Persian Realm

Dariush Abadi's article

This article could not be more wrong on every account. 

Parallels between Christianity and Judaism

The difference between Islam and the other organised religion is the way
that it commands all aspects of society, culture, norms of behaviour
and human conduct to conform with Islam. There is an Islamic law or
Hadith from hair styles, which foot one should put in first before going
to the toilet and what food is permissible to eat. Fundamentally,
loyalty is not to the state or the national ruler but to the ulema. This
is the same phenomenon in all Arab-non Arab societies. The Koran is the
unequivocal work of 'God' and athiests are condemned. In most Christian
countries the state and Church are divided. In England it is the Church
which serves its subjects and pledges allegiance to the Sovereign. Not
the other way round as in Islam. In St Paul's letter to the Corinthians,
St Paul stated that the Christian message is one of spiritualism, the
Jewish laws under the old Testament do not have to be observed, e.g such
as the eating of Pork. Unlike Islam where learning Arabic is
compulsory, its followers do not have to read scriputes in Hebrew or
Arameic or be forced to learn them in schools; there is no equivalent of
a hijab; there is no dress code; hymns are not sung in the old
testament language; there is no compulsory fasting; there is no rule
about what a church should look like; there is no single unifying law
regarding marriage, divoce or death and burrial; there is no application
of old testament punishment for adultery, murder and theft;  there is
no specific date where evry one celebreates religious ceremonies (e.g
Christmas) pastors can be men, gay or even female. Religion is conformed
and moulded to the standards of the society in the country which its
followers live in. The people in Iran have a right to be resentful
towards Islamic because of its intrusive nature. Islam is the
anti-thesis of ancient Iranian identity. Celebreations of Nowruz,
Chaharshanbe-Souri havebeen discouraged or adapted heavily to fit Islam;
the ban on the consuption ofalcohol and even the wearing of black
(frowned upon amonst Iranian and Zoroastrians) and the culture of death
and martyrdom defies Iranian tradition.  Eben when a Muslim dies, he
must be burried facing Mecca. Not Persepolis. Not Pasaargod or Babylon
but face Mecca. 

The early muslims used a mixture of force and coercive methods such as
Jayiza and inequitable laws such as in inheritance until eventually the
majority of Iranians were pushed over to Islam. The Persian language was
corrupted and the speaking of Pahlavi was banned. Iran did not become a
fullmuslim country until 200 years later because it was a large terrain
and many Zoroastrians held steadfast to their beleifs.

The destructive and evil of the Muslim inavders was seen in the
sestuction of many of the Zoroastrian fire temples and ancient
buildings.  Cyrus's tomb in Paasargad was renamed as the 'tomb of the
Soleman' as part of a cleverly contrived ruse to stop it from certain
destruction.  This is evidence of Islam's rampant destruction.

The Pahlavis 

Mohammed Reza Pahlav and his father Reza Pahlavi may have been followers
of Islam, but it is not clear whether there outward devotion to their
faith was pretence to appease the public or a sincere belief. However,
in private there is overwhleming evidence of both the Shah's resentment
of the clergy and their struggle to destroy their power base. The
banning of the Hijab and the fact that both of them had very much
liberal western lifestyles is at odds with fundamentalist Islamic
beliefs. For supporters of the monachy, such as myself, I am less
concerned about Islamc but more about political islam.

The indifference of Khomeini towards Iran inhis infamous 'Hich'
interview on board his airplane; those who wanted to raze Persepolis; to
rename the Persian Gulf as the Islamic Gulf; those that want to ban
Chahar-shanb-Souri are all evidence that Islam and Iran cannot be
reconciled. 

Note that I have not mentioned the Iraqi invasion of Iran, the support of Saddam Husseins war of the 'battle of Al-Qaddasiya'. 

Tell me why Iranians should not be hostile to Muslims or Arabs (not the Arabs in Iran, of course)? 

The revolution 

The idea that Iranians wanted a revolution on the basis of an Islamic
fervour is palpable nonsense. There was large opposition to the Shah's
political policies and many of those who rallied around Khomeini were
Leftists, anarchists, trade unnionists and confirmed athiests. Each of
them had their own agenda but answered Khomeini's carrion call to their
stupidity. 

Even if there was a grin of truth in what you say about Iranians
devotion to Islam, then why does the current regime not test it? The
vast majority of the country are under 30  years of age and were
not born at the time of the reovlution and it is only fair that that
regime repeats its referendum to a different and new generation and ask
the people whether they want to continue with an Islamic form of
democracy. You can bet that the overwhelming majority of Iranians would
rather see the back of Islam both politcally and as a religion. If you
are so certain then put it o the test? 

It is impossible  to walk the streets of Tehran, Los angeles and
Europe where Iranians are present and not observe a Farvahar medalion.
Iranians are converting to Christianity and zoroastrianism in their
droves in order to dis-associate themselves of Islam. 

When you say Iranians are jealous about Islam - nothing could be further
from the truth. On the contrary, heed the words of Umar-Bin-Khatib to
Yazdegard III, the follower of Prophet Mohammed and the general which
launched an attack on Persia in 64, "Submit to Allah, pay the Jayizah, or in the same way as you enjoy life I shall bring an army of death".

The sentence says it all. Muslim envy of Iranians of joi de vivre in conrast to the Muslims lust for death. Why death? Whta's wrong with life and enjoying it? 

Abadi,

You wrote:"Seeing as how you are on this site 24/7, I assume it is because you have no job and are still living off the money you and your co-horts stole when they left Iran-Zamin in 1978 - 1980."It did not end in 1980! Mr. Kadivar is still stealing dollars from Iran.Haven't you been informed about the recent attempt by Mr. Kadivar and abunch of his friends to steal even more money from Iranians? What happened was they got unlucky this time around and their $18 billion heist was intercepted by the Turkish authorities in Turkey. Poor suckers!Of course as is customary in IR, the authorities there have denied havingany knowledge of such heist and are looking for Mr. Kadivar's accomplices.Please join me in condemning such blatant acts of thievery and shout:Shame On The Real Thieves!PS: I would like to add more slogans, but I'd rather keep things civil. I hope you understand what I'm talking about!

....

....

FYI/ Pope Slams Spain's Secularism (bbc)

Nagoftam ? ... ;0)  NEVER Trust an Akhound !

LOL 

Pope Benedict XVI sees 'aggressive secularism' in Spain

//www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11703708

I said it once I'll say it again

Islam equals the arab mentality and identity, this is why.

1. You can only pray in Arabic.

2. The racist quran can only be written in Arabic

3. Muslims are expected to wear the arab clothing, put rags and towels on their heads, and wear manly Arab skirts.

Not to mention that only 2 countries were Arab before the Islamic invasion of the mid-east and Northe africa, and those two countries were saudia Arabia and yemen, the rest, like the Phenocians/Lebanese, Iraqis/Babyloanians, Syrians, Egyptians, Northern African Berber/Amazigh states were never Arab, but were forced through converting which islamic encouraged. If Islam wasn't an Arab religion from the beginning, then arabs have corrupted it to the level that it can never be saved. Modern islam is only used to spread the filth of Arabism, it's a political tool that is used by the Arabs nowadays. 

I don't care much for religion, cause it's bewteen only me and god and none else, but if I had to suggest a religion for my fellow Iranians/Persians, then it would be Zoroasterianism followed by bahaism, but especially zoroasterianism since that is mainly a Persian religion while Bahaism, it might have some Persian elements in it, it's a worldly religion, and sadly we Iranians have not put the interests of Iran and Iranians ahead for a long time, so I would go with Zoroasterianism.

--------------------------------

"They are not afraid of the ideology alone, but of the detemination and will of the men behind it"

SamSamIIII Jaan Good to See You Back Bro ;0)

Time We Crossed the Rubicon together :

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PeN1k9AAMg

With or Without a MAC ;0) 

To dariushabadi Do You Mean You are actually Jealous ? ;0)

Thank You For Proving My Point !

LOL

Maybe Now you can Prescribe Your Own Medicine to Yourself ! 

Hee Hee 

..

Personally I believe that all Iranian were alaki moslem just pretenders but with iota of faith here and there for the sake of others.

Thanks god the past 30 yrs of IRR rulling also took away that iota of belives and in the FREE IRAN we'll have Islam and its BS.... only in history books for all to read about if they want.

BTW thanks for the picture I know the 3 gentelmens to the right of late shah.                Maziar

chetori DK jaan

I tried hyperlink and it doesn,t work for me..give me a tutorial bro..

Cheers!!! 

Path of Kiaan Resurrection of True Iran Hoisting Drafshe Kaviaan //iranianidentity.blogspot.com //www.youtube.com/user/samsamsia

Mr Abadi

I have a different point of view than Dariush Kadivar. I am not a monarchist. I do know history. 

There were times when Iranian monarchs did rule with the Farr. Those were people like Koroush the great, Karim Khan Zand and possibly Reza Shah. However Farr does not remain with you forever. Nor does it pass by birth. If a ruler misbehaves it will leave them.

As for Mohammad Reza Shah yes he did have SAVAK. Yet he was much kinder than your Islamic Republic.

If the Islamic Republic tortures and rapes people in prison -- it is because those who are raping and torturing are psychological byproducts of the Shah's prisons. The Shah's SAVAK did that to them, and in return they do it to their prisoners because that is the only way they know how to treat prisoners.

Most of the Islamic goons were not even born during the Pahlavi. The older ones may have been in their teens. Therefore your argument does not hold.

You sir are an apologist for the most brutal regime in Iran. You try to justify their murders by blaming them on the Shah. This is a cheap shot that I have come to expect of Islamic people. That is why the world is sick of Islam. Lies; refusal to take personal responsibility and more lies. That is Islam.

So if the Islamic Republic does the opposite it is because they do not follow Islam, but rather the methods taught to them by SAVAK.

No, SAVAK did not write Sharia. It was Muslims who did. Therefore your attempt at blaming Sharia on SAVAK fails. Islam is the gift of a lunatic named Mohammad. It is the source of the insanity and tortures in Iran. Be a man and take responsibility.

To Dariush Kadivar

While many of your like claim that the Muslims are the ones trying to bring us backward -- it is truly disgusting that you want to bring to Iran a tradition of the past that is rather almost extinct and disgusting in nature.

Even British people have recently been polled being in favor of dismantling the monarchy because it is a waste of their tax dollars feeding a spoiled Queen and her family who do nothing but live lavish lifestyles they don't deserve.

Seeing as how you are on this site 24/7, I assume it is because you have no job and are still living off the money you and your co-horts stole when they left Iran-Zamin in 1978 - 1980.  

to veiled prophet of khorasan

You claim to know history yet your history begins in the early 1900's, and not 2,000 years ago. 

If anything, history shows that when Iranian monarchy exchanged from one dynasty to the next it was usurped through deadly wars and massive deaths.

And your last King, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi did not rule with Farr Izadi but through SAVAK and brutal force and suppression of dissent. Let us not forget Raztakhiz.

If the Islamic Republic tortures and rapes people in prison -- it is because those who are raping and torturing are psychological byproducts of the Shah's prisons. The Shah's SAVAK did that to them, and in return they do it to their prisoners because that is the only way they know how to treat prisoners.

It is an inferiority complex prisoners gain and in turn inflect on the next breed once they become in power. So we have the Shah to blame for that.

We can't blame it on Islam because we know Imam Ali treated even his own enemy (Ibn Muljam) with utmost human compassion even though Ibn Muljam had given him a strike to the head. Imam Ali told his family to make sure that Ibn Muljam got food and water and did not go hungry in his prison cell. He asked that Ibn Muljam be given justice but not retribution and that his family be left alone for they did not commit a crime.

So if the Islamic Republic does the opposite it is because they do not follow Islam, but rather the methods taught to them by SAVAK. 

Answer

1) Yes 

2) There are two to three if not more questions in your question ( See below)

Answer to N° 2:

No I do not consider Khamenei as the current King of Iran because he doesn't claim to be One nor does the Political Establishment he embodies which voluntarily Opposes the historical heritage of the Monarchy. 

All Persian Monarchs From One Dynasty to another were founded by Force but Never Questioned the Royal Continuity per se:

KING OF KINGS: Mohamed Reza Shah Pahlavi's Tribute to Iran's Past Kings and People (Nowruz 1977)

That has never been the case for Your Theocracy. Which even takes pride in banning the names of the Royal History from our books, something No King would do (As a matter of fact this is a question which was submitted to the last Shah by David Frost in relation to the banning of a Shakespeare play where the King was assassinated and which the Shah ordered the play to be performed nevertheless). One dynasty can badmouth the previous one and even downplay their contributions as has been the case for all dynasties. The Pahlavis ridiculed the Qajar for their incompetence but they never questioned their Royal Status:

Farah Pahlavi inaugurates Qajar Paintings:

//www.farahpahlavi.org/kajbrook.html

For there is always a tacit bond between all Royal Families including in Europe not to question the Legitimacy of a given Dynasty once they have ruled the country. They rarely if never question the legitimacy of other Royal Families either again for questions of Legitimacy. All the more that many Royal Families end up by marrying into one another as was for instance the case of Mohamed Reza Shah with Egypt's Princess Fawzia. But has also been the Case for the Queen of England whose husband Prince Philippe is of German Greek Ancestory despite the abolishment of the Monarchy in both countries. Same thing for Juan Carlos of Spain whose wife is the Sister of the deposed Monarch Constantine of Greece:

TITANS MEET: Shahbanou of Iran Greets Ex-King Constantine of Greece (Roudaki-Opera House, 1971)

RESTORATION: Greek Constitutional Monarchy Toppled by Military Coup (April 21st, 1967)

All they did was Replace the previous Dynasty with their own and often would pick many of the civil servants ( aka ministers, military, even clerical representatives) from the previous dynasties to serve them. That is precisely how many Qajar Ministers including Mossadegh worked equally in both under Qajar Era and the Pahlavi Era. 

The Constitutional Nature of the Monarchy is an invention of the 20th Century in Iran at least.

Actually we largely copied the Belgian Model to draft our Royal Constitution in 1906/1907:

RESTORATION: Belgium King Baudouin takes Oath Amidst Republican Animosity (31st July ,1950)

However Constitutionalism can be dated at various epochs in other countries and as far as Europe is concerned  In Great Britain the Foundations of the Constitutionalist Ideas date back to the Magna Carta. 

As to your question is a Monarchy based on a Hereditary Model ? Yes because of the idea of continuity of the bloodline, hence the notion of "Blue Blood". 

The Only Exception being Malaysia which elects it's Kings and Queens:

RESTORATION: Elected Monarchs of Malaysia

Which is an interesting alternative to Hereditary Rule even if it is far from being a model Democratic state given their record of Human Rights. But then Why Not ? It still has to prove it's democratic nature which has not been the case to date but may well be the case in the future. But then might as well call it a Republic ! 

In modern times however as is the case in Sweden ( a fairly Young dynasty as a matter of fact) and Spain Royal Princes or Princess' are no more required to marry cousins of one's own bloodline but being of a Royal background is considered a plus. Although neither Laetizia of Spain or the husband of Sweden's Crown Princess are aristocrats. However the Oligarchic nature of the monarchy is never questioned in either of these Monarchies no more than in other European Constitutional Monarchies. You Marry Into a Royal Family and not the otherway round. Even if some like the poor lady Diana thought the opposite was possible.

But in England like all other Democratic countries there is a Republican Front that questions the British Royal Families Legitimacy:

RESTORATION: Prince Charles, The Meddling Prince (5 Parts)

And even in marginal cases like George Galloway ( who being Scottish helps) also questions it's Utility:

GALLOWAY's REPUBLIC: George Galloway on the Decline of the British Monarchy

The Majority of the British subjects don't seem to share the above views as best expressed by Stephan Frye:

ROYAL RHINOPLASTY: Stephen Fry On The Imperfections of the Monarchy and Why It Should Be Preserved

No one is arrested for thinking otherwise because Great Britain with all it's shortcomings remains a Democracy.

But Some things Remain Sacred in their Collective Psyche.

I believe that is also the case for Iranians in relation to their own Royal Heritage which the current Theocracy has Far FRom Wiped Out Be it:

In the Exiled Diaspora:

BEYOND WORDS: Group Reading of Ferdowsi's Shahnameh

Words For Eternity ...

Or Back Home in Iran:

GIVE ME BACK MY COUNTRY: Bold Poem by a fellow compatriot denounces Ahmadinejad's Iran

A Genuine Brave Irandokht:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPHW-ldSeqY

Hope this answered your questions to the best of my possibilities.

Best, 

DK 

Mr Abadi

I know you asked Dariush Kadivar. But I am gonna give my response

1) Yes I know history.

2) Khamenei is not a king. He is a usurper. There is a difference.

Iranian monarchy is based on the constitutional revolution. That is the constitution that defines it. The Islamic Republic does not respect that constitution. Therefore its leader Khamenei is not a legitimate monarch. Of course he is a dictator and more brutal than the worst any monarch got.

Also I believe to be the monarch of Iran you must have Farr-eh Izadi. Without it Khamanei rules by fear. He is no more king than Zahhak was. Both have absolute power. Both did and do not have "Farr" without which they cannot be a true king. Both are beholden to evil powers.

to dariush kadivar

excuse my ignorance -- but based on what you say -- let me ask you this:

1) You know the Pahlavi dynasty only lasted 2 generations

2) You claim Khamenei is like a King, and that you support a monarchy

then...

Do you accept Khamenei as the current King of Iran? Or does it have to be hereditary where Khamenei has to pass his leadership directly to his son?