The myth of "Islam is spread by the sword"


by Q

This was originally intended as a comment for this blog which was about the letter-ultimatum from the Islamic khalif Omar to the at-the-time-teenage King of Iran, Yazdgird III. That particular letter is a historial forgery, but the discussion on the blog quickly descended to one of the most favorite topic of some Arab-obsessed Iranians: the so-called "forced Islamicization" of Iran.

I thank Avaznia and Farid for their excellent points. It is of course a myth that Islam, or any religion for that matter could be spread by the sword en-mass as is always claimed by those who are short on facts, short on fuse, but long on self-righteous fantasies.

I have made the same points regarding Islam's spread to other locations many times. To begin with majority of Muslims in the world live in lands that no Arab army ever set foot in. The spread into Egypt and North Africa was hardly "Islamification by sword" of Africa. These Arab armies were at best confined to Egypt and coastal mediterranian. The idea that they could have converted half the continent and sub-saharan parts like Nigeria, Kenya, Zanzibar and Tanzania "by force" is ridiculous. By contrast most of Spain and Portugal was occupied for hundreds of years and there was hardly a mass conversion there. As with China, India, Indonesia, Thailand, Phillipines and Bangladesh, the spread through peaceful trade and dialogue is the most likely explanation.

The problem here is that some people just can't accept reality because the sense of rage and victimhood instilled in them (by mostly Western, or West-worshipping sources) is designed to perpetuate continual division and self-hatred in the region. This combined with a need to blame someone else for their problems has made these people completely delusional.

We can't accept their nominal excuses that they are simply "concerned" about bloodshed and violence against Iranians 1400 years ago because they are never concerned about other historical events where Iranians have suffered. Alexander the Great, Ganges Khan, Taimur Lang, Turks, Afghans, Brits and Russians have all defeated and occupied Iran at some point. Many of these invasions were much more violent and bloody. However these incidents don't seem to matter. Mongols alone nearly destroyed all of Iran, burning entire cities and libraries and Iran suffered genocidal massacres. The Mongol invasion is discussed today in neutral terms, even positive terms as a historical event subject to academic discussions. The Arab invasions, on the other hand are treated like they happened last week! All historical perspective and dispassionate objectivity goes out the window. Instead an ugly and at-times-racist attitude is angrily applied to the situation, overwhelming all common sense and scientific facts.

These people spend 95% of their energy demonizing Arabs and Islam and trying to blame everything on what happened 1400 years ago in Iran, all in the name of righteously "correcting" some kind of "historical injustice" to Iranians. They don't seem too bothered by the much-more-bloody historical events before and after which have caused much suffering to Iranians.

Where's the outrage for Mongols destroying much of Iran, including entire towns in the land of Attar and Ferdowsi? Where's the outrage for Russian occupation of half of Iran and forcible taking of Iranian territory only 200 years ago? It's not there because it's all fake!

Iranians themselves often engaged in just-as-cruel wars and occupations of other countries. Only a few short years before the rise of Islam, the Sassanids controlled almost all Arab lands and subjected their populations to taxes and allegiance. Iranians themselves ended a great and ancient civilizations by basically killing the last Pharaos in Egypt, basically subjecting that proud land to 2000 years of foreign rule. Why does that never enter the discussion? Don't these other people matter?

Of course they don't! The entire position is not only self-centered and hypocritical but also disingenuous.

It's not about the violence, or the suffering, or the occupation. That's just the excuse to hide the underlying bigotry. Unable to accept the reality that Iranians converted to Islam, much the same way as anybody else has converted to any other religion, these people have to construct fantasies and rewrite history in an attempt to give themselves license for bigoted, racist and islamophobic hate speech.

Arab defeat and occupation of Iran was nothing specially more bloody or cruel than all the other occupations before and after. In fact, in many respects, it was more benevolent and tolerant than the others.

This is besides the point, however, the explanation of "Islam by the sword" has been debunked by most objective scholars.

Even if we discard all the evidence and pretend somehow it is true, it would be a great insult to Iranians. Whoever really believes it must not have any respect for his/her own ancestors.

We know for a fact that millions of Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians did not convert to Islam because their population was still practicing their older faiths into the 20th century. These are populations that were also under Arab control. I'm talking about Lavantine Christians, Spanish Catholics, the Armenians, Georgians, Ethiopians, Copts in Egypt and Sudan, Hindus in present day Pakistan and Afghanistan, Zoroastrians in Iran, as well as Jews in Iran and all over the Arab world.

Are we supposed to think that these populations were more brave and cared about their religion more than Iranians did? Did their faith mean more to them? Was their morality at a higher level than the majority of Iranians who did convert? I thought "spread by the sword" means, you have to convert or die, so why do we have so many Arab Christians, Jews, Armenians and Copts? Where's the evidence that these populations even suffered more than Iranians who after all DID convert?

The truth is you can't really convert any sizable population by force. At best you would need 3 Arab soliders for every "convertee" to watch him for the rest of his life, just in case he's really acting and just going through the motions. The entire population of Arabia was only a tiny fraction of the Persian empire. It's just not possible.

And what stopped an anti-Islamic revivalism immediately after Arab rule ended? Why didn't everybody convert back to Zoroastrianism?

Mass conversion by force is not unheard of. Of course it is possible and it has been done in history, but only by forcibly seperating children from their parents, keeping them seperate and raising them with new culture and values. This was done to native Americans and native Australians, enslaved Africans in the Western-controlled world, as well as to some extent enslaved Slavic Europeans in the Ottoman empire, itself resembling an older Greek system of forced assymilation. This, however certainly did not, and could not have happened to Sassanid Iran.

I've told the usual suspects on that blog and other people these facts many times. But what we must realize that most of these people don't care about facts. They don't want to listen to reason and evidence. They are consiously or sub-consiously looking for an excuse to express self-righteous anger and hostility toward people they want to scapegoat for Iran's problems. It gives them a satisfying simplified explanation and a target to channel their anger, all while removing all responsibility from themselves.

Here's a good explanation on the subject from a respected scholar:

Some other prominant scholars on the subject.

De Lacy O'Leary wrote:
"History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated." --De Lacy O'Leary, ISLAM AT THE CROSSROADS, London, 1923, p. 8.

Karin Armstrong:

With disturbing regularity, this medieval conviction surfaces every time there is trouble in the Middle East. Yet until the 20th century, Islam was a far more tolerant and peaceful faith than Christianity. The Qur'an strictly forbids any coercion in religion and regards all rightly guided religion as coming from God; and despite the western belief to the contrary, Muslims did not impose their faith by the sword.

The early conquests in Persia and Byzantium after the Prophet's death were inspired by political rather than religious aspirations. Until the middle of the eighth century, Jews and Christians in the Muslim empire were actively discouraged from conversion to Islam, as, according to Qur'anic teaching, they had received authentic revelations of their own. The extremism and intolerance that have surfaced in the Muslim world in our own day are a response to intractable political problems - oil, Palestine, the occupation of Muslim lands, the prevelance of authoritarian regimes in the Middle East, and the west's perceived "double standards" - and not to an ingrained religious imperative.

source: //

Even the neo-con sage and history professor Bernard Lewis from his new 2008 book:

"The fanatical warrior offering his victims the choice of the Koran or the sword is not only untrue, it is impossible."

"Generally speaking, Muslim tolerance of unbelievers was far better than anything available in Christendom, until the rise of secularism in the 17th century."

Opinion of Mahatma Gandhi on the matter:

"I become more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet, the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers and his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle." -- Young India, 1924

See also Le Gall and McDonough.


more from Q


by Nur-i-Azal on

I'm going to look into this further because my own interest has been piqued as a result of this exchange. This question in itself would make for an interesting academic journal article (if one doesn't already exist), i.e. the processes, bases, types of reasonings, sources and textual subtexts/contexts of what makes a fatwa. Just a quick skim of the net, and it doesn't appear that there is all that much available in Western scholarly and academic sources.

ramin parsa

One more thing, Nuri

by ramin parsa on

You write, "We had pretty much emerged and within a few short years would've easily moved into a first world economic status. All of this was deliberately sabotaged (and specifically by the Anglo-European Axis) at the very point of its culmination. But the Shah could've held his ground even here, but chose not to. Why? He did not have the cajones."

Like I said earlier, you've stubbornly centered your entire Shah analysis on his lack of "cajones," which is patently ridiculous and petty, specially the part where you engage in sophomoric arm-chair quarterbacking: "But the Shah could've held his ground even here, but chose not to. Why? He did not have the cajones."

Nuri, do you know the full story of the revolution? Do you really? I still don't, but I do know that the plot to overthrow the Shah was hatched as early as 1975. Did you read the recent LA Times article where it discusses how the destabalization of the Shah's regime started with the Ford Administration, with men like Donald Rusfeld and Cheney, and co. (neo-cons like your beloved Bernard Lewis)?

In order to punish the Shah for his aggressive oil policies, these men pressured the Saudis to produce an obscene number of barrels of oil in 1977, to the tune of 11 MILLION barrels (an ungodly sum), so as to sabotage the oil markets and send prices down dramatically.

This is exactly what happened in 1977, when the Iranian economy grinded to a halt thanks to falling oil prices, and Amouzegar declared his austerity program, which cut many public programs, including the bribe that was being given to the mullahs for decades (the figure was $80 million in 1977) for them to remain quiet. In fact, the first squirmishes in Qom started soon after Khomeini railed against this stoppage by Amouzegar.

The story is long and sad and tragic, but the Shah of Iran, which is perhaps the most strategic country in the world, had no chance, none whatsoever, to stand up to all of his homegrown and foreign enemies, specially when inflicted with cancer. The Shah had perhaps more enemies than any Shah in the history of Persian kingship, namely, the UK, the US (its White House, State Department and the CIA), Europe, the Soviets and their Tudeh communists, our Arab neighbors, Mujaheds, Fedayoun-e-Islam and the mullahs, who received material support from Lybia, Cuba, East Germany and the Palestinians.

Not to forget is the National Front, which is where the Shah really blew it, as he should've tried to co-opt its leadership, but again, was incapable, mostly because of the long-seeded animosity held by the leadership of the National Front against the Shah for his role in Mossadegh's downfall. To me, this failure to co-opt the National Front sealed his doom. But the National Front, post-Mossadegh, were a bunch of treasonous whores and jackals, who supported Khomeini the first time he tried to overthrow the Shah in 1963, even though they knew full well what kind of a reactionary animal Khomeini was.

And again, the National Front screwed Iran in 1978 when they supported Khomeini's Islamic revolution, destroying one of their own in the process, Shapour Bakhtiar, when it sent that treasonous Sanjabi to Paris to shake hands witht the Devil. Of course, Sanjabi believed that by kissing Khomeini's hand, he would become the first post revolutionary prime minister in Iran. What a patriot he was!

Imagine all of these enemies, some of them very powerful (UK's Whitehall and the US White House, for example), and imagine being inflicted with cancer trying to deal with this situation at the height of the Cold War, with the Soviets about to invade Afghnistan, with the Devil (Khomeini) and his well-funded cohorts breathing down your neck. There were many causes for the revolution in 1979 -- weakness on the Shah's part was merely one of them, but there were many other contributing factors as damaging, if not more so, to the Shah's demise.

Just consider Jimmy Carter and his courtship of Khomeini. His General Huyser going to Iran surreptitiously to neutralize the Royal army. His ambassador to the UN calling Khomeini a "saint." His ambassador to Iran calling Khomeini a "Gandhi-like" figure.

The Shah was up against a massive tidal wave of opposition and he was dying of cancer, and yet, you immaturely and ridiculously exhibit a shallow, novice's grasp of the situation when you repeatedly point to his lack of "cajones." 

Yes, the Shah could've opted for the IRI route and massacred the masses demonstrating on the streets of Tehran, but he chose the noble route and left Iran to the forces of history. As the Shah told a former US ambassador in his New York hospital room as to why he did not stay and fight for his throne, "A dictator derives his power from his army and their guns, a monarch derives his power from his people. What good is a monarchy that sits on the blood of its subjects."


You have got to be kidding!

by Nur-i-Azal on

Indeed, there is NOTHING the Shah could have done to stop the coup!


He could've categorically refused to cooperate with it on any level. What, are you suggesting someone put a gun to his head and forced him to cooperate with Kermit Roosevelt and co.? Do you not see how your own fatalistic interpretation of history is part of the greater social psychological problem here?


That's why he left for Rome, because he actually thought if he were not around, he would not be associated with the coup. 


That's a patently nonsensical, not to mention untrue, rewrite of history. The Shah left for Rome after the first failed coup attempt that he was very much a part of. Why you omitted to mention this notable fact, is anyone's guess? But, as they say, it puts a serious damper on the rest of your inconclusive pontifications.

Now understanding the nature of fatwas and how they work is a piece of knowledge not even the most seasoned Western religious studies  or comparative legal academic knows. Did you ever go to a university? Do you know how social science works?

ramin parsa


by ramin parsa on

Please stick to fatwas, leave Mossadegh alone. You write, "I believe the Shah could've found common strategic ground with him, whatever external pressures existed, but he chose not to largely because, again, he was weak."

If you only knew how asinine this conclusion really is, you wouldn't be making it. You've centered your conclusion on the foundation of weakness, on the Shah's part, and everything in your mind flows from that starting point. But that's an incredibly shallow perspective. Weakness on the part of the Shah had nothing -- absolutely nothing! -- to do with Mossadegh's downfall. He dug his own grave, all on his own.

I explained earlier how Mossadegh was patently naive to think that post-WWII America would come to his aid against the British. The Shah was a non-factor here, in every sense. The Uk, US alliance had a target on Mossadegh, regardless of the Shah's support or his array of weaknesses.

The weakness that you're talking about, in terms of the CIA's admitted frustrations with the Shah in 1953 had to do with the Shah's resistance to signing Mossadegh's arrest warrant. For that reason, the CIA damned the Shah as a 'vacilating' monarch.

But the Shah knew deep inside that the masses supported Mossadegh and his natinalization cause, and if the Shah publicly went against the beloved prime minister, that would stain the Shah as a traitor, and engender the public's wrath. That's why he left for Rome, because he actually thought if he were not around, he would not be associated with the coup.

You can blame the Shah for exhibiting weakness in 1979, but 1953 was Mossadegh's waterloo, a nightmare of his own creation due mostly to his lack of diplomatic skills. After all, we're talking about a man who didn't become prime minister until the age of 73! Mossadegh's cousins, Vossough-e-Dowleh and Ahmad Ghavam were FAR more capable politicians. 

Indeed, there is NOTHING the Shah could have done to stop the coup! Once Mossadegh let the nationalization genie out of the bottle in 1951, there was no going back. In fact, Razmara was assasinated by the Fedayoun-e-Islam for declaring in 1952 that Iran should accept the 50/50 deal that was FINALLY offered by the British. It was Mossadegh's temperament, ill-suited for prime minister, that led to his arbitrary declaration of nationalization in 1951, mostly out of frustration. I mean, what kind of a nationalization was it really when we didn't even have homegrown Iranian technicians to work the oil fields?

It was an asinine, amateur move that eventually led to Mossadegh's downfall, which in many ways lit the fuse to the 1979 revolution, as the 1953 coup grossly undermined the Pahlavi Dynasty with the unshakable stain of illigitimacy. 



I don't know Nur,

by Q on

I am not a Fatwa scholar. I did study the issues a long time ago, but I see no contradiction with your description. I fully grant that Fatwas have both precedence and basis, which is what you might be calling calling "source" or "citation."

What's original, as I understand, is not the root of the ideas but the formulation, the form, the final verbage.

But the sense of the words "source???" that Hooshie asked for, and then I replied to with "source" and "citation" was not "theory" or "precedence" but it was literaly the place where I would (hypothetically) have copied down the words from, as if one who "issues" it is actualy relaying not generating the Fatwa.

Since, I'm saying the final formulation is original and generated by the Fatwa issuer, thus there's the existensial barrier to the "source" of the Fatwa being demanded. I would be the source of this hypothetical Fatwa!


Q, Rayy or Fatwa?

by Nur-i-Azal on

Your elucidation of the mechanics of a fatwa sounds more like the definition of rayy (opinion, or non-binding opinion) than a fatwa strictly speaking. You say that since the formulation is original, it doesn't need to be cited before. But if each formulation is original, it is not sui generis either, which then obviously denotes it must rest on some precedent or basis to make it original -- and obviously rules of reasoning aren't being based on nothing or fabricated out of thin air. So I don't quite understand what you mean by "they themselves need not be cited before." Do you have a citation for this from any Islamic textbook on fiqh (jurisprudence)? Don't worry about Mooshie. We know this poor creature is rationally handicapped! BTW I found this website just doing basic googling,




by Q on

Fatwas give sources as support material for the opinion, but since their forumlation is original, they themselves need not be cited before. This is what Hooshie was retorting when he demanded the source of my "fatwa".

Natalia, agreed, also from Gandhi:

Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.

A 'No' uttered from the deepest conviction is better than a 'Yes' merely uttered to please, or worse, to avoid trouble.


Umm, Q, I'm not sure that is entirely accurate...

by Nur-i-Azal on

Fatwas usually cite sources from both Qur'an and Hadith, and in rare, limited circumstances, the considered opinions of previous muftis regarding similar situations that have arisen in the past. I'm not sure whether citations would be a mandatory rule or not (probably not), but the text of many fatwas do in fact have citations from sundry textual sources, usually scripture.


Natalia Alvarado-Alvarez


by Natalia Alvarado-Alvarez on

"In the attitude of silence the soul finds the path in a clearer light, and what is elusive and deceptive resolves itself into crystal clearness. Our life is a long and arduous quest after Truth. "

Mahatma Gandhi


hooshie, Fatwa's don't need sources!

by Q on

You should know that by now, Hooshie! Fatwas don't need citation, and neither do elementary historical facts. I thank you for the compliment becasue compared to what you understand of history and religion, my otherwise uncontroversial statements are like words of revered world authorities. Khalif Omar ruled that all Zoroastrians are people of the book and should be treated as such.

I'm not going to do your homework for you. It makes for a lazy student.

Also as you purposefully missed my previous Fatwa. There's nothing wrong with Google searches, just the brainless judgement of the material that you receive. You have shown terrible judgment so far. It's a by-product of being blinded by hate. Just so we're clear.

Natalia Any time is a good time for truth, particularly if it sets straight bigots and racists. And if you think the situation inside Iran is about Islam, you are sorely mistaken.


Eastern insecurity

by Nur-i-Azal on

Is the core argument behind Al-e Ahmad's gharbzadegi (westoxication). You should read that work sometime. The Khomeinists might have appropriated it for themselves, but the argument that old Commie dog submits can very easily be read into the type of  leadership psychology that was behind the failure of both the two Pahlavi Shahs and Mossadeq.

I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek

Islam does not honor women; It honors violence and misery

by I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek on

And in Islam's pathetic defense, I would just like to add that it is not alone. In order to be a religion, you must first subjugate women.

Sorry if someone has already posted this, but it is one of my favorites.



ramin parsa


by ramin parsa on

Saddam Hussein also had the 4th largest army in the world in 1991. And how did he fare when push came to shove? I'm not saying the Shah was not mentally weak, rather, like most of us Iranians, he was insecure, and considering our history, this was to be expected, specially considering what happened to his all-powerful father.


Yes, but...

by Nur-i-Azal on

1978/79, by the same token, was neither 1941 or for that matter 1953. Iran boasted the fifth strongest military in the world. We had pretty much emerged and within a few short years would've easily moved into a first world economic status. All of this was deliberately sabotaged (and specifically by the Anglo-European Axis) at the very point of its culmination. But the Shah could've held his ground even here, but chose not to. Why? He did not have the cajones.

I disagree with you about Mossadeq. I believe the Shah could've found common strategic ground with him, whatever external pressures existed, but he chose not to largely because, again, he was weak. The very same declassified US government documents you mentioned earlier actually point this last fact out.

ramin parsa

Nuri, scratch below the surface...

by ramin parsa on

"The Shah, unfortunately, did not have his father's gumption and cajones." 

But then, the Shah witnessed first-hand what his father's "cajones" and "gumption" amounted to in 1941 -- a humiliating destruction of Iran's navy in 13 hours, and his forced exile.

Enormous testicles would not have served the Shah any better in 1953, as evidenced by his courageous father's total humiliation and demise in 1941. Iran, it's people and its leaders, were by and large a victim of Time, history, geography and circumstances.

The Shah knew Iran's history, even though he didn't know its people very well. For example, he knew full well how the British had destroyed (with the help of the mullahs) every modernizing leader in Iran since Abas Mirza, including his own father, Amir kabir, and Mosadegh, not to mention the legion of pro-British sympathizers (spies) within the regime itself, always ready to sabotage the government in the name of Islam or nationalism.

I'm not saying the Shah was blameless, but he certainly was not the only one to blame for our present miseries.  



by Nur-i-Azal on

Sometimes when you're weak you have accept your short-comings and wait
to fight another day, when you're stronger and more capable. Both the
Shah and Mossadegh are equally guilty of not giving adequate weight to
Iran's massive political, social, and economic short-comings in 1953
and in 1979.
          No disagreement there. Both Mossadeq and the Shah picked on the global bully (i.e. Britian) way before we were ready to do it. But the fact of the matter is that the Shah and Mossadeq standing together in the 1950s would have proven a far more formidable force for the Anglo-European consortium to stand up to easily than either the Shah or Mossadeq on their own. The Shah, unfortunately, did not have his father's gumption and cajones, and that's why everything went to hell, with both Mossadeq and the Shah ultimately screwed over by exactly the same cabal of forces: i.e. Anglo-European (and specifically British) big money connivance using the mullahs as the internal puppets and scarecrow of choice.  And here we are now, which we didn't have to be...

ramin parsa


by ramin parsa on

But according to your logic, Mossadegh was "stupid" as well, for challenging BP, UK, USA, without any serious allies, ala China and Russia vis-a-vis the IRI. And your take on the Shah's role in the 1953 coup is all too shallow and pedestrian, very typical of the Iranian community, who has more in common with a parrot than a scholar.

Once the West realized that they could not work with Mossadegh, they were going to remove Mossadegh, with or without the Shah. In fact, when they sensed hesitancy in the Shah, the Americans considered restoring the Qajar Dynasty, but were persuaded by the Brits to stick with the Pahlavi King, specially after discovering that the last Qajar heir to the Peacock Throne could not even speak Persian.

The State Department documents have been released -- in them, one can see that the oil company executives were far more concerned with oil nationalization than communism in the Middle-East, post-WWII. In fact, they clearly stated as much to the Truman Administration, fearing that if Iran nationalized, the nationalization genie would be out of the bottle, and Saudi Arabia would be next, and then Venezuela.

Both the Shah and Mossadegh tried too fast to change things too much in their respective times. In 1951, Iran was only 6 years removed from the devastation of occupation during WWII, much like present-day Iraq. And Britain desperately needed cheap Iranian oil to rebuild its war-torn nation after the devastation of Nazi bombings. There was no way in hell they were going to allow us to nationalize our oil industry in this geopolitical climate (specially after they had built the Abadan oil fields out of nothing), and for Mossadegh to think that America would come to our aid against the British is so utterly asinine, it's fair to call it pathetically naive, if not patently stupid.

I know Mossadegh was a Qajar Prince, but this was not the America of the Shuster Mission, ala 1911 Qajar Iran, when America was a benign power trying to help us mediate the Russian-English tug of war in Iran. This was 1953 America, the imperial super-power America, with the newly formed CIA at its disposal, and ever more depended on foreign oil to run its economy.

Sometimes when you're weak you have accept your short-comings and wait to fight another day, when you're stronger and more capable. Both the Shah and Mossadegh are equally guilty of not giving adequate weight to Iran's massive political, social, and economic short-comings in 1953 and in 1979.

Natalia Alvarado-Alvarez


by Natalia Alvarado-Alvarez on

Perhaps this was not the best time to bring up Islam given the current events in Iran.




by Nur-i-Azal on

The feeling is totally mututal. But at least we can agree that vis-a-vis Iran and the downfall of the Shah, Bernard Lewis is one of the many satans incarnate...

ramin parsa

Samsam, Nuri and Hooshie

by ramin parsa on

Samsam, I generally dismiss Nuri's point of view as wanna-be an-tellectual jibber-jabber, and my scorn for his retarded intellect is well documented, but you and Hooshie, I believe, are wrong about wonder-boy Bernard Lewis. He was, in fact, the architect of the "green belt" theory, which promoted the Islamification of Central Asia as a bulwark against Soviet aggression.

Whether or not Lewis is a Kiaaniphile, I don't know, but I do know that Lewis is a celebrated British Jew in Israel, a classic Neo-con, who was also a very instrumental figure in the build-up to the Iraq war in 2003, a war which I originally supported.

I have nothing against Israel per se, but I do know that Lewis, and others like James Bill, were very much in favor of a Shiite "revival" in the heart of Central Asia, i.e., Iran, at the dire expense of the Imperial Monarchy and the Iranian nation.  

And for that, I despise the man, regardless of whether he is a Kiaaniphile. For men like Lewis, the nation of Iran was nothing more than a pathetic tool, its people and rich imperial history be damned.



by Nur-i-Azal on

Cite a credible scholarly source and figure, and you'll be commended and supported for it. So far, beginning with your no-love-is-mentioned-in-the-Qur'an, you have either cited total drivel or absolute nonsense. Not much of a choice there when all you are offering is one between tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber!

Now here's a challenge to you: go ask the official Baha'i academic Susan Stiles Maneck what she thinks about Bernard Lewis and what the rest of the Mid East studies academic establishment thinks of him. Get her to explain things to you in as much detail as possible. Do this and come back here and report the results.


Samsam IIIII

by Nur-i-Azal on

Ommatie who among other things calls JJ a Bahaii would consider a Kiaaniphile Bernard Lewis a fake .


The entire Middle East Studies Association of North America (which includes scholars in Europe and Eurasia as well) consider Bernard Lewis an uncredible ultra-Zionist mouthpiece whose scholarship since the 1970s is completely biased. This is why he has virtually been banned from speaking engagements at these conferences hosted by MESA or its various associate groups, not to mention many university departments who refuse to let the man any speaking engagements.

Unless you want to suggest individuals such as Juan Cole and similar are Ommaties, who are you, again, to even attempt to second-guess them?

And there is a credible amount of evidence proving that the intellectual architect of the Shah's downfall and the rise of Khomeinism in Iran was none other than Bernard Lewis. Go ahead beat your chest for him...


Q is this your latest Fatwa (ROTFLMAO)

by hooshie on


Persian Zoroastrians were considered people of the book and NOT infidels.


source please?!!!!



"myself and many others ..." (LMAO)

by hooshie on

Boy I can make you two sing and dance for me till kingdom come.

Azali without doubt the most authoritative of these luminaries (LOL) you listed whose work is taught in Harvard, Oxbridge and Rasht (FOTFL) is definitely you but being so devoid of hubris !!!!! you so humbly placed your name at the end of the list (BIFM)

Ahh, I feel much better with bladder emptied (Boy don't get me started).  

The only redeeming element in your latest drivel is that at least there are a few Bahaiis like Juan and Sen in whose eye you are not a thorne!!! 

Well, Azali you are as predictable as nightfall. Every citation you don't agree with is a discredited, right wing, zionist or Bahaii inspired and all those you cite, no matter how mediocre they happen to be are reputable and scholarly!!!

Listen Azali I know you are desparate to be famous so here is a short lesson from the most famous and proud Iranian Bahaii:



Only a paranoid post-schizophrenia

by SamSamIIII on


Ommatie who among other things calls JJ a Bahaii would consider a Kiaaniphile Bernard Lewis a fake . Dime a dozen tokhmeh Omar ::))


Path of Kiaan Resurrection of True Iran Hoisting Drafshe Kaviaan // //


Mooshie citing Bernard Lewis?

by Nur-i-Azal on

Wow! Bernard Lewis as an authority?! LOL! This is the man who has been banned and shunned by the entire Middle East studies establishment of the Academy throughout  North America and the Anglophone world. The man is a lying ingrate and an ultra-rightwing Zionist mouthpiece who destroyed his own scholarly credibility in the 1970s. Since the 1970s his pontifications on the history of Islam are universally discarded, reviled and scorned as rightwing  ultra-Zionist propaganda and pseudo-history by genuine academics and scholars everywhere -- including by quite a few Jewish academics who despise the guy. You definitely won't score brownie points by invoking Bernard Lewis. And also some blame Lewis for being the intellectual architect behind the fall of the Shah and the rise of Khomeini and the Islamic republic! So if you want to use Bernard Lewis as your leading An-tellectual to make an argument you've never had, go right ahead.

Yet more proof of Mooshie's core idiocy! Q, look what your so-called Islamic revolution unleashed: dangerous sectarian idiots who have been taking cues from the behavior of the hezbollah!

 Just tell us WHO has proven Moojan false?


Juan Cole, Denis Maceoin, John Walbridge, K. Paul Johnson, Eric Stetson, Sen Mcglinn, myself and many others. The man is Bernard Lewis in a Bahai suit!

Freydoun Vahman

LOL! Another gigantic pseudo-intellectual without a shred of credibility where it counts.




And as for our Wiki-scholars and Googlologists ...

by hooshie on

Q and Azali


Funny you two call others that which you precisely represent: Just two examples of Q's Wiki knowledge:

"source: //

Even the neo-con sage and history professor Bernard Lewis from his new 2008 book:

"The fanatical warrior offering his victims the choice of the Koran or the sword is not only untrue, it is impossible."

As they say,

Firing into your own foot!!!!


Azali dear,


Just tell us WHO has proven Moojan false? You and the Azali mini-googlologists like yourself???- lol

Just rush and buy Freydoun Vahman's latest book and see how many references are given to Moojan.

I smell burnt ass.



vildemose: third great uncle on my mother's side

by Q on

Why do you ask?


Q are you related to

by vildemose on

Q are you related to Khomeini??


Jamshid, YOU are playing with words as usual

by Q on

My words:

I never made such a grandiose claim as "I know nothing is wrong with a major world religion

the only thing that will prove this wrong is if I have said "There is nothing wrong with Islam". Do you understand how this works?

could you then list three of the things that you indeed think are wrong with Islam?

No. This is completely irrelevant. I may or may not have made a comment on about specific things are wrong about Islam. I do believe some things are wrong. But I will not list them here, because that's not the point of the discussion NOR does it prove that I believe there is nothing wrong with Islam.

If you still are having trouble understanding let me put it to you this way:

It would be an incorrect statement to say that "I (Q) believe nothing is wrong" with France/Ice Cream/Las Vegas or Cockroaches. I have also never specifically made a comment about what is wrong those things.

Have you ever said what is wrong with Nazism or Child Molesters? I don't recall. Should I demand that you list the comments you have made about these things or else "You believe there's nothing wrong". Please Jamshid, how many times do I have to tell you: High School is over.

Could you also list three things that people like you do, which makes Islam look bad?

No, I'm not interested in these games.

I eagerly await for your response, eventhough I know you will dodge answering my questions as usual with your usual rantings.

As I'm sure you will dismiss anything logical and reasonable as "rantings." As I have said before, based on evidence I find you personally write often short sighted and full of hypocrisy. You have not disappointed yet.

hooshie: Your response seems more emotional than anything I have written. You think you understand Religious scholarship by doing google searches on people and finding right-wing hit pieces with no academic authority. This is a sign of a sad and pathetic loser. The latest of many such signs in this thread.

Also, just to repeat (since you can't even bother reading evidence to the contrary to your fantasies): Persian Zoroastrians were considered people of the book and NOT infidels.