to user name @ShazdehAsdolaMirza
That your father and all your relatives were Feudal or Khan in Kurdistan.
I remember very vividly.
In Tehran, many people call me "khan" or rather Siavash khan. That doesn't mean I am feudal, but your description from your father and his relatives were different than "Khan" in Siavash khan. You even mentioned that you were in Canada since your high school time. That also explain the financial status of your family background as well because my father couldn't even afford to send me to India to continue my education.
You are NOT a mind reader, are you ? How do you know what is going on in my mind. Read more
Yes and no. To begin with it was not a Totalitarian Hell (it was moving fast in that direction with Rastakhiz,...) but it remained an Authoritarian Hell. As long as you weren't into politics authorities didn't care.
Besides we also have reports and studies of a net decrease in last three decades of everything from consumption to living standards, Caloric intake,... Your noble anti-monarchist sentiments aside, shah's state had much more social protection planks than mullahs ever did. Then again many of current social protection plans were initiated before 1979. Read more
Two weeks ago there were reports of incursions all the way up to around Kermanshah, some clashes and exchanges with Sepah. But it was all denied.
Last week Sepah reported clashes with jihadis in Baluchistan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijiazWlawUY Read more