PROPHET
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
The Story of Mohammad
16-Oct-2008
As it was customary among the wealthy Arabs of Mecca, the new born Mohammad was given to a Bedouin nanny to breast-feed him in her tribe’s campground outside the town. Zarrin Koob attributes that separation to the fact that Mecca was so filthy and decease-ridden at the time that most kids would have died, if they were kept there at an early age. So the prophet spent his first years among the Bedouin tribes and in the wild and fresh air of the desert.
Mohammad was very young when his father passed away and his custody (based on Semitic traditions) went to his grandfather, and upon his death, to his uncle. In the brutish city of Mecca, the orphaned Mohammad was treated roughly by the other kids who were better off, and was constantly reminded of his poverty and loneliness. Nevertheless, he grew up to be a hardworking, honest and thoughtful young man, very employable in the service of the Mecca traders.
Back then, the Roman trade with Far East (mostly India) had been disrupted by the century old Persian-Roman wars. Therefore, some of that trade was rechanneled through Yemen, Mecca and Syria. It was a lucrative operation for the Arab warlords who would organize and protect the safe passage of the caravans to the East Roman Empire (Byzantine).
Mohammad worked for nearly a decade in the Roman trade route and became very familiar with both the Christian and the Jewish traditions of the Near East. As an intelligent young man, although illiterate, he absorbed most of the biblical stories, which put his life in a much more appealing prospective. He found solace in the hardship stories of Job and Moses, but perhaps was most influenced by Abraham, a Semitic prophet who recanted his own town and traditions, to build a new Utopia and create a new way of life.
At the age of 40, after marrying a wealthy business woman, Mohammad found some spare time to contemplate his past and future, his beliefs and doubts. Like some other contemporary mystics of Mecca, he started frequenting the caves outside town, fasting and praying to the god for guidance. He finally claimed that an angle of god had spoken to him, and had read him a book (Koran) which would put the affairs of all mankind, including the Arabs, the Jews, the Persians and the Christians, in order!
That message was first tried on his wife and close relatives, with partial success. A handful of them accepted that the honest Mohammad was not lying, and that the incredible verses he was reciting were miraculous and could not be the work of an illiterate man. Soon, the prophet said that god had asked him to openly summon all the people of Mecca to the new faith. But the tough and cynical men of Mecca laughed at Mohammad’s calls to brotherhood, monotheism and observance of what seemed like the Jewish rituals. Even the Jewish rabbis criticized his inadequate knowledge of the biblical traditions and mistakes in reciting their stories as part of a new testament.
The laughter and the criticism made Mohammad upset and angry enough, to start confronting the prominent townspeople with daily repudiation of their barbaric manners. In response, the Mecca nobility boycotted his business, openly disowned him and even encouraged the street kids to ridicule and stone him. Poor and desperate, the prophet then concentrated his message towards the disadvantaged of Mecca, the deprived and the slaves. He not only promised them freedom and hope, but also the Abraham god’s pledge that ‘the meek would inherit the earth’!
When the Mecca upper class was confronted with the specter of a slave uprising, they killed some of the rebellious poor, confiscated Muslims’ properties and banished Mohammad and his followers to the outskirts of the city. Pained and worried that the fickle flame of his calling would die in such hardship, Mohammad sent messengers far and wide. The people of Yathrib (later called the Medina or city of prophet) gave him refuge, and became his base to fight the aristocracy of Mecca.
From his base in Medina, Mohammad encouraged and organized his followers to revenge on the Meccans, who had earlier confiscated their belongings. This started years of looting of the Mecca caravans that had to pass Medina on route to Syria, and back. In reply, the Mecca warlords organized much bigger trade missions that could be guarded more effectively. This in turn encouraged the now militaristically organized Muslims to engage in open combat with the Meccans who were accompanied by large sums of money and goods.
The rich and powerful of Mecca lost their first famed battle (Badr) to the Muslims, because they had grossly underestimated the ragtag party of Mohammad. The true strength of Mohammad’s faith was the open-door policy and merit-based hierarchy. If you wanted in, well, you were in, without any tribal or racial barriers. And if you were any good, you could get command, without prejudice and bias. In addition, most of the followers ‘had nothing to lose but their chains’ (as Karl Marx rediscovered later), and had a lot to gain by attacking and defeating the pampered, pompous and disorganized aristocracy.
His first relatively easy victories made Mohammad both jubilant and gracious. He would be forgiving even towards his tormenters (the Mecca rich) and his ridiculers (the Jewish tribes). However, soon the opposition woke up under the leadership of Mohammad’s own grandfather tribe (Ghoraish), and organized successful campaigns (like Uhud) against the Muslims. Many of Mohammad’s family and friends were killed, and he was himself injured.
But neither the bloody defeat of Uhud, nor the subsequent siege of Medina (war of Khandagh) could break the back of Mohammad’s uprising. In the face of diminished loots and proceeds of war, the prophet promised eternal heaven to his battle-wary followers, where ‘streams of milk and honey’ would quench their thirst and ‘flocks of young virgins’ would satisfy their desires. At a more practical level, Mohammad resorted to such Persian-Roman war veterans like Salomon the Farsi, who taught the latest war techniques to Muslims. He also started a campaign of intimidation against all the Ghoraish allies, including the neighboring Jewish tribes, starting with the threat of force and concluding with their massacre and total annihilation.
Against the undefeated rich and powerful of Mecca, Mohammad the war-strategist concluded a balanced peace treaty, which among other things, allowed him and his followers to visit Mecca and its famed cubic temple once a year during the pilgrimage. The cubic temple of Mecca (Kaaba) was a traditional holy site for the idolater Arabs, where each tribe used to keep its god’s symbol (idol) for protection, and then visit it once a year. The annual pilgrimage was supposed to be a time of peace, and the tribesmen were only allowed to enter Mecca without their weapons.
Initially, Mohammad had forfeited the holiness of Mecca and Kaaba, in favor of the Jewish holy town of Jerusalem. However, in face of bitter struggles with the neighboring Jewish tribes, and in order to gain favors with the Arab tribes who worshiped Kaaba, Mohammad changed the Muslim point of prayer. Then next year, the Muslims returned to Mecca for pilgrimage and show-of-force, chanting: ‘no god but Allah’. However, they did not otherwise force the issue on the Meccans. Allah being one of the chief existing gods in Kaaba, the message started to sink in.
The simple unifying message of ‘no god but Allah’ appealed to the disjointed Arab tribes who could finally see a chance for unity and nationhood. The most powerful of them appealed to Mohammad to also accept the legitimacy and holiness of four highly regarded idols in the Kaaba, as a precondition for them to join the Muslims. Upon reflection, Mohammad accepted and uttered verses which praised the four idols of Kaaba as holy and legitimate. However, the next day, he changed heart and recanted that acceptance as the Satanic Verses, which apparently the devil had whispered into his ears!
Next year, during the pilgrimage to Mecca, Mohammad summoned 10,000 armed Muslims to converge on the city. He reneged on the peace treaty and gave two options to the Meccans, Islam (submission) or war! However, when the rich and powerful of Mecca submitted, Mohammad was again gracious and allowed them full amnesty, and even notable positions in his armed forces and governmental organization. There and then, the prophet’s journey from revolutionary to sovereign was complete!
Reading Mohammad’s life, one can find so many similarities between him and the other revolutionaries, who tried to change the world but world, changed them. Mohammad being an actual person (unlike such mythical characters like Moses and Jesus with no direct historical confirmation), is so real and flesh-and-blood that we can easily see his similarities with many other revolutionaries everywhere and even down to our own time (Cromwell, Robespierre, Lenin, Mao and even Khomeini).
At the end, no story is luscious without a bit of rumor. In Islamic tradition, it is known that the first wife of Mohammad (Khadijeh) was the first Muslim believer, and that the prophet did not marry anyone else (although Khadijeh was 15 years his senior) as long as she was living. Apparently, it was Khadijeh who proposed marriage (so 21st century) to the then shy Mohammad (a 25 year-old bachelor in her employment). It is also reported that Khadijeh was of a monotheistic family (Hanifian), who are rumored to have been Jewish. Now, based on most Jewish traditions, even if a person born into the faith recants Judaism, they are still considered a Jew. More interestingly, Jewish lineage is a maternal one, going from mothers to offspring. Therefore, deliciously enough, that can make Khadijeh, her daughter Fatima and even her grandson Hossein, all Jewish! Not that there is anything wrong with it!
Reference
The 23 years of prophecy, by Prof. Ali Dashti, temporarily posted at the link below.
From
Farsinameh
| Recently by Arash Monzavi-Kia | Comments | Date |
|---|---|---|
وابستگی، استقلال، همبستگی | - | Nov 04, 2012 |
| The pain of living | 1 | Oct 21, 2012 |
| The 2nd Year of Green | - | Jun 01, 2010 |
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
Mammad, your religion is better than all other religions
by Vali Fagih (not verified) on Mon Oct 20, 2008 07:56 PM PDTSorry. I forgot how non obsurd Islam is as a religion.
Mammad, You say:
"We have Jews who go to absurd extents to avoid doing anything from Friday afternoon to Saturday evening."
This is coming from someone who professes to be a tolerant Muslim and expects everyone to respect Muslims and and Islam; This is coming from someone who gets personally insulted at attacks on Islam and plays the Muslim victim in post 9/11 world.
Mammad, didn't you just fast for 30 days of Ramadan?
Mammad, would you like it if someone said that your fasting is obsurd?
Why Muslim practices, such as fasting for 30 days, Sineh Zani, facing Mecca and praying, going around a stone 100 times and worshiping it and throwing stones at the devil are not obsurd but the Jewish practice of not working on the Sabbath, as a day of rest, is obsurd?
Do you expects us to believe you are a tolerant Muslim with such statements Mammad?
Who care what you do and who cares what Jews do? The fact that you profess to be a tolerant person while making such intolerant statements is the point aziz.
Mammad
by Bijan A M on Mon Oct 20, 2008 06:17 PM PDTIf what you say is right and who you claim to be is true, there is no possible way that you are a Muslim. You must either be a Bahaii, Zoroastrian, Jewish, Christians, Budihst, Hindu,…..But there is no way you are a Muslim. A true Muslim has no tolerance, has no respect for life, is willing to blow himself as long as he can take the lives of many other innocents to prove his point.
Khomeini is a true Muslim. Go ask all the sineh-zan crowd and mujaheds who celebrated his arrival and emamat. The true Muslims are those who flog in public, hang children in public and stone women to death in public.
As human and tolerant as you are, it will be a contradiction to call yourself a Muslim. If you are who you say you are, you belong to a different religion. I don’t know what it is called, but it is not the well known Islam.
Arash Monzavi-Kia
by Mammad on Mon Oct 20, 2008 05:42 PM PDTI liked your article. But, with all due respect, you only seem to care about trivial issues, such as what a moghalled might ask a Marja' about how to go to the restroom or how to take the "vozoo.".
We are talking about principles, not how the common people behave. It is absolutely up to the free will of any Shi'ite to elevate himself to the level so as not need any Marja'. It is absolutely up to the free will of a Shi'ite to reject the reactionary interpretation of a reactionary ayatollah. It is also not true, as you claimed in the post below, that if someone does things against what his/her Marja' says, they will not be accepted. This is not only truly absurd, to put it extremely politely, but also completely untrue. You are simply repeating what an illietrate Shi'ite Muslim might have been told in a small village by some reactionary Akhond.
The issues that you brought up in your comment to me have as much to do with culture as with religion. If a man wants to have another lover or "wife," he will do it regardless of "sigheh." People like me reject notions like sigheh. But, even if Sigheh is going to be implemented in its true sense of the word, it will be impossible to do so. Therefore, the problem is not with the religion, in my view, rather with the way people use it or interpret it for themselves.
This is not restricted to only Islam and Muslims. In the U.S. we have millions of Christians who do whatever the heck their preachers tell them to do. John McCain chose an utterly unqualified moron like Palin, simply because he wants to get the votes of religious morons like Palin. We have Jews who go to absurd extents to avoid doing anything from Friday afternoon to Saturday evening.
So, why pick on Islam or Shi'ism alone? I supposed because it is fashionable, and SAFER, to do so.
Mammad
Misleading info. corrected
by Anonymous... (not verified) on Mon Oct 20, 2008 05:30 PM PDTGrowth of Islam is due to due to higher birth rates not conversion.
Anonymous Observer
by Mammad on Mon Oct 20, 2008 05:12 PM PDTRegardless of what I think about your comment (I agree with parts, disagree with othr parts), I repeat what I have said many times:
The vast majority of Muslims are people like me. They believe in their religion, and reject violence, or use of Islam as an excuse or justification for violence, for imposing one's will or a group's will on others, etc.
The Christian Democrats in Western Europe also started as very conservative, reactionary group. Over time, they evolved. They are a force reckone with in Western Europe, because while they are still Christian and religious, they have separated that from governing. The same thing has started to happen ti Islamic groups. It is already happening in such countries as Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Turkey. It will happen in Iran. Most reformist/democratic groups in Iran already support this, tacitly or explicitly.
It is a fantasy that Islam will disappear, or is disappearing. Islam is not going anywhere. It is here to stay. It is the fastest growing religion in the world. Therefore, it is in world's interest to support moderate Muslims and moderate Islamic groups, helping them to evolve, so that they become the representative for a great religion, not an extremely tiny minority, like bin Laden's group, or the Wahaabi or Salafi group.
It does nobody any good to attack savagely and unfairly moderate Muslims. I have a thick skin, and my religion teaches me to be patient. But, what is the use of all this attack?
Mammad
Ajam jaan
by Arash Monzavi-Kia on Tue Oct 21, 2008 03:00 PM PDTJust a friendly word of advice; don't pick a fight with EzRaEl (the angel of death :-)
Thanks to dear Ajam for correction!
Arash M-K
Anonymous Observer: Thank
by Anonymous... (not verified) on Mon Oct 20, 2008 03:24 PM PDTAnonymous Observer: Thank you for your fact-based and accurate analysis. The pre-medidated demonizing of pre-Islamic history on behalf of IRI demonstrates the IRI's legitimate fear of resurrection of zoroastrianism in Iran.
The Aghazadeh-based think-tanks will benefit from a bit of intellectual curiosity and vigor in their revision of Iranian history.
Dear Shadooneh
by Arash Monzavi-Kia on Mon Oct 20, 2008 03:22 PM PDTThe first time that I heard it, I could not believe it either, but apperantly, if one does not imitate (Taghlid) from an Ayatollah, his/her even simple acts (like cleaning) are not acceptable (Ghabool).
Arash M-K
Anon. Obser.
by Arash Monzavi-Kia on Mon Oct 20, 2008 03:18 PM PDTOf course Mohammad did not 'unite' the two existing civilizations in the Middle East (Roman and Persian), but defeated them. As described time and again in previous blogs, that is an example of barbarians (Arab Tribes) defeating defunct civilizations.
Arash M-K
Fered again with mumbo jumbo?
by Lefty Lap Poodle (not verified) on Mon Oct 20, 2008 11:28 AM PDT"The mixture of your typical Islamist prevarications in conjunction with your revisionism on top of your super-jumbo ego trip all the while claiming to be fair-minded is a potion only an alchemist, aka chemist can concoct, ergo Haji chemist. Now how about backing up your outlandish claims with some proof?"
Proof that a Chemist is an Islamist?! What kind of proof are you looking for and more importantly what kind of "proof" are YOU offering to back your claim?
I have lots and lots of proof, tons. Just need to know the brand and kind that interests you.
Let's Not Get Carried Away
by Anonymous Observer on Mon Oct 20, 2008 10:08 AM PDTI do want to clarify one thing. As someone who is not a fan of Muhamed, Islam (or other religions for that matter), and as someone who was one of the first to start the negative comments about Muhamed on this thread, I do want to caution everyone to not extend crticism of Islam to criticism of moderate Muslims. Take Mammad for example. As much as I disagree with his political views, he is nonetheless, a moderate, practicing Muslim (just like my own family). In my opinion, the Islam that has been developed for the past 1400 years is vastly different from its original version. Historical accounts even point to the fact that the Quran itself was put together by Caliph Othman, and is not the original Muhamedean version. While I believe that the true version of Islam is in fact what is practiced by Bin Laden and his bunch, luckily for the wrold, that version does not have many followers. The version of Islam that is practiced by the overwhelming majority of Muslims, including Mammad, is a de facto reformed version of Islam that has more emphasis of the philosophical, rather than the political / military aspects of the religion. Mammad may disagree with me, but I think that this is what he is tacitly trying to get across.
The important thing for everyone is that in our efforts to expose the true nature of Muhamed, we should draw the significant distinction between what he practices and preached and what today's moderate Muslims practice and believe. To do otherwise, will result in an unfair demonization of a large group of innocent people.
Persia is Eternal.
Bijan A M
by Mammad on Mon Oct 20, 2008 08:55 AM PDTIf you are serious, I have absolutely positively no problem with this. If you feel about yourself the way I do, that is fine, and I am with you. I am not against any Jew. My religion, in addition to common sense, teaches me to respect all other religions.
Mammad
Lack of Basic Understanding
by Anonymous Observer on Mon Oct 20, 2008 08:24 AM PDTI previously asked Arash Monzavi Kia, the author of this and other historically related pieces, to tell us about his educational background. Of course, he ignored that request and never responded (see my comment below). The reason why I had aksed for this was becuase of what I saw in this, and his other writings, to be a lack of basic understanding of ancient history. Mr. Mozavi Kia is more concerned about perpetuating a point of view rather than being accurate about the course of historical events. Take this gem of a sentence, from one of his comments on this thread, for example:
"Whether we like it or not, Mohammad has been behind the taming of the masses of barbarians in the Middle East and the establishment of one of the two truly monotheistic and non-racial religions of the world."
Really?!!! So, everyone in the "Middle East" was a "barbarian"? The Egyptians, possessing one of the greatest cultures that has ever existed on the face of this planet, were barbarians?!!! The Carthaginians were barbarians? (Note that since Mr. Monzavi Kia is a self loathing Iranian, I am leaving the Persians out of this for now). And in contrast, the desert bedouins of Arabia, headed by a power hungry Muhamed were civilized?!!!! They brought civilization to, let's say, the Egyptians (I'm sure you've heard of Egyptians...you know...the guys with the pyramids and the great library of Alexandria, the center of world's knowledge that was burnt to the ground by invading Muslims)?!!! If you really believe that, you not only need to pick up a basic encyclopedia, but you must also see a shrink!! The fact of the matter is that if you realy study history, and put these events in a historical contex, you will see that the hegemony of the desert Arab cultural void caused by Islam contributed to the loss of many great cultures, such as the Egyptians.
And please don't tell me about the great "Muslim scientific age", which is another Arabo-phile myth. First of all, as I have mentioned before, if there was such a thing, it did not happent because of bedouin Arab intervention, but rather despite it, given the disdain that Muhamed and other Arab barbarians had toward science (which they considred witchcraft) and art (Muhamed saying that he rather have a belly full of fire than a painting). If there was scientific advance the cause of it was the fact that under Islam, various closed and tribal societies of different customs and languages were inter-linked, and united under a common language, and this contributed to an exchnage of knowledge which may have led to some scientific progress. Second, all of this happened under so-called Muslim rulers who were, well, not really observant Muslims, and allowed scientific experiments to go forward (including those experiments that required alcoholic beverages which were officially banned), and also allowed artists to express themselves.
Lastly, who is to say that such sceintific renaissance would not have happened in its due course, and without Islam's intervention. These events happened centuries after Muhamed. How can you say, with any degree of certainty, that those societies would not have been able to achieve that degree of progress in the absence of the Muslim invasion? Muslims taking credit for scientific and cultural advance in Persia, Syria and Egypt is like Ronald Reagan taking credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union!
In sum, you have much to learn, sir. I suggest that you read up on history before you post such Iran bashing rubbish.
Persia is Eternal.
A concerted effort to defy Divine intervention
by LostIdentity. (not verified) on Sun Oct 19, 2008 10:39 PM PDTIn recent decade, there seems to be so much energy spent to analyze Islam and show that islam is nothing but repeat of The Message given to Moses and later to Jesus. Naturally, to prove the point Mohammad is actually portrayed as a smart (but illiterate !?!) character who was totally influenced by the men of Judaism and Christianity. All n' All to prove that he is anything but The last messenger of The Almighty.
1st of all, Quran itself testifies that what Mohammad has brought is nothing but what the prophets before him was given to deliver.
Also, crediting what Mohammad brought to men of Judaism and christianity is not something new. All of this happened during his era by his enemies but at the end, people bought his message for it's genuineness and reality. You can search Quran and find all this animocities that was imposed on Mohammad.
The point is that all this messing up with the work of Almighty to gain some political gains is NOT worth it. The fact is as clear as Sun. Some may cloud up the sky to cover it, but inevitably it will come out and shine.
Then, some people talk about revisionism in Islam to make it more compatible with the mindset of modern man.I think methoid changes are inevitable and realistic. However, messing up with principles is dangerous and impossible. The latter is the change that the intention of many suedo-intellectuals (I think including the author of this article) ARE.
Arash, there's no need to ask any one how to..
by Shadooneh (not verified) on Sun Oct 19, 2008 09:06 PM PDTwash your bottom, if you know how to already. The Shieh sect does not force anyone to ask any questions, but the Marja has have an answer for any type of question if asked by a follower. Bunch of you are down on the Shieh Eslam and a few like Zion and Anonymous Observer and Fred are downright hostile to Eslam and Mohammad. I personally think the reason why all these characters are heaping so much garbage on Eslam and Muslems is nothing but bigotry and hysteria couple with various hangups including sexual ones. Anonymous Observer is a good example of a person who lets his/her sexual hangups get the better of him/her and call Mohammad a "pervert" for having a couple of wet dreams. Show me a normal human being who hasn't had a couple of those. In short, attributing all kinds of crimes and human rights violation to the religion while disregarding the fact that there are certain perpetrators, common among all religions, who commit such crimes, shows mere bigotry and hate mongering and nothing more.
To EzRaEl?!
by Ajam (not verified) on Sun Oct 19, 2008 08:51 PM PDTI have no idea what you're tryiong to prove here! If you don't like Iranians discussing matters that are important to them, then why do you check these forums? Who sent you an invite or begged you to be here?
I don't understand what this business of yours is with the wars and famine in the world?!You said "I am really busy right now with all the dead and dying of different wars, famines and AIDS," I beg your pardon, but what are you taking your precious time off to spread your words of wisedom from? The peace corps, Red Cross or midicine sans frontiers?!
I actually think you're bothered by the discussion of tenets of Islam here. You blame ONLY Iranians (including Khomeini) for "the killings," What ever that might be!
I believe you rather are an Islamist trying to make noise when it comes to what you can not bear to be discussed! We Iranians would rather discuss our issues than blowing up mosques (as in Iraq and Pakistan) or rocketing hospitals (as in Ghaza and Beirut) from helicopters! Now, what's wrong with that?! If it gets on your nerve, then, you can deprive us of your intrusive prophecies... Believe me, no love lost!!!
Mammad agha
by Arash Monzavi-Kia on Sun Oct 19, 2008 06:57 PM PDTEvery religion has its ups and downs, weaknesses and strengths, dark spots and shining moments. But to place Shia as the 'most progressive' is just absurd!
Even compared to Sunni Islam, Shia has some major fatal flaws. For example the practice of Sigheh (temporary marriage) is forbidden in all Sunni sects, expect during extra ordinary times of war, but is freely and opportunistically abused by the rich and powerful in Iran.
On the point of religious freedom, your nice dialogue is extremely misleading. A Shia lay person by religious rites, cannot even wash his bottom properly without 'imitating' or obeying an Ayatollah; let alone deciding for his marriage, life and politics!
Of course, as a born Shia Muslim, I wouldn't want to make you look bad in debating the others, especially that most of the Islamic crap is actually rooted in the prior Semitic traditions. However, we should be honest with ourselves, because although the Shia Islam was able to uphold a 'pretty' facade for itself before it came to absolute political power; now, it cannot cover its ugly, rotten and disgusting face with a ton of cosmetics!
The jig has come up since 30 years, buddy; please, let's be absolutely honest about ourselves while criticizing others.
Arash M-K
I am too lazy.....
by Bijan A M on Sun Oct 19, 2008 04:52 PM PDTAnother re-post of Mammad with some edits (This was his post in response to Zion):
I respond to you because others who have a fair mind might see what I say.
I am a practicing JEW. One either believes in my religion or does not. If one does not, then, obviously that person can do whatever he/she wants. So, this is only about a practicing JEW.
If a practicing JEW is uninformed about religious issues, he/she consults and seeks advice of an expert, who is called A RABBI. This is like anything else, we seek the advice of a doctor when we are ill. We seek the advice of a financial analyst for our money, etc.
Or, a practicing JEW is at such a level of knowledge that can be consulted with - the RABBI.
Or a practicing JEW is knowledgeable enough to decide for himself/herself, but not so knowledgeable to be an expert. This category is called “REFORM JEW" .
It is absolutely by the free will of a person to decide whether he/she is a REFORM JEW, or someone who needs advice of an expert.
No one appoints A RABBI. One becomes A RABBI, after certain levels of education, by his acceptance by people. Government does not have any role (or it should not). The RABBIs differ among themselves about the true interpretations of JUDAISM teachings. Some are reactionary and backward, some are very progressive. Difference of opinion is the dynamism of JUDAISM.
I do not know any more progressive religion than this, because it is by free will of a person that such decisions are made. One can reject religion altogether. That is fine. But, among all religions, I find the JUDAISM the most progressive, precisely due to this.
That is not to say that it has not been used and abused by others to advance their goals and agenda. Of course, it has been, and again, it is like all other religions. But, I am talking about the principles.
BIJAN
With Mammad’s permission……
by Bijan A M on Sun Oct 19, 2008 04:34 PM PDTI am reposting his post with a few edits:
“Thank you. You are much wiser than I am.
The problem with this bunch is that, if I do not respond, they do not leave me alone. They come back with a more vicious attack and, on top of that, claim that I have no response. I have said this many times and say it again: The problem that this bunch has with me is that, I am a JEW that says that religion is a private matter; that we need a democratic secular republic; that there is no contradiction between being democratic and being a practicing JEW, etc. STATE OF ISRAEL and JEWS are not going anywhere. They are here to stay. Anybody who thinks otherwise is fooling himself/herself. So, instead of supporting a JEW with my type of thinking, they attack me. The other problem that this bunch has with me is that, they cannot sell their nonsense to me. At the same time, they just cannot tolerate a JEW who is well-informed, writes with total conviction and with honesty, even though he has been the subject of the most vicious attacks on this site. If I am called all sorts of names by the guy whom I refer to as …., it is no problem. But, if I start doing the same to him, I immediately become an anti-ISLAM! You see how the mentality of this bunch works? These virtues that I, a practicing JEW, exhibit destroy the stereotype that this bunch has made of a practicing JEW.
That is the crux of the issue they have with me.
BIJAN
PS. See mammad's response to Irandokht
Nice try
by Zion on Sun Oct 19, 2008 04:07 PM PDTMammad, but unfortunately we are no longer in the Kindergarten to buy such word plays:
'I am a practicing Shi'ite Muslim. One either believes in my religion or does not. If one does not, then, obviously that person can do whatever he/she wants. So, this is only about a practicing Shi'ite Muslim.'
Well obviously. That is why my comment was about how Shiitism works and what the mindset of its followers is supposed to be. Your "answer" is an utterly irrelevant explanation of the obvious.
'If a practicing Shi'ite muslim is uninformed about religious issues, he/she consults and seeks advice of an expert..'
That is the point. What is the scope of these "religious issues". No one in this thread has been discussing the right way to observe the minute details of a peculiar Islamic ritual. The discussions, including your own 'Mohtaat' level "positions", involved issues concerning the general outlook to life, relation of science to religous dogma, Persian versus Islamic identity, political views and sides, value systems, legitimacy of the state of Israel and so on. All issues for which in all healthy and free cultures an individual adult is brought up and even expected to decide for himself. That is where the difference lies.
Zion
by Mammad on Sun Oct 19, 2008 03:44 PM PDTI respond to you because others who have a fair mind might see what I say.
I am a practicing Shi'ite Muslim. One either believes in my religion or does not. If one does not, then, obviously that person can do whatever he/she wants. So, this is only about a practicing Shi'ite Muslim.
If a practicing Shi'ite muslim is uninformed about religious issues, he/she consults and seeks advice of an expert, who is called an ayatollah. This is like anything else, we seek the advice of a doctor when we are ill. We seek the advice of a financial analyst for our money, etc.
Or, a practicing Shi'ite Muslim is at such a level of knowledge that can be consulted with - the ayatollahs.
Or a practicing Shi'ite Muslim is knowledgeable enough to decide for himself/herself, but not so knowledgeable to be an expert. This category is called "mohtaat."
It is absolutely by the free will of a person to decide whether he/she is a mohtaat, or someone who needs advice of an expert.
No one appoints an ayatollah. One becomes an ayatollah, after certain levels of education, by his acceptance by people. Government does not have any role (or it should not). The ayatollahs differ among themselves about the true interpretations of Islamic teachings. Some are reactionary and backward, some are very progressive. Difference of opinion is the dynamism of Shiism.
I do not know any more progressive religion than this, because it is by free will of a person that such decisions are made. One can reject religion altogether. That is fine. But, among all religions, I find the Shiism the most progressive, precisely due to this.
That is not to say that it has not been used and abused by others to advance their goals and agenda. Of course, it has been, and again, it is like all other religions. But, I am talking about the principles.
Regarding the question of your compatriot: I answer it when he starts to be polite and stops his name calling. Say what you want. It will not affect me. I am here to stay. I am here to comment, no matter what. But, from now on, I will not even respond to anything that he says, unless he, and for that matter anybody who cares to comment on what I say, is the way I have mentioned here: Polite, no name calling, and to the point.
Mammad
See Islamic behaviour in action... some true stories...
by Anonymous wow (not verified) on Sun Oct 19, 2008 02:11 PM PDTVideo of a freed kurdish girl prisoner of islamic republic on google video describes her interrogation by an islamic republic interrogator with a thick islamic beard in the prison. She tells how the religious man ended up being alone in a cell with her while interrogating her. How he describes himself as being able to do "anything" for islamic republic to survive. While interrogating her, he starts playing with and massaging his "member" to intimidate her. The rest you can guess for yourself...
There also video of another kurdish woman prisoner that is threatened to be raped in front of her children if she does not cooperate with the interrogator...
In iran it is fashionable these days that islamists in power look for lone girls and women in their position of power. They use their position of power and their religious duty to force the girl or woman to become their "sigheh" in order for their interaction to be free of sin. This is usually done on a monthly basis for a petty price. Recently, an islamist professor in Zanjan tried to force a girl student to become his sigheh so that their interaction be free of sin. When the girl revealed this with proof, the government sent its thugs along with tanks to suppress the objection of students. Demonstrators are now in prison...
This is what islam is that islamist wanted to bring on iranians when they staged the black revolution of 1979.
Couldn't it be possible for
by lkjhlkjh (not verified) on Sun Oct 19, 2008 12:16 PM PDTCouldn't it be possible for iranians to both revere their pre and post islamic heritage?! Like can't we read both the Shahnameh and the Quran and enjoy both without feeling like there is some sort of contradiction? Do you ever hear Americans and Europeans spliting over whether to embrace their Greco-Roman heritage vs their Chrisitan European heritage? No that's because these countries have mastered the art of pluralism and can allow seemingly contradictory cultures to coexist. and as long as they tolerate each other they will not contradict, in fact they will enrich each other :) Iranians have a lot of work to do before iran can truly become modern. We can have all the cellphones and ipods in the world but if we still act like cavepeople or tribal bandits we will get nowhere.
Mammad- You are an elitist
by Mortezah (not verified) on Sun Oct 19, 2008 11:41 AM PDTSorry but you are your own worst enemy proving again that religion and politics don't mix. I don't care what people like you say- I don't believe your type. You will always manage to mix religion with politics somehow because you are a "Mohtaat"; and because I am not as good and observant "Muslims" like you, I will never be able to "decide for myself". I think we better replace "mohtaat" with "moataad". You and the rest of the Iranian masses are addicted to religion. This Moataady to religion and mixing it with politics is our major problem as a nation.
Good Analysis Zion!
Zion
by instructionmanual (not verified) on Sun Oct 19, 2008 11:17 AM PDT'I am a "mohtaat," meaning I have reached that level of knowledge that I can decide for myself. '
Wow, so in Shiitism you have to reach a level to do what a free adult is supposed to do in a free and healthy culture, decide for himself? Why am I not surprised. :-)
Absolutely brilliant observation; utterly profound.
Islam renders one's brain incapacitated; hence, the masses never learn how to make decisions on their own and are therfore, easily pliable and manipulated by the mullahs. Sharia and Islam is an instruction manual on mind control, brainwashing, designed to ensure that the subjects will remain subjugated and retarded forever.
EzRaEl
by Arash Monzavi-Kia on Sun Oct 19, 2008 10:38 AM PDTEzRaEl,
You should be ashamed of yourself calling us 'a bunch of crazies from the crazy land of Middle East'.
What have we done to deserve that? Are we constantly fighting one another? Do we have no mercy on our own people? Is it that we consider our own ideas, race and creed better than anyone else, and would love to eliminate them if we could?
Well, unless if any of the above is true, you should promptly apologize!
So afraid of you,
Arash M-K
You don't see the truth, do you?
by Anonymous Reza (not verified) on Sun Oct 19, 2008 10:38 AM PDT(1) It does not matter who you are, but it does matter that you lied, because that reminds us of another person. That is what khomeini did so skillfully.
(2) I don't care about Christians and jews, but I do care about what islam has been doing to MY country. Contrary to islamists, I am iranian first, and I do not share that honor with anything else, not even if it is claimed to be coming from a ruthless hypocrite God through an arab who lived 14 centuries ago!
What kind of decision are you talking about. If you think that you have enough knowledge to decide things for yourself, no problem. BUT, if you think that you have enough Qoranic knowledge to decide what is good for iran and iranians, just like khomeini did, then you deserve the opposition.
(3) You don't get it, do you? People inside and outside iran are angry about what islam and islamists did to our country. They are angry when islamists put an unrealistic face on islam and mix iranianism with islam who destroyed iran (twice). You do not see the scale of the disaster that "islam" caused us. I don't think you sense the depth of disaster (and anger) that people have for islam and islamists who have been robbing the country and killing and raping and oppressing its people for the past 30 years "with the same certainty that you have that that is what islam says they must do". Read khomeini's letters and orders for mass killings to see how this certainty and fanaticism with islam (replacing logic and humanity) brought us nothing but corruption at its finest form. People in iran are lining up behind embassies to escape to likes of Malaysia and Singapore, when did that happen when the country was less islamic pre-1979.
Like it or not: the responsibility of 1979 disaster in completely and squarely on islamists and leftist shoulders. But I doubt if they ever had good intentions to begin with; they were all after power and country's wealth, and used the respect the iranians had for religion to deceive them. They destroyed MY country (and showed us what islam was according to ayatollahs who know all about islam). They had the same persistence and certainty that you have that their islamic views could do better than the shah. I cannot even imagine where we were today had the half-decent unislamic regime of the shah had survived in place of the islamic disaster that we see today.
People are attacking you because what you say symbolizes what has been going wrong for the past 30 years, with the same certainty that khomeini and khalkhali and khamenei have had. It is very dangerous to claim to know what God wants for a country and impose that on people by force, by oppression, by imprisonment, by raping of young girls, by murder, and by terror. That is dangerous when it comes from khomeini or anyone who supports anything that he did or he believed in. The ideology behind that claim (i.e, islam and its messenger) would then become a fair game, just like when USSR collapsed and n. korea failed, people would not blame russians and koreans for the failure but the ideology of communism and wrongness of marx as the culprit.
Here is a diversion: iran claimed to have $129B in reserve about a month ago, but recently central bank leaked that the right number is actually $7B. That is the kind of islam that I came to hate and the kind of islamist that I and any true iranian (must) detest: thievery and deception at its best.
Haji alchemist
by Fred on Sun Oct 19, 2008 10:19 AM PDTThe mixture of your typical Islamist prevarications in conjunction with your revisionism on top of your super-jumbo ego trip all the while claiming to be fair-minded is a potion only an alchemist, aka chemist can concoct, ergo Haji chemist. Now how about backing up your outlandish claims with some proof?
Arash, What's Your Educational Background?
by Anonymous Observer on Sun Oct 19, 2008 10:06 AM PDTArash Monzavi-Kia,
You have constantly been posting pieces about Iran's ancient history (most of it being nonsense and wrong). For the benefit of your readers, can you please tell us what educational background you have in ancient Persian, Middle Eastern, or any ancient civilization for that metter that qualifies you to write these pieces?
Persia is Eternal.
'Mohtaat'?
by Zion on Sun Oct 19, 2008 09:55 AM PDTWhat is the qualifications to be a 'mohtaat'? To be able to perform feats of 'Taqiyyah' well enough?
'I am a "mohtaat," meaning I have reached that level of knowledge that I can decide for myself. '
Wow, so in Shiitism you have to reach a level to do what a free adult is supposed to do in a free and healthy culture, decide for himself? Why am I not surprised. :-)
How about you answer Fred's question if you can Professor, and stop bragging about your positions and 'levels'? You can't, can you?