IDEAS
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
When taboos must be broken
01-Feb-2008
Islam, as a religion, is a composite of beliefs and traditions from divergent monotheistic prophets, those who would teach the belief in one God. It is as a social order that Islam distinguishes in creeds and practice from other religions. It is as a social order that Islam is distinct in creed and practice from other religions; it is both a social order and a functional political system. Islam in its development abandoned the initial period of spiritual teachings in favour of strict social and judicial rules for Muslims. To see how this happened, let us take an unbiased look at its development.
The alleged prophecy of Muhammad Ibn Abdullah started with the revelation of the Koran when he was 40 and living in Mecca. He started believing that he was chosen to communicate a divine message to his fellow city dwellers. Thus his prophecy began when in one of his usual meditations in Mount of Hira, near Mecca, he received the first revelation of the Koran delivered by angel Gabriel. The revelation began with the first “Ayah” (verse) of the Koran, to illiterate Muhammad, commanding him to “read with the name of Allah”. In such moments of initial revelation, he was in a kind of trance (ecstasy), with accompanying features, such as perspiring, convulsions, clouding of or loss of consciousness. All those symptoms suggest to some scholars that he was probably epileptic. Perhaps because of excessive suffering in his past, he looked to his unconscious for sources of enlightenment.
The Koran is alleged to be God’s message to mankind. It contains 114 “Surahs” (chapters), which are sub-divided into “Ayah” (verses). The writings of the Koran remained in separate pieces for some 23 years. The doctrine of the Koran emphasises strict “Tawheed” (monotheism). It challenges the pantheism of both ancient Greek and Oriental religions, which prior to Islam had identified God with the forces of nature and with the natural substances within space and time. Tawheed also rejects the Christian Trinity, which claims that God is three persons in one substance. It considers any idea of joining others with God as a “shirk” (an unforgivable sin). Everything is created by God and is limited to divine predestination. Nothing can escape the Divine Laws, including Jinn (an intelligent being created from pure fire) and man (created from earth). However, it incorporates the idea of some ancient Greek philosophers who believed in the primary element (arche) for all that exists. Ancient Greek philosophers were the first to emphasise the rational unity of things by rejecting mythological explanations of the world. The elements of soil from Empedocles and fire from Heraclites (as the first elements of man and Jinn) have also been incorporated into the Koran.
A major part of the Koran consists of commands and warnings for Muslims; a smaller part contains stories, myths, and events also related in other Holy Books (Torah, Bible)--sometimes with some differences in detail. The allegations that the Koran is intact can be very controversial since its characteristics such as repetition, arbitrary succession, and variations in rhythmic style reflect a human collective modification in its origin. Many secular scholars are less than willing to attribute the entire Koran to Muhammad. For many critics, the Koran, taken as whole, is obscure, is both linguistically and conceptually incoherent, and it can be simply argued that the book is the product of belated editing of materials Intended for different purposes. Despite many prudent “Tafsir” (interpretations), the Koran is left untouched by criticism by Muslims. Muslims believe that the Koran is the infallible word of God, it can neither be influenced nor modified by circumstances: refuting one single verse of the Koran means to “condemn” the whole of Islam in its perfection. Muslims’ general belief is that that the righteous Koran can contain no mistake and it cannot be suppressed by any new discovery and can apply to any circumstances with no temporal or geographical border. The origin of the Koran is supposed to be inscribed as God’s eternal word on golden tablets in paradise.
The main taboo in Islam is that no Muslim should be allowed to blame the Koran for contradictions or mistakes. To bear more resemblance to logical commands, some “modern” Muslims attempt to interpret the surahs of Koran differently. Sometimes, the forged interpretations are so controversial that these interpretations are new causes of splits among Muslims. For example, Muhammad Abduh, the founder of modernism in Egypt, interprets Jinn as a microbe (though existence of Jinn with its myths and fables was a traditional belief of the Arab pagans and has been mentioned many times in the Koran as a living being equivalent to man). In another verse, God says, “And I created not the Jinns and humans except they worship me”.
Though religion’s teachings of the creation scenario and any scientific theory are fundamentally incompatible—religious interpretation says it all happened several thousand years ago and took six literal days to complete--some other “modern” Muslims do not deny the whole scheme from the Big Bang, or from the singled-celled organism to homo sapiens, but they grotesquely attempt to patch up the verses of the Koran with established sciences like Evolution, the theory of General Relativity, aerodynamics, and quantum theory to prove that Islam has the final solution for everything.
Muhammad was before the prophecy a reliable businessman (Muhammad-al- amin), working for his wealthy wife, Khadijah. As a prophet in Mecca, he was a sage thinker, a quick speaker, who could invite people to believe in the only God “Allah”. He was decent, humble and generous to the poor, with whom he shared his meal. After 10 years of prophecy, he had to leave Mecca and his migration--“Hijrat”-- to Medina in 622 marks his new career.
In Medina, as a powerful prophet with personal ambitions, Muhammad did not only used and abused the existing traditional norms of society; he s also violated ethical rules of his own religion to achieve his goals. As such, he had the privilege of having more wives than was permitted under his own Islamic law. He even had the controversial right to marry his daughter-in-law, Zainab--she divorced the Prophet’s adopted son (Zaid) to marry Muhammad. As a husband, he had the advantage to arbitrarily treat his wives as he liked.
In his financial exploits, he allowed himself the right to rob caravans (for which other robbers would have been beheaded), or to impose humiliating “Jizya” (taxes charged from non-Muslims) on “Dhimmis” (subjugated Christian and Jewish minorities living in the early Islamic community). He ordered the confiscation of lands and properties from “Dhimmis”, his enemies. He openly claimed that “the spoils of war were made lawful unto me”.
As a political leader he had the right to fight back against his rivals, and was merciless and revengeful toward his enemies and rivals, even so far as to give orders to murder many of them. He was the founder of the first Arab Empire (a Caliphate which became during a long period after the Prophet’s death one of the biggest conquerors in the world at that time). Historically, many believe that Muhammad was a religious and politically prominent leader. He undoubtedly left significant marks on the history of mankind. Many Western scholars, without believing in Muhammad’s prophecy, have confirmed this fact. However, the sources of information about the personal life of Muhammad are reduced to the Koran, “Sirah” (biography of the Prophet) and some part of the Hadiths which are considered as “sahih” (reliable).
Nabuwwat, or Muhammad’s claim of being God’s prophet ((Muhammad-al-rassul-Allah) is one of the pillars of Islam. Almost 100 surahs of the Koran attempt to confirm this claim. If all these surahs were not enough, Islamic scholars have additionally narrated different sayings over different periods and circumstances to endorse the belief on Nabuwwat. The only reason to endorse this belief however remains that the Koran is God’s word delivered to Muhammad; in other words, Nabuwwat or Muhammad’s claim of divine mission is written in the Koran which is allegedly the word of God, transmitted by Muhammad. In a certain logic, this entire puzzle looks like a tricky compromise between God and Muhammad himself, which has been difficult for rational people to believe. Nabuwwat can never be rationally proved, even for some Muslim scholars like the famous rationalist M.Z Razi, quoted by the Iranian writer, Ali Dashti in his book, “23 Saal” (23 years), a reference to the duration of Muhammad’s prophecy.
Another pillar of Islam is the conviction that Muhammad is the final Prophet, and his religion, Islam, is the last and only word of God to follow (Khatam-al-Nabiyin). It is not plausibly clear why an Almighty God should deprive mankind of new prophets to solve new problems in adaptive manners. And why one of these numerous gurus or alleged prophets around the world cannot be a new handpicked prophet by God.
But in the history of Islam, the Koran was often represented beside a sword—swords beside a verse of Koran on the flag of Saudi Arabia still represent this old Islamic symbol. “Seif-al-Islam” (sword of Islam) reminds how it could compensate for the lack of rationality and logic to expand Islam in “dar-al-Islam” (territory of Islam). Only, the effect of this symbiosis of sword / Koran was not rooted in ethics but in a moral failure--when “Dawa” (demand of conversion into Islam or accepting its values, for Muslims and non Muslims alike) cannot alone be enough to convert people to Islam or an Islamic way of life.
Nevertheless, the factor of fear behind this symbiosis impedes Muslims in posing simple questions about the authenticity of Islam, questions many of us may not have learnt to ask. However, the fear resulting from this symbiosis has a long history. The typical warmongering tradition of the clan society of Arabia was used cleverly by Muhammad. He divinised the tradition by calling it “Jihad-fi-sabil Allah” (war for the sake of Allah). Holy Jihad was served by Muhammad and his successors to expand “Islamic ummah” (Islamic society).
For the early Islamic ruling class, jihad was promoted into faith-based use of violence. Islam without the use of violence could never achieve its today’s growth. Among the terrors committed by Muhammad himself, some of them are more characterised because they inspire crimes of political Islam today. According to Ali Dashti, while Muhammad surrounded Mecca in 632, a compromise of capitulation was achieved: Muhammad accepted a peaceful capitulation of Mecca; in exchange of a general amnesty for the population, though excluding certain individuals like Ibn Abdullah, who was one of Muhammad’s early companions and wrote down scripts of Koran for him. He was executed because of having publicly denounced the man-made origin of the Koran. Although Muhammad accepted the peace treaty, on his return from Mecca to Medina, he attacked a group of Bedouins en route and so the treaty was voided. According to the Collection of Bukhari, a famous scholar, the Jewish peot Ka’b Ibn Ashraf, who wrote satirical verses about Muhammad, was killed for it. His voluntary killer was praised by Muhammad.
The above examples explain many acts of atrocity committed by the IRI and Islamists around the world; among which figure the execution of several thousand political prisoners in the massacre of summer, ‘88 in Iran, the death-fatwa against “unbelievers” like the British author, Rushdie, and the Dutch Islam-critical film maker Theo Van Gogh—killed by a radical Muslim in charge of the blasphemy against Islam in his film called “Submission”-- and terror on innocent people.
The worst is that these early Islamic terrors have been promoted into the pattern model for the Constitution and especially for the judicial system of some Islamic countries. With the advent of the IRI and its atrocious methods of repression and violation to the most basic standards of human rights against the people of Iran, we need more rational debates to bring about a new capacity for secular and democratic options to unmask the ills of political Islam. It is only possible when we have courage to break any taboo on public displays of judgement.
| Recently by Jahanshah Rashidian | Comments | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Journée Internationale des Femmes | - | Mar 08, 2010 |
| Stop Indian Gasoline for Mullahs’ Repressive Machinery | 13 | Feb 04, 2010 |
| Iran Fails United Opposition | 5 | Jan 20, 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 |
Re: Anonymous-2
by jamshid on Sun Feb 03, 2008 08:49 PM PSTAnonymous-2, you are accusing Mr. Rashidian of making allegations about Koran that does not appear in Koran. You sound like one of those typical individuals who has not bothered reading the Koran, but you defend it nevertheless with high emotions. Therefore, by definition, You are an ignorant. Read this comment and educate yourself. Perhaps the next time you want to defend Koran, you'll at least have the decency of reading it first.
Quote from Aonymous-2: "you (Mr. Rashidian) makes outrageous allegations without ever providing where in the Qur’an does it advocate blatant killing of un-believers..."
Here is where Koran "advocates blatant killing of un-believers":
Koran, 2-191: And kill them wherever you find them, ... such is the recompense of the unbelievers...
Koran 9-5: When the sacred months have passed, then slay the disbelievers wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush...
You then state a quote from Mr. Rashidian who once said "all of the crimes, ... in Iran accompanied by misogyny, amputation, and other atrocities are in essence derived directly from the moral actions of the Prophet..."
You then accuse him and say that "you (Rashidian) are blaming Islam and its Prophet for the atrocities..., without absolutely any indication of were you are deriving these misleading and false statements."
Here is one example of where his claims could be derived from:
Koran, 5-33: The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter.
As, Rashidian claimed, when amputating takes place in Iran, the mullahs are just doing what Mohamad commanded them to do. Where is the "misleading" and "falsehood" in Mr. Rashidian's statements? It is YOU who is misleading, misinfroming and falsely accusing others.
You then go on with more similar ranting and accusations which could be refuted with direct verses from Koran.
Lastly you say "Simply put: do your homework..." Yeah right! I think YOU are the one in need of doing your homework. Perhaps instead of taking hours of research on Mr. Rashidian's past articles, you should take some time and read the Koran. It will be an educating experience for you.
By refuting two of your false claims and accusations using direct verses from Koran, I think everyone would think twice about accepting the rest of your long ranting and BS. Sorry, but you wasted your time by writing your long BS comment filled with deceptions, lies and falsehood.
This is not a surprise. You are defending a weak and shallow ideology. Therefore you have no choice but to resort to the use of lies, deceptions and false accusations, further proving how weak the very foundation of your ideology is.
crap in crap out
by marjon satrapi (not verified) on Sun Feb 03, 2008 08:05 PM PSTthe publisher of this website is as dumb as every idiot who hangs out here and reads all of this shit.
i sugest that you people really try to find something to do and not read all the ramblings on this website.
ya ghamareh bany hashemy rafsanjani
by Goodio (not verified) on Sun Feb 03, 2008 07:28 PM PSTLadies and gentelmen, religion is very personal and we should respect everyone's beliefs irrespective of it being valid or complete giberish. Personally i have not found a reason to thus far have a religion per say, I am an agnostic. My logic is as simple as a three year old's. I can not believe in something which supposedly occured x thousand years ago with out any evidence what so ever.
Peace and love.
ya ghamareh bany hashemy rafsanjani
by Goodio (not verified) on Sun Feb 03, 2008 07:27 PM PSTLadies and gentelmen, religion is very personal and we should respect everyone's beliefs irrespective of it being valid or complete giberish. Personally i have not found a reason to thus far have a religion per say, I am an agnostic. My logic is as simple as a three year old's. I can not believe in something which supposedly occured x thousand years ago with out any evidence what so ever.
Peace and love.
ya ghamareh bany hashemy rafsanjani
by Goodio (not verified) on Sun Feb 03, 2008 07:26 PM PSTLadies and gentelmen, religion is very personal and we should respect everyone's beliefs irrespective of it being valid or complete giberish. Personally i have not found a reason to thus far have a religion per say, I am an agnostic. My logic is as simple as a three year old's. I can not believe in something which supposedly occured x thousand years ago with out any evidence what so ever.
Peace and love.
Ted Rossy read your comment twice!!!
by Rose (not verified) on Sun Feb 03, 2008 06:51 PM PSTYour comment does not make sense! you say "evry time they come to US".Then you say you are not muslim!! so I suggest either tell the truth or if you are not muslim or Iranian get out of this discussion and the heat!!!
STOP INSULTING ISLAM - from a non muslim
by Ted Rossy (not verified) on Sun Feb 03, 2008 06:26 PM PSTwhy is it that every time someone has a axe to grind with the iranian government for whatever reason, they come to US and start throwing insults and say derogatory things about islam or muslims???
don't you people have any brain??? you want to insult a peaceful religion of over 1.5 billion people. to make them resentful of everything you are preaching???
And to answer your question: No I'm not a muslim.
Anonymous1245 is an example of an IRI agent!!!!
by Rose (not verified) on Sun Feb 03, 2008 06:19 PM PSTThe filthy mouth ,scare tactic ,fear monger,zorgo .Which could not tolerate any questions ,a spoiled culture,which is used to bullying their opponents.They use God to do any criminal activity.They have the mentality of cutting throats while they say god is great!!!!!
Thank you anonymous 1245 for demonstrating a muslim behaviour for us.
Marg bar jomhoriyeh Islamy!!!!
writer of this piece is a
by 318Anonymous (not verified) on Sun Feb 03, 2008 06:18 PM PSTwriter of this piece is a fool and talks nonsence
To Ex Mazloom
by Anonymous16628612433 (not verified) on Sun Feb 03, 2008 06:15 PM PSThave you ever thought that there might be a reason that God allows sickness and diseases here on earth???
stop blaming God, Or Allah or whatever. you and i have so little knowledge about reasons God does what he does.
to that fool surna
by Anonymous161 (not verified) on Sun Feb 03, 2008 06:08 PM PSTwhy don't you people get it thru your thick heads. persian empire hasn't existed for over 2500 years. and everytime i talk to American and they make fun of fools who call themselves persians and aryans it really makes me laugh. because they are really right.
once again persia doesn't exist. and you are not ARYANS. because as sure as i'm sitting here. i know there is no pure so called "persians". NOT ONE
wouldn't be soooooo funny if the fools amoung you that constantly call Arabs name, did a DNA test and found out that they are really ARABS????
THEN WE CAN ALL LAUGH AT THIER STUPID ASSES
beware of Anonymous-2's
by Ex Mazloom (not verified) on Sun Feb 03, 2008 04:06 PM PSTI read Anonymous-2 comments. It's just typical bull shit that says we are not literate enough to understand Islam. Thank Science, knowledge is no longer exclusive to the clergymen anymore. There are many translations of Quran in many different languages. So now we know what's in it.
Since someone claimed that in Quran the movement of Sun is written, and also everything we need to know is in Quran, can someone tell me from their understanding of Quran what will the cure for Lou Gehrig's Disease be? My friend just died of it waiting for a cure. Just give the name of the drug, its chemical structure, and where it is reference in Quran. I'll save the information for the next 10-15 years because it appears that there will be a cure very soon. If your prediction is correct then I will believe in your Quran, otherwise I just think you are very good at predicting the past.
Rashidian, as I said before try to remember Salman Rushdie and Theo Van Gogh. It's quite possible that one of these crazy Mullahs will decree a death sentence on you one of these days. That’s the understanding that I get from Quran.
Land of Aryan
by Surna (not verified) on Sun Feb 03, 2008 03:18 PM PSTI see many Arab-zadeh, Arab-prast and sand-monkey writing comment against JR. It is a power struggle between the Aryan's noble and Semitic darkness. It is an irony that we are attacked from every direction. From inside the Arab-prast from outside both the Arabs and west are trying to erase our history and culture. In US the Persian history has been totally eliminated from their textbook and publication. They make derogatory movies like “300” & “Alexander”. They try so hard to confuse their population in believing that couple Greek city state (less than 70,000 population) started the world civilization (couple bare-footed lunatic philosophers) and then they pass the torch to Romans and finally to US. The rest of world is barbarian (sub-human). The Arab lazed-eater with their cousin Jews (both are the same race, Semitic) think they are the chosen people and the battle is between them and the west. We the Aryan are so marginalized that we can not even call ourselves Aryan. The cultural attacks to our basic fabric are horrible. Look at Germany, they idolize the Anglo-Saxon. They proudly speak English. Aryans from Ireland, Germany, and Sweden to Persia join hand and fight these two viruses (Anglo-Saxon & Semitic).
Rashidian says he has not insulted or disrespected.........
by Anonymous-2 (not verified) on Sun Feb 03, 2008 01:08 PM PSTBefore I start let me make it clear, unto each their own religion, or no religion – each to their own. However, even freedom has its limitations before it turns into evil; the basic teachings which is the root of Iranian history by Zoroaster is “Good Words, Good Deeds, and Good Thoughts”.
Mr. Rashidian says: “I bet you that you never find a word in my writing disrespecting any religion, God, Prophet, or mass of followers. I make analysis and of course criticism as every free souls has the freedom of expression to so in the West.”
I find it incredible that writers like Mr. Rashidian, like many journalists have to explain themselves for exercising their right under the ‘Bill of Rights’. Wouldn’t it be a novel thing to come across a writer, or a journalist with the courage to stand up and correct the ‘myths’ that they continue to repeat against Islam, and their exaggerated information, with absolutely no valid source of where they are obtaining such information regardless of how much they hate a religion or a regime in power. Repeating the mainstream media lies is all too easy, revealing the truth takes courage and moral dignity. Something that is sorely lacking in today’s world of journalism and by certain “supposed writers and authors”.
Mr. Rashidian, you may have memory relapse, but all one has to do is read your articles, and comments to determine how you use the concept of “political Islam” to attack Islam insult the Prophet of Islam, the Holy Qur’an and Muslims. If you think that by simply capitalizing words this demonstrates your respect, then you must think that we are all too gullible and ignorant.
Allow me to refresh your memory from your own articles and comments:
.
//p099.ezboard.com/fpoliticalpalacefrm1.showN...
In an article titled: “Abu Ghraib was a Sunday School party by comparison”
• “The historical justification of such massacres has roots in the epoch of the Prophet Muhammad when he came up with the idea that it is perfectly legitimate to kill “unbelievers” –the teaching of the Koran confirms it.”
• “Pointing out Christian shortcomings is one of those "yeah, but" tactics that tries to justify Muslim evils by pointing out the sins of others. It doesn't deny or even address the Muslim evil.”
You make outrageous allegations without ever providing where in the Qur’an does it advocate blatant killing of un-believers. In fact, when a commentator asked you a similar question, you provided no response.
Furthermore, according to you calling “Muslim evil” is also not an insult to Muslims?
In another article you made the following comment:
//www.le-forum-du-spiritisme.com/consulter/co...
• ‘Toutes ces crimes ainsi que la répression sanglante en cours en Iran, accompagnée de la misogynie, l’amputation, la lapidation… des coupables et beaucoup d’autres actes d’atrocité, sont bien calquées des paroles, des actes, et de la morale du prophète et des surets du coran. ‘
[Translation: all of the crimes, repression, and bloodshed in Iran accompanied by misogyny, amputation, and other atrocities are in essence derived directly from the moral actions of the Prophet and the Surahs of the Qur’an].
In other words you are blaming Islam and its Prophet for the atrocities that are taking place in our world today, without absolutely any indication of were you are deriving these misleading and false statements. I guess in your vocabulary these are not insults to the religion of Islam, the Prophet of Islam and Muslims!!
Again in another article posted on a UK web-site you post the following article:
//www.usenetarticles.com/thread/1287779.html
• "The sword conquered and islamised a great part of the world through
the interpretation of jihad. The sword is still on the flag of
Saudi Arabia representing an emblem of the Golden Ages of Islamic Caliphate."
YOU MUST CONSIDER THE SWORD IN SAUDI BARBARIA'S FLAG AS A PERSONAL THREAT TO YOUR COUNTRY, CULTURE AND HERITAGE. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU BE CAREFUL WITH THE WHORES OF IZLAMIST WAHABIS IN YOUR OWN COUNTRIES. SUCH WHORES ALSO EXISTED MANY YEARS PRIOR TO THE ARAB MOOZLIMS'S TAKEOVER OF PERSIA WITHIN PERSIAN POPULATION AND WE SEE WHAT HAS HAPPENED NOW. :”
Response: In essence you are warning the Brits and others who may read this article to be careful about Islam and what you term all the Saudis as “Whores of Wahabis” living in the U.K!!
Do you consider this type of language respectful?
Astonishing the extent that you are willing to go to create hatred against Muslims and an entire people of a particular country. How irresponsible of you to make such derogatory, insulting claims simply to incite fear and hatred, with absolutely no moral conscious of how such vile statements can be used to victimize innocent Muslims.
You indicate that Islam was spread throughout the world by the power of the sword (the same b.s. we have heard over and over again, mind you the Pope had to apologize for this statement – yet you continue to repeat it), and that it aims to do the same today!!
Response: You are part of the same cabal who are preaching Islamofascism, and Islamophobia.
How totally ridiculous and preposterous statement is this that Islam is planning to take over the entire world!!! On what basis are you concocting such lies?? Or as I said, your only aim is to misinform the public and create hatred toward a religion and its followers!!
You also seem to have forgotten that the Iranian flag under the Shah had the sword and the lion. Was the late Shah also planning to take over the entire world? What kind of twisted logic and oxymoron analogies are spinning in your brain!!
• Another misleading article with false accusations and totally taken out of context:
Jihad is a Justification of Aggression
By Jahanshah Rashidian
//www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-200...
I don’t intend to reference your entire articles; anyone interested can do their own search. However, every article is aimed at promoting hatred toward Islam, Muslims, and derogatory statements and of course exaggerated and unfounded accusations against IRI, even the U.S. has had to retract from these allegations – because they had no fact to support their claims!!.
Rashidian goes even further by placing articles on Arab web-sites to indicate the danger of IRI, vs. the Arab States;
• "Saudi Arabi and the IRI but the terrorist actions and political goals of the Islamists are mostly orchestrated by the IRI"
Rashidian has absolutely no scruples, he preaches what he wants depending on who his audience is. If it’s the Arabs, Iran becomes the greatest terrorist state, if he is speaking to the British – they should be fearful of the Saudi Muslims “Whores” living in Great Britain etc...
This shrieking and fussing calling for the liberation of the Muslim world from the “oppression” and “dominance” of Islam; is not innocent, it’s rather sinister and disturbing dare I say.
These systematic attempts to dehumanise one quarter of the world population, namely the Muslims are influenced and manipulated by the neoconservatives and Zionists propaganda. Mr. Rashidian seems to fall under the same category, as evident by his writings.
They claim that:
The greatest danger and the most ruthless enemy of the world now is Islam, and that we are living amidst millions and millions of "Islamo-fascists", "terrorists" or "potential terrorists", and they courageously are trying to fight this “evil” to save the “civilized” world.
They are claiming that Islam is the “enemy of civilization”, the “oppressor of women”, the “hater of peace”, the “opponent of democracy”, and the “foe of humanity”, and that the Western world must fight against this monster on behalf of all humanity.
From what one reads from such articles one is led to believe that all Muslims are none but a cult of psychopaths.
They accuse Islam of oppressing women and they backup their claims by selective reporting that highlights cases of criminality within the Muslim societies and present it as if it is a consequence of the teaching of Islam.
That is done overtly as well as subliminally, and it’s enough to read some newspapers and watch some Hollywood movies that mention Muslims to see what I mean.
When a Christian, a Jew, a Hindu, a Buddhist, or an atheist commits a crime, he/she is “so and so” committed a crime…. Their religious affiliation is never mentioned.
When a Muslim commits a crime however, he is a “Muslim” terrorist, and a “Muslim” murderer.
Mr. Rashidian I would suggest that you go figure the roots of Jihadism in modern history - it has nothing to do with Islamic teaching!!
I would recommend two readings: Journey of the Jihadist by Fawaz A. Gerges, and the other Gideon's Spies by Gordon Thomas.
It is unscientific, irrational, meaningless, and dishonest to be critical of something that you know nothing or very little about, (and that which you know, comes mainly from shallow media sources, phony stories or hate books/web-sites, rather the authentic books of that religion).
Academic integrity requires the application of proper criteria of research; it necessitates that one must study the valid sources, otherwise all research would be a sham and a scam, and all conclusions would be lacking in credibility, faulty and flawed.
Simply put: do your homework
To get to the real truth about Islam one must be equipped with enough historical, theological, and cultural knowledge about that which he/ she are criticizing.
If anyone wants to criticize Islam, by all means feel free to do so, but DO NOT do it ignorantly or arrogantly, without equipping yourself with sufficient and reliable FACTS from authentic and original sources.
Of course with respect to Iran – Mr. Rashidian takes this “Political Islam” theory to incite the same hatred and fear about the current regime in power. His articles are full of statistics and accusations with absolutely no source to validate from what source he is deriving his information. Any credible writer that I have seen provides the sources of their information.
To compare Abu Gharib prison with what is going on in IRI and the Muslim world would obviously necessitate that one provide their sources, and not just make up stories to fool the masses. I would question has Mr. Rashidian visited Abu Gharib or Evin prison, or has he witnessed the various tortures that have been taking place in Guantanamo Bay, Abu Gharib, and other U.S. secret prisons before he makes such nonsensical statements?
His writings are full of contradictions.
Mr. Rashidian says that he is not against sanctions, only a proponent of “Smart Sanctions” that will not harm the Iranian people, while one of his genius ideas is for Western governments to impose sanctions on the purchase of Iranian oil.
He further writes articles calling Germany immoral for transacting with Iran. He states that Germany should cease all business transactions with Iran not sell or purchase any goods including Iranian oil.
I guess he is oblivious to the economic ramifications of such sanctions on the Iranian people, when 80% of revenues of the country are derived from oil!! He seems to forget that many Iranians and not necessarily IRI Officials are conducting business with the Western World including Germany.
“German-Iranian Immoral Trade” - Jahanshah Rashidian, wrote:
• “In this perspective, Germany must supply nothing but foods and medical goods to Iran”
If I were him I would be ashamed when a foreigner responds back with this statement:
• “This was what was done in the sanctions against Iraq, but according to the U.N. half a million children were dying a year.
DO you think there should be sanctions against Western democracies that kill millions and topple democratically elected regimes”?
Does Mr. Rashidian not understand that Iran is still facing a very serious threat of an attack. Tragically, the reason for the threat to this sovereign nation is in part due to the media and individuals like him who with their uncanny knack for storytelling, the perpetrators of the propaganda machine hope that by repeating the same lie at every turn, it becomes the truth. At the end the aim is obvious– that of inciting hatred and fear; divide and conquer.
I wonder what he believes all of this hatred will lead to: Peace? Dialogue? Regime change? Or War?
It is time for responsible journalists of this nation and elsewhere to speak to the truth and stop inciting hatred with falsehood; regardless of one's hatred for a particular regime or a religion.
It is our humanitarian duty to erase the intentionally misleading print from the papers, silence the malicious voices that turn into triggers and in their stead demand accountability.
I leave you with a quote from Winston Churchill:
“Truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but, in the end, there it is.”
Woody Allen
by Wikipedia (not verified) on Sun Feb 03, 2008 12:36 PM PSTStarting around 1980, Woody Allen began a 12-year relationship with actress Mia Farrow, who had leading roles in several of his movies from 1982 to 1992. Farrow and Allen never married, but they adopted two children together: Dylan Farrow (who changed her name to Eliza and is now known as Malone) and Moses Farrow (now known as Misha); and had one biological child, Satchel Farrow (now known as Ronan Seamus Farrow). Allen did not adopt any of Farrow's other biological and adopted children, including Soon-Yi Farrow Previn (the adopted daughter of Farrow and Andre Previn, now known as Soon-Yi Previn). Allen and Farrow separated in 1992 after Farrow discovered nude photographs Allen had taken of Previn. In her autobiography, What Falls Away (New York: Doubleday, 1997), Farrow says Allen admitted to a relationship with Previn.
After Allen and Farrow separated, a long public legal battle for the custody of their three children began. During the proceedings, Farrow alleged that Allen had sexually molested their adopted daughter Malone, who was then seven years old. The judge eventually concluded that the sex abuse charges were inconclusive, but called Allen's conduct with Malone "grossly inappropriate". She called the report of the team that investigated the issue "sanitized and, therefore, less credible" and said she had "reservations about the reliability of the report." She also called Allen's conduct with Soon-Yi "inappropriate." Farrow ultimately won the custody battle over their children. Allen was denied visitation rights with Malone and could only see Ronan under supervision. Misha, who was then 14, chose not to see his father.
In a 2005 Vanity Fair interview, Allen estimated that, despite the scandal's damage to his reputation, Farrow's discovery of Allen's attraction to Soon-Yi Previn, by accidentally finding nude photographs of her, was "just one of the fortuitous events, one of the great pieces of luck in my life. [...] It was a turning point for the better." Of his relationship with Farrow, he said "I'm sure there are things that I might have done differently. [...] Probably in retrospect I should have bowed out of that relationship much earlier than I did."
Shortly after separating from Farrow in 1992, Woody Allen openly continued his relationship with Soon-Yi Previn, Farrow's adopted daughter. Even though Allen and Previn denied he was ever her stepfather, the relationship drew much public and media scrutiny. At the time, Allen was 56 and Previn was 22.
Allen and Previn married in 1997. The couple later adopted two daughters.
Zainab Bint Jahsh
by Zayed Bin Harith (not verified) on Sun Feb 03, 2008 12:22 PM PSTZainab Bint Jahsh (originally Barra) was Prophet Mohammad's first cousin. Zainab's mother Umayma was the daughter of Abdul Muttalib, Mohammad's grandfather. She was married to Mohammad (627 A.D.) by command of Allah, as mentioned in Surah Al Ahzab (33:37). Zainab was a very independent woman. She earned her own living by selling leather products and was not dependent on any man for charity. She was proud of the fact that all the other wives were given in marriage to Mohammad by their guardians, but it was Allah who did this for her.
At the time of the marriage she was 35 and Mohammad was 58. She was originally married to Zayed Bin Harith, Mohammad's adopted son through his first wife's adoption of him. Mohammad himself arranged the marriage between Zainab and Zayed. One day the prophet saw the beauty of Zainab in her loose dress, and desired her. Then, the grateful adopted son divorced her to clear the way for Mohammad to marry her. Hence special revelations were made to sanctify the marriage that permits Muslims to marry an adopted son's wife (and a first cousin). However, this is absurd when Islam practically forbids adoption of children (33:4,5).
[33:4] GOD did not give any man two hearts in his chest. Nor did He turn your wives whom you estrange (according to your custom) into your mothers. Nor did He turn your adopted children into genetic offspring. All these are mere utterances that you have invented. GOD speaks the truth, and He guides in the (right) path.
33:5] You shall give your adopted children names that preserve their relationship to their genetic parents. This is more equitable in the sight of GOD. If you do not know their parents, then, as your brethren in religion, you shall treat them as members of your family. You do not commit a sin if you make a mistake in this respect; you are responsible for your purposeful intentions. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.
[33:37] Recall that you said to the one who was blessed by GOD, and blessed by you, "Keep your wife and reverence GOD," and you hid inside yourself what GOD wished to proclaim. Thus, you feared the people, when you were supposed to fear only GOD. When Zayed was completely through with his wife, we had you marry her, in order to establish the precedent that a man may marry the divorced wife of his adopted son. GOD's commands shall be done.
Rashidian, Isn't this
by ahle-shiraz (not verified) on Sun Feb 03, 2008 11:38 AM PSTRashidian,
Isn't this strange??
Would you have expected so many people
to disagree with your opinons regarding
prophet mohammad and the koran?
I am not a practicing moslem... not by any stretch of the imagination.. but I cannot concur with your opinon based upon what you have presented.
You know why?
Cause what you are presenting as fact... is not acceptable as just that... fact! -- more like just accusations hurled around!
If I were a wobbly moslem (and as a side note: I am!) with your arguments you would not convince me, my man.
Yet, you do seem to have a bee in your bonnet regarding having faith in god, and all that pertains to faith.
So people still have faith... you got to learn to live with it!
Dr. Faribors Malekansari
by Dr,s patient (not verified) on Sun Feb 03, 2008 10:01 AM PSTDr. Faribors Malekansari is a typical Islamist doctor with original ideas and theses for a an Islamic society.
His advice about Hejab, Virgins, women's rights under Sharia, jihad, Islamist education, glorious Islamic Revolution...are the typical norms and laws that are God's gifts to lucky Iranian people.
REPLY : Problem with religion..............
by Faribors Maleknasri M.D. (not verified) on Sun Feb 03, 2008 09:12 AM PSTProblem with religion is
by Anonymous3 (not verified) on Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:51 AM CST
Problem with religion is this, when they say god said this, there is no place for discussion.
* for me an absolutly correct statement. When some body says only: God says it and expects that every body accept the opinion, then there is no place for discussion. BECAUASE the thesis is missed and nobody can bring any anti thesis. I think the one who refers to God must bring devine Arguments and work with principals of Logic.
Now all religious rules have in fact a logical basis and can be proved with unrejectable arguments. For example let us take the rule with HEJAB. The woman who comes to public with open uncovered hairs and more INTERVENES in the feeling of men, specialy the ones in the puberty. She damages thier human rights, crosses the red line. Such a woman intervenes in the personal freedom of men planing and arranging thier sexual life up to thier own imagination. Therefore it is better the women appeare in a BAHEJAB manner in the public. another example is telling, writing shouing sex-sdtories in the public, which also should be forebiden in the public. Telling and hearing such stories privately is - as all grown ups know - more enjoyable. they are told in a group of poeple who trust each other. Hejab does not mean that the women are not allouwed to arrange thier sexual life up to thier own whishes.
However it is no easy job to discuss such complicated subjects in "IRANIAN". Likewise questions can be negotiated with a Person with qualified religious knowledge. Greeting
Beliefs are killing of
by Anonymous3 (not verified) on Sun Feb 03, 2008 08:32 AM PSTBeliefs are killing of thoughts.
The use of archaic and coercive forms of authority is not a sign of moral superiority or truth. They are sign of ignorance and slavery.Religion is no different. It is just an obstacle to something we already have within ourselves. There is no particualr moral or value isolated to a "belief."
I think that any religion that teaches a child hatred (or self-hatred) is a form of child abuse. I'm thinking of some of the forms of fundamentalist Christianity and Fundementalist Islam.
All systems of authority that are hierarchical eventually become dogmatic; meaning that they have a top-down form of governance. Organized Religion fits that bill. There is no moral value that is solely derived from an institution or a belief system.you dont need religion to know that killing is wrong, helping people in need is good, etc.
Religions are not why we know the difference between right or wrong and if you think that you need the Koran to know this then you might want to consider a very healthy introspective look in yourself. what has organized religion offered us? crusades, schisms, pogroms, torture, wars, oppression.
what moral value do you get from an archaic and barbaric control system like R/religion that you cant achieve with your own free mind? what can you really offer as evidence that R/religion has helped mankind? so far I have not been able to come up with one. I look at it this way. If there is no positive value attributed solely to R/religion and many negatives (pick from the array of schisms made available by history), then its continued existence is a crime to our species; we dont need it. we can live without it.simply put, its a liability. but, I want to stress that religion is not alone. there are secular forms of control that are just as needless (Hyper capitalism, authoritarianism, fascism, Theocracy, etc).
Believe nothing just because
by Anonymous3 (not verified) on Sun Feb 03, 2008 08:13 AM PSTBelieve nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true.: Buddha -
Mana
by Anonymous 3 (not verified) on Sun Feb 03, 2008 06:33 AM PSTThans for your civility! Let's some Muslims, who have only learnt hatred and jihad, can finally find the path of human attitudes.
to all my hamvatan please read this-- Jamshid is right...
by Mona 19 (not verified) on Sun Feb 03, 2008 05:55 AM PSTto say Why can't Muslim reply to criticism with reasoning and logical remark?
instead of getting angry and writing hateful comments,use loving words to prove Mr.Rashidin wrong. if you like to promote what you believe remember this" through pen and tongue, rather than have recourse to sword or violence."
I might not be agree with what Mr.Rashidin said, BUT you can't force sb to agree with you.leave your observation here(stay away malicious expression), rest is up to the person to go after the fact and reality.
Please all my hamvatan remember this:
"All men have been created to carry forward an ever-advancing civilization ... To act like the beasts of the field is unworthy of man. Those virtues that befit his dignity are forbearance, mercy, compassion and loving-kindness towards all the peoples and kindreds of the earth.""
best wishes to all,
Mona
Free Iran
by Pouyan (not verified) on Sun Feb 03, 2008 05:36 AM PSTIslam has been violently imposed on ancient Iran. What and how violent the imposition was we cannot estimate because most historical evidence of this invasion was destroyed by Arabs and then later by their Muslim offshoot--Sayyeds, Mullahs, Arabs’ protégés and...
The IRI represents today legacy of this invasion and are themselves the offshoots of Arabo-Muslims. They now want to reap what their Muslim ancestors have sown after having devastated our country.
It is time to free Iran from islam and Islamists.
Re: Wondering
by jamshid on Sun Feb 03, 2008 01:32 AM PST1. Quote from your comment: "If you see a village of backwards people the right thing to do is not to tell them that their idol is stupid..."
But Mohammad did exactly that 1400 years ago! Didn't he?
2. Quote from your comment: "such writings do is fuel the fight that the CIA and West has started in order to create sectarian wars..."
But the CIA and West ARE already using Islam to fuel fight and sectarian wars. Aren't they?
3. Quote: "but his hatred and need for revenge does not allow him to be decent and honorable..."
But it is Islam that thirst for hatred and revenge. For example, the IRI and Al Qaida. I bet this two Islamic entity are so full of love and forgiveness. Aren't they?
4. Quote: "you can love people despite all the reasons there are not to..."
Quite the oppostie! I think he says these things because he loves his people and wants to liberate them from the darkness and nightmare of Islam.
Why can't moslems reply to criticsm with reasoning and argumentation? Is Islam so weak, so shallow, that the only way to defend it is by labeling, surpression and violence?
I defnitiely think so.
Rashidian is just upset with
by Wondering (not verified) on Sat Feb 02, 2008 11:42 PM PSTRashidian is just upset with the IRI and mullahs. He doesn't realize who is holding the mullahs up. He is pathetically attacking Islam trying to get even for the suffering he has suffered supposedly from the IRI. He has a personal agenda. Revenge and vendetta are his motive and nothing else.
If you see a village of backwards people the right thing to do is not to tell them that their idol is stupid. Even if it really is. Just because something is true does not make it right to bring up. But Rashidian is blinded by hatred. Somebody probably killed his loved one or somehow he feels that IRI hurt him. He must be unable to take any responsibility for his condition. It is ALL someone else's fault. He is suffering and with these writings he is trying to get even. What such writings do is fuel the fight that the CIA and West has started in order to create sectarian wars, war with Israel, etc. in order to reap the results. And Rashidian knows it but his hatred and need for revenge does not allow him to be decent and honorable. He prefers to hurt those who he identify are related or are a symbol of those who supposedly hurt him.
There is a billion Muslims on this planet. Even if 0.001% of them were what you claim they are, this planet would have been long destroyed by now. Wake up from your nightmare and look around you.
It is very irresponsible of him to fuel religious wars and hurt people like this. I am disappointed. Rashidian is no better than "his" enemies - imagined or real. He is just like the Jews who rant about how horrible the Holocaust was but they do almost exactly what the Nazis did back then. Please get over your hatred. Hatred not a virtue. See if you can love people despite all the reasons there are not to (definition of greatness). Fighting ignorance and evil does not require hatred.
Shortcoming of Critics
by Anonymous2001 (not verified) on Sat Feb 02, 2008 08:49 PM PSTJust as an observer, I noticed that all of critics of this article By Mr. Rashidian are either attacking him personally and not his reasoning or trying to invalidate his reasoning without any valid supporting rationalization. These observations telling me that the critics or attackers are proving him right that where he explains that Islam is not accepting any reasoning and only force and violence is the response to its objectors.
Let’s bring a sentence from Abū Bakr Muhammad ibn Zakarīya Rāzi:
"If the people of this religion are asked about the proof for the soundness of their religion, they flare up, get angry and spill the blood of whoever confronts them with this question. They forbid rational speculation, and strive to kill their adversaries. This is why truth became thoroughly silenced and concealed."
Rashidian: where do you get these pervert stories ? Shame on you
by Asghar Armani (not verified) on Sat Feb 02, 2008 07:14 PM PSTShame on you for demonizing the belief of billions of people in order to make a buck from CIA and their bosses. Instead go keep an eye on your wife. Everyone is using her garage to park their car in and get a car wash!!!
Rashidian, an MKO stooge
by A0 (not verified) on Sat Feb 02, 2008 01:48 PM PSTMr Rashidian,
You forgot to mention how long you worked for the MKO before you were kicked out for fucking Maryam Rajavi behind the back of other high ranking MKO officials!!!. Shame on you
Mo-zalaf definition it means
by Mojtaba (not verified) on Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:58 PM PSTMo-zalaf definition
it means one with zolf. so rashidian is really a mozallaf.
a lot of hair and a playboy.
Do not take it the wrong way.
He is enjoying life.
have a good day