STORY
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
Merchant of Chaarmahal
14-Mar-2009
A Jew lends someone money, the borrower can’t pay it back so the Jew demands a chunk of flesh in payment. This isn’t Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice; it is a story from Iran’s Chaahaarmahal and Bakhtiaari province. The subtleties of this anti-Semitic characterization are explored reasonably well in Shakespeare’s work, so we’ll move on to the legal adventures of the protagonist: the idiot who borrowed the money.
He was simple man who at an old age resolved to improve his lot in life. The Jew was a neighbor who according to the story had amassed his wealth in “many different ways.” At first he was reluctant to lend money to an old man with no collateral whatsoever. But the old man wouldn’t hear ‘no’ for an answer. Filling in for the bare bones story, the Jew must have been impressed by the old man’s perseverance. Surely if this borrower started a business with the money, his determination and insistence would help him succeed. So the Jew struck a deal with the old man. For every coin loaned the old man must put up a mesghaal (about 5 grams) of flesh for collateral. Never mind the motive for this macabre contract, for that I recommend renting Al Pacino’s The Merchant of Venice. Meanwhile let’s find out how the old man lost his shirt.
He bought merchandize from one place to sell somewhere else. On the road, highway robbers attacked him and stole his wares. Here’s where our Iranian Jew faced a different predicament than Shylock, the Jewish moneylender in Shakespeare’s play. The old man’s Venetian counterpart, Antonio, lost his fortune at sea, whereas the Iranian Antonio (we’ll call him Hassanio) could have taken precautions against highway robbers. Did Hassanio hire security guards, or did he risk his neighbor’s money by skimping on preparations? This detail is important in the court battle that is about to ensue.
Needless to say, Hassanio wouldn’t let Shylockpour cut him up, so they set off to see the judge. Part way to the city, they ran into a fellow whose donkey was stuck in the mud. Hassnio wanted to help, but Shylockpour said, “If you feel so sorry for him, you lend a hand. I’m staying out of this.” Was Shylockpour an unhelpful man? Don’t jump to conclusions until you see what happens.
Hassanio got into mud, grabbed the donkey’s tail and pulled as hard as he could. Now anyone who has ever pulled a donkey out of the mud knows you don’t pull the animal by the tail. It’s not a tow cable. The donkey’s tail broke off, and the very upset owner joined the march to the city to demand compensation from Hassanio. Did the donkey owner say, “Good Hassanio, this was but noble intent fouled by misfortune, so thou art off the hook?” Nothing of the sort, and this wariness of human ingratitude may have been why Shylockpour didn’t help. We’ll knock a few points off him because if he had helped, the donkey may still have had a tail. But Shylockpour gets fewer demerits now that we’re on to his Shakespearean complexity.
With two plaintiffs on his case, Hassanio was so distraught that at the next town he climbed to the top of a minaret and threw himself from it. He didn’t bother to look where he would fall, and he soft-landed on top of a beggar who was instantly killed. So the beggar’s son joined the procession of Hassanio’s accusers. Any judge has to consider that Hassanio’s negligence lost another person his gold, his stupidity seriously injured an animal, and his carelessness cost someone his life. By all accounts Hassanio was a menace to the kingdoms of man and beast. Yet somehow we feel sorry for him. Anyone this unlucky must have a powerful horde of demons conspiring against him. To have a happy ending, the story must give Hassanio a break. And so it does, in a way that reveals how the people of Chaahaarmahal and Bakhtiaar viewed their society.
When they arrived at the judge’s house, Hassanio noticed that His Honor was hobnobbing with the very highway robbers that had stolen his wares. Did the simple and honest Hassanio cry out to world that the judge’s friends are thieves? No, instead of helping his fellow citizens rid themselves of a corrupt official, he and the judge went into a whispering huddle and made a deal. And the judge ignored the case we have been meticulously building against Hassanio. The verdict handed down was that Shylockpour could cut off Hassanio’s flesh, but if he removed even a smidgeon over the amount, Hassanio would be allowed to carve him up in retaliation. Filling in again for Shylockpour’s thinking, he knew that scales in such a town are likely to measure a one mesghaal weight as two mesghaals. So he wisely withdrew his claim, perhaps happy to have fought and relieved to have lost.
The judge told the beggar’s son he is welcome to climb a minaret and throw himself at Hassanio’s head if he wished. That was the end of that claim. Finally it came to the guy holding the severed tail of a donkey. Seeing the state of affairs in this town, he too gave up on justice. But he withdrew his claim by delivering a line that has become as quotable as any line from Shakespeare: “Your Honor,” he said, “khareh maa az korregi dom nadaasht.” (Even as a foal, this donkey never had a tail).
Note
Orignial folk tale from the collection Afsaanehaaye chaahaarmahal va Bakhtiaari, by Ali Asmand and Hossein Khosravi. 1998 Eel publication. Printed in Shar-e-Kord, Iran.
| Recently by Ari Siletz | Comments | Date |
|---|---|---|
چرا مصدق آسوده نمی خوابد. | 8 | Aug 17, 2012 |
| This blog makes me a plagarist | 2 | Aug 16, 2012 |
| Double standards outside the boxing ring | 6 | Aug 12, 2012 |
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 |
Jaleho
by Ari Siletz on Tue Mar 17, 2009 01:38 PM PDTali
by anonymous fish on Tue Mar 17, 2009 11:43 AM PDTas i said, your attempts to distort my words simply are not going to work anymore. just curious... did you create a new registered name just to post on this blog? you appear to "know" me so well. :-) perhaps your problem is not in being able to READ but to COMPREHEND. my comments and intentions are perfectly clear. "these people" refers to VERY specific people and i think you know that. :-) you're not as simple minded as you sound... it couldn't be any more obvious that i believe that the majority of iranians are fair-minded. but there are some who are posting here that clearly are not. my contempt, not hatred, is absolute and unwavering for those who express biased and hate for a different race, religion and culture. do not confuse my feelings for people like you and jaleho with my feelings for the iranian people. what you represent goes beyond a specific culture. people like jaleho scare me to death. as her hamvatans, you and ari and azadeh may feel the need to defend her or cushion her words, but AS a non-iranian, i see her for what she is. her words should strike fear in every person who is compassionate and understanding and accepting of different religions and cultures.
you talk about zion bringing shame to judaism. i add to that the shame that some iranians bring to the beautiful souls of iran.
it's the very idea of noting that "jewish children went to public schools" that allows the inference of anti-semitism. those who make comments like "i had a friend who was a jew" !!! wow. "i ate at the same dinner table as a jew". iranians do not love and respect jews...lol. i might suggest that this "tolerance" that you express is more for the sake of the jews being iranian as well. this "tolerance" generally doesn't extend to non-iranian jews.
as far as zion is concerned, i almost hesitate to comment. she doesn't need nor does she particularly want my support. i have no affinity with zion beyond my continued interest in exposing the hate and bias that SOME iranians feel for jews. i will be just as harsh on her if and when i see her denigrating the iranian PEOPLE. if she truthfully points out faults and bias' of SOME PARTICULAR iranians, so be it. she's no more hateful of iranians in general that you are of jews in particular. remember that well from now on.
again, Ari, this is a very interesting discussion. thank you for the opportunity to participate!
Happy Norooz to all, and
by Jaleho on Tue Mar 17, 2009 09:20 AM PDTsorry JJ, I thought you're censoring me. I just deleted the three lines of the Torah that I have quoted from Deuteronomy, lines 7-10 of chapter 13 which I provided the link for in my former message, and voila! My message now appears.
Best wishes for the new year for all.
This would work! Sorry editor!!
by Jaleho on Tue Mar 17, 2009 09:09 AM PDTJust because Jews claim to be "Chosen by God,"
and just because the post WWII-victorious-Americans have been bombarded by a constant one-sided propaganda of Jewish narrative post creation of Israel, it doesn't mean that the rest of the world must accept either a "Jewish supremacy" or attach "more value to the Jewish pain" than that of others!
I agree with Ali completely that there are myriad of other minorities all over the world and history that have been subject of mistreatment. He correctly mentions the Bahais and the Afghanis as the most flagrant subject of mistreatment in today's Iran. Iran being a heavily multi-ethnic country, you can read far more tales and annecdotes about Kurds, Baluchis, Turks, Assyrian, Armenians... you name it! Same is true for most other countries in the world.
The nagative aspects of Muslim treatment of "dhimmis" which is quoted here is also not any worse than the Jewish treatment of the "gentile." Talmud considers a non-Jewish soul not as much worth as the Jewsih soul; It even considers the difference between the sould of Jew and non-Jew more than the difference between the soul of non-Jew and animal. And that should not be a surprise since the religious books reflect the archaic morality of their time. For that reason you can find much more barbaric quotes in Torah than the "mild" negative that Zion quoted from Koran. That's simple, because Torah is few thousand years more archaic and more barbaric than Koran. With the same token, Hammurabi Codes from which much of Torah has been copied, is more barbaric than Torah. For eaxmple you can read this from Torah when the Jewish God, HaShem, is telling you the proper behavior to those believing in other Gods but the Jewish God:
From Deuteronomy 13:7-10
//www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/Deuter13.html
But, why is the Jewsih insistence on both the supremacy of Jewish values and the fact that one must attach more importance to Jewish pain than that of others? Because of the political and financial gains that those two factors have afforded the Jews post WWII! They even gained a country out of another people's land by that particular emphasis: "The Good Chosen people are entitled more to the land of its "less human" barbaric inhabitanats, it is OK to kill many of those barbaric non-Jews whose life isn't worth the life of a Jew. This is the mentality that was used in the recent Gaza massacre, as advertised on religious grounds by Israel's former chief Rabbi:
//www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1180527966693&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
On the other hand, Jews claim entitled to financial and political advantages from the big powers because of the "unique unjust" done to them. That's why the Jews fight so hard to eliminate the use of the word "holocaust" which was first suggested for the Armenian genocide, and insist on reserving it for Jews only. That's why they insist that out of more than 60 million who were killed in WWII, and out of all the groups who were part of the Nazi concetration camps including all those deemed dirty by Nazis (the handicapped, the Jehovah witness, the Poles, the russian, the homosexual....) only you should single out the "Jewish victimhood."
Norman Finklestein whose parents were the holocasut victims, puts it succinctly in his book, The Holocaust Industry :
"The holocaust has proven to be an indispensable ideological weapon. Through its deployment, one of the world's most formidable powers with a horrendous human rights record, has cast itself as a "victim" state, and the most successful ethnic group in the United States has likewise acquired victim status. Considerable dividends accrue from this specious victimhood- in particular immunity to criticism, however justified."
delete
by Jaleho on Tue Mar 17, 2009 09:10 AM PDTdelete
Mr. Siletz
by Ali Lakani on Tue Mar 17, 2009 12:04 AM PDTThank you for your reply and for sharing the history of Persian Jews with me. I suppose I should say that your humanity and scholarly devotion to 'fairness' when viewed by a hostile audience might suggest something different from what you had intended, but I could be wrong.
Any minority group, and most of all any religious minority group, by their very need to survive, stay together and marry within the faith, staying away from a family and social life which does not thrive on sustaining and continuing the traditions of that faith. Nevertheless, the society surrounding the minority group can choose to be welcoming and tolerant of that group, or could choose to be hostile to them. I don't hold Iranians beyond prejudice, Sir, but I cannot accept that Iranians have ever been hostile or intolerant toward the Jewish community of Iran's co-existence.
Jewish children have always attended regular schools and they do so to this day, for example. They can and do attend universities and there are many Jewish professionals who are practicing law and medicine among other professions. Jewish artists and scholars have always been revered and respected and many Iranians fondly remember their contributions to Iranian arts and culture. The Jewish component of the Iranian bazaar system have been extremely successful merchants and traders, their capital and their livelihood never singled out for persecution. The Iranian Jewish community have always enjoyed freedom to practice their religious rites and no one has ever dreamed of harming their congregations or rituals. Muslem Iranians trade freely and willingly with Jewish suppliers and dealers and there has never been an instance of boycotts or 'sanctions' ,if you will, against this religious minority of Iran.
It is true that extremist Muslems may not socialize with religious minorities inside Iran, but couldn't the same also be told about some religious minorities inside Iran? Even the Iranian-Armenian minority group (Greek Orthodox Christians) have extremely stringent rules against an Armenian's marriage to a Muslem, disowning and shunning any faith member who attempts such communion. Minority groups, for te most part, stay together to ascertain their continuation and 'purity,' for lack of a better word. Zoroastrians also have their own religious requirements which keep them to themselves. My point is that even during the socially liberal pre-revolution years, there really weren't too many instances of Iran's religious minorities overtly fraternizing with people outside of their faith. This is in the very nature of minority mentality and not necessarily one of the majority's mentality.
My fear in reading your reserved and politically correct suggestion that there might have been a milder case of anti-semitism in Iran is that while we might spend time to prove or disprove what you might have in mind, militant freaks such as the ones on this very thread would take those unproven 'soft' ideas and use it against a nation that has been receiving and tolerant of its Jewish community. You will notice that Zion no longer even pretends to be respectful to Iranians in her conduct on the site.
These days life is hard for all Iranians under the IRI. Everybody is suffering an ideological government run by hardliner zealots and idiots, and Iranian Jews are no exception, so they might have grievances, too, though the television and published reports I have seen of the Iranian Jewish community have all been complimentary of their treatment. Nevertheless, I would heed caution in expressions of blanket statements, even soft ones. If we were to issue such statements, I would say that treatment of Afghanis and Bahais under IRI offer the worst cases of human rights violations and that Iranian Jews who continue to be some of the most prosperous and respected members of the Iranian nation do not follow those examples by a longshot.
I thank you for taking the time to reply and to generate this important conversation.
Ali Lakani
by Ari Siletz on Mon Mar 16, 2009 09:12 PM PDTMr. Siletz
by Ali Lakani on Mon Mar 16, 2009 07:35 PM PDTI would expect you to argue the anti-semitic charges against all character involved in this folk tale (including the storytellers) for the following obvious reasons:
1. The Jew in the story is a 'neighbor.' He doesn't live in a camp. He doesn't live in a 'Jewish neighborhood.' He lives in the main character's 'neighborhood.'
2. The Jewish man is portrayed as intelligent. He is an entrepreuner of sorts in your own words who has amassed his wealth through different ways. Could someone under scrutiny and ill reception and behavior by the society amass wealth and keep it?
3. The Jew is powerful, because he is rich and smart.
4. The prevalent legal system receives both the plaintiff and the defendant as the same, though one is Jewish and the other Muslem (or at least non-Jewish). If the system was anti-Jewish, they wouldn't hear of the claim.
5. Though crafty and strange, the judge does not rule against the Jewish man on the basis of his religion or ethnicity, but on the basis of his unreasonable demand for flesh in return for money. Even so, he has to use crafty reasoning to talk the plaintiff out of his claim. He does respect the agreement made between the Jew and the simple man.
My list is not comprehensive, as there are other angles from which to look at this tale (or tail!), but I think you do understand the importance of the cultural current and foundation within which this tale is told.
Yes, none of the storytellers and players in Charmahaal o Bakhtiari, if this story happened there, were Shakespeare. They told a simple tale of a simple man and his misfortunes and eventual salvation from a stupid agreement he had made, but if you read your own story carefully enough, you will see that there is nothing anti-semitic in this tale.
My humble opinion, Sir.
Speaking of intellectually handicapped...
by Ali Lakani on Mon Mar 16, 2009 06:54 PM PDTTsion...
What moves you to get entangled in an intellectual dialogue about literature, anyway? You know and we all know why you sweep this website to publish your political agenda. Nobody expects more of you. On this discussion you are way out of your depths buddy.
Anonymous Fish would do well to see your 'heart' by tracking your comments all over the place to see whether a sliver of a heart is even visible in any of your hate filled comments and posts toward Iranians and other peoples of the Middle East. As far as I'm concerned, you have brought nothing but shame to Judiaism, Jews, and State of Israel, let me assure you. Iranians love and respect Jews and have a couple of thousands years of peaceful coexistence and history with them to prove it. The very fact of the Jewish presence in Iranian folk tales is testament to that peaceful coexistence and no amount of hatemongering on your part can change that.
Now go play with people who might take you remotely seriously on other posts, though if I were you, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Well, talk about low IQ!
by tsion on Mon Mar 16, 2009 06:48 PM PDTZion
samsam: Good catch
by Anonyi (not verified) on Mon Mar 16, 2009 06:36 PM PDTThe insidious presence of Omaatis in furhter Islamization of Iranian history is astounding.
Zion, you're right buddy
by Jaleho on Mon Mar 16, 2009 06:29 PM PDTThe historical persecution of Jews by Christians, the Inquisition, the Nazi holocasut, the blood libel, charges of Jews killing Christian kids and drinking their blood....all are comparable to treatment of Jews in Islamic countries. Silly me, I thought you at least read your very own Lewis!
And you know what, Christianity actually had absolutely NO problem with Judaism. In fact, the 2 billion Christians are all Jewish since Jesus was a Jew to begin with, no? And all of the Christian anger for Jews killing Jesus is baseless because Jesus was a Jew, Judaism and Christianity are exactly the same religion, nice and cozy with each other, Judeo-Chrisian good values agaisnt evil Islamic values, no?
Besides, every anti-Semite that ever existed in the history, if he had good fame like Shakespeare...they were Jew. Only the really really bad anti-Semite were not Jewish!!
For the intellectually handicapped
by tsion on Mon Mar 16, 2009 06:03 PM PDT'... the views expressed here are not reflective of most iranians....'
Are you capable of understanding English at all, Ali? [sigh]
Zion
Dear Anonymous Fish,
by Jaleho on Mon Mar 16, 2009 05:53 PM PDTIn the past, I have made fun of your IQ because you don't seem to have it in you to read LONG articles, and digest their content before making unlearned comment about them. And, I knew that it just irritates you in a funny way! But, the present comments were short enough for you to read and understand.
If you did not understand that those quotes that bothered you were meant to show the essence of the actual stories, that cutting human flesh in exchange for money is indeed meant to show a greed beyond human limits, that Shakespeare in fact plays on the Christian themes of "flesh and blood" / "bread and wine" after all those discussion, then I must say that I am sorry.
If I knew that there is some truth in those IQ snide comments, I wouldn't have made them, really. Iwill not do that again.
Anonymous Fish
by Ali Lakani on Mon Mar 16, 2009 05:21 PM PDTThis was in your comment below. Was it not?
"zion. as Noruz approaches, i am trying to remain optimistic. the views expressed here are not reflective of most iranians. it IS sad that these people don't recognize their bias for what it is. just remember that it is not healthy for us... those with a heart... to dwell on their hatred. it feeds itself. don't let the stain of their bias taint your own heart."
Who are "these people?" They are Iranians, right?
"...it is not healthy for us...those with a heart...to dwell on their hatred."
Who is "us?" You and Zion, right? Two non-Iranians, right?
Who is the liar now? You are denying that you just posted that comment? We have read enough from you, too, to know how you feel about Iranians. Your contempt shows up all the time, this is nothing new.
anonymous fish
by Ari Siletz on Mon Mar 16, 2009 04:42 PM PDTali
by anonymous fish on Mon Mar 16, 2009 04:38 PM PDTi don't usually respond to comments like yours but you're registered too so i'm going to extend the curtesy and respect to you that i don't normally afford anonymous bottom feeders. you and jaleho have both accused me of attacking iranians. you state this as an established fact. i respectfully request that you show me where, when and whom i've attacked. i have great respect for iranians in general, as well as your culture. do i have respect for ALL iranians? absolutely not. please don't distort that fact either because it's not an attack on "iranians" to state my disgust and distaste for specific iranians. it wouldn't make any difference if someone was black, white, iranian or american or anything else. evil is evil. you can repeat and copy and emulate all you want but it's not going to change a thing. i've never denigrated iranians... EVER. i have criticized specific individuals but nothing you and others say is ever going to make that the same thing as hating iranians as a people.
and unless you restate or retract your comment "You said only you and Zion have hearts", i'm calling you a liar as well. i've never said or implied such a thing. you think you can twist and distort words around to suit YOUR agenda. ain't gonna happen bubba. you think you're making a dramatic statement that some few individuals will read and think "oh my god... did she really say that? what a terrible person"?
trust me on this one... i'm not the least bit worried about having to ever apologize to jaleho. she makes outlandish comments and when i call her on them, she disappears, only to show up somewhere else without defending her comments.
show me you're not a coward as well.
Hatred Hiding Itself Behind Literary Figures
by tsion on Mon Mar 16, 2009 05:19 PM PDTPlease don't let the "tactics" fool you. Jaleho here is literary having an orgasm to gloat over how all European giants of literature of Europe were [allegedly] antisemites [and it is not as if this is the first time she has commented on anything and the first time we have been hearing of her opinions!]
Here are her other words to match your quotation:
'There are some modern day distorters who try to find a way away from the anti-Semitism reflected in the characters like Shylock or Barabas. Because Shakespeare is too loved for the modern day pro-Zionist English speaker to admit that he has created the most poignant characters well- matched with the anti-Semitic mood of the Braitain[sic] of his time...But frankly, the American and European Jew is too much used to force others to review the history and literature and their beloved ancient culture...It is a losing battle. Just get used to the fact that these are great authors, they are loved...In fact, a great literature is always a good mirror of its time.'
No wonder she falls in love precisely with the only actual anti-semitic character in the play, who is also the closest Shakespeare has come to creating a one-dimensional character in his entire body of works! ;-)
Unlike this bunch here, Shakespeare had to work on a typical blueprint cliche polemic against Judaism. It's like someone writing about Jews ( or "Zionists" as the euphemisms go) or Bahais in her lovely Islamic republic today, but without any international public opinion to play into with niceties. The play is essentially an allegory of the typical Christian polemic contrasting "Grace" [and not "justice"!] over the "Law", going back directly to Paul. Judaism is supposedly this earlier imperfect model of a jealous and violent god suffocated by legalities, whereas Christianity is the redemption from it through grace that supplants law, and comes through faith [this second point is developed in the other half of the story, in the marriage 'riddle', the significance of the three marriage "rings" in the story, and the final collision between the two halves of the storyline within the courtroom.] Jews are "supposedly" by nature perverted, which explains the supposed "rigidity" of their blind legalistic "souls", and thus being devoid of all forms of compassion, they are beneath any chance of redemption... .
They do not come about by "Christ killer" allegations against Jews. It is the other way around. Those sections of the Gospel are rewritten, and re-interpreted, precisely to shift the blame of the killing of Jesus to Jews. The real reasons for the antagonism goes before Christianity. It is essentially the conflict between Hellenism and Judasim (the latter was actually coined precisely to make the contradistinction as clear as possible), itself a newer form of an older conflict between Egyptian(wordview) versus the Israelite revolte against it. It has to do with many deep issues, like separation versus assimilation, distinct cultures versus homogenization and so on.
[and in this sense, Islam is very much the same. Islamic anti-semitism is as deep and as systemic as the one Jaleho preaches about Europe here. Just an
[example:
'[5:82] You will find that the worst enemies of the believers are the Jews and the idol worshipers. And you will find that the closest people in friendship to the believers are those who say, "We are Christian." This is because they have priests and monks among them, and they are not arrogant.']
The difference is, it is less "urgent" an issue to tackle since Islam, a Christian heresy, has separated its holly book from the Bible to a mixed up collection of weekly recitations of it, imbued other Arabic pagan ideas, rituals and internal war stories.]
All the above typical "cliches" are but worn out polemics of old times. Yet Shakespeare, unlike what has excited this "lady" here so much, was noting like a "poignant antisemite" merely "reflecting" his day and age through his "greatness". The play is filled with typical Shakespearean uncertainty and ambivalence. Actually based on this play alone, all sorts of theories have been put forward for ages now about Shakepeare having been a sephardic Jew in disguise. This is more or less debunked now, but the fact that they were put forward by this play shows clearly that it is not just the "modern 'distorters' under Zionist global influence" who could read between the lines whn it comes to Shakespeare.
That is why IslamiRepublican is completely right on the mark in his comments. The real question is, why should this tale be brought up in this form in this day and age, when no such authoritarian polemic blue-prints are imposed on people in the West. It makes a lot of difference when you choose to expand on and gloat about the antisemitic "themes" of an old play... as has been done here. As I said before I am not surprised a bit, given the kind of people running this website. Like the video I posted here by my new avatar, it fits this atmosphere here perfectly.
Zion
Anonymous fish
by Ali Lakani on Mon Mar 16, 2009 03:57 PM PDTYour bleeding heart for humanity is no longer acceptable as your repeated attacks against Iranians have established your intentions quite well.
You said only you and Zion have hearts.
All those who can read and have seen Zion's behavior on this site know what your statement means.
I doubt Jaleho or anyone else needs your apologies.
ari
by anonymous fish on Mon Mar 16, 2009 03:46 PM PDTi'm sorry if i've disturbed your article. it truly isn't my intention. but i am not going to remain silent when i see an injustice either. i won't comment on the various attacks to MY intentions because as i've said time and time again, the only people who i really care about know exactly how much regard i have for the iranian people in general. i consider the iranian culture and history to be incredibly rich.
I prefer to asign the qualifier "wisdom" instead of "corrupt" to the judge rather than the Jew. After all, he ruled against a "greed" so dirty that it has no consideration for human suffering.
can you really not see the incredible bias in those words? to me they are loud and clear. this WAS a personal observation. period. and as i said to azadeh, i'm not going to be intimidated by jaleho. i call it as i see it. and i will not be silent. to ignore is to condone.
Azadeh
by anonymous fish on Mon Mar 16, 2009 03:32 PM PDTthank you for your comment. these words ARE terrible and i'm happy to hear you say that. i do not agree with you however in thinking that this is not exactly how jaleho thinks. if i'm wrong, it's a simple matter of clarification. i would stand from the top of mount everest and apologize if jaleho were to tell us those were not her sentiments. you're a regular here... you've heard her speak. i'm not discussing or commenting on her intelligence in any way, unlike her with me. she's smart... ain't no two ways about it. but i believe this is exactly how she feels. and it is terrible. it scares the shit out of me. i'm not jewish... my concern is for the whole of humanity. what i see here is frightning for anyone to see. i'm not an extremist in any way, shape or form. but i won't be intimidated by someone like jaleho either. it simply isn't right. i think you for your civility and i hope with all my heart that i'm wrong about her. i just don't think i am. and i won't be silent and stop expressing my outrage at what i consider to be the vilest of human bias.
Why do you bother?
by kofritar az hamisheh.... (not verified) on Mon Mar 16, 2009 02:59 PM PDTI am absolutely amazed at all of you! Jaleho, Azadeh and Ari! Why are you even bothering with an explanation.
These folks are just that, illiterate folks who are begging for attention! you are interrupting your own exchanges to explain to some uneducated woman that Jaleho didn't mean it as a personal opinion? If she could read, she would have known what Jaleho is saying.
If she could read, she would have been able to contribute to this conversation rather than jump in there and point her "anti-semitic" finger at people and cry wolf, hoping zion would show up and insult everyone for her?
She hates Iran and Iranians, she wants to feel superior and she can't, no wonder she's so frustrated.
Azadeh
by Ari Siletz on Mon Mar 16, 2009 02:43 PM PDTanonymous fish
by Ari Siletz on Mon Mar 16, 2009 02:35 PM PDTAzadeh
by Ali Lakani on Mon Mar 16, 2009 02:32 PM PDTDon't ever expect Anonymous Fish to read anything or to know anything before she posts one, two or three comments about it even if one of them was so bad it got deleted!She doesn't read, just like tsion. Anonymous Fish is here to tell Iranians that she is so much better and that she and tsion (one of the nastiest commenters on this site) have more 'heart' than Iranians!I disagree with Jaleho's assessment of tsion. She is an ignorant specially about Iranian culture, language and life but that doesn't stop her from opining and that is very ignorant in my opinion. Your expectation that they would know anything about Shakespeare is unrealistic.
re: "the immorality of being a Jew"
by Azadeh Azad on Mon Mar 16, 2009 02:16 PM PDTDear Anonymous Fish,
I've read all the comments here, including yours. I believe that when Jaleho speaks of "the immorality of being a Jew" in one of her comments below, she is not expressing her personal opinion about the Jewish people, but is in fact referring to the dominant thinking of the Christians in Shakespear's times. These terrible words are those of the European Christians of many centuries ago!
Azadeh
to continue
by anonymous fish on Mon Mar 16, 2009 01:43 PM PDTislamicrepublican. faced with injustice to the jew... it is typical that they twist the story to reflect his greed instead of his rights per an agreement made in good faith!!! Happy Noruz to you as well. please continue to have faith that this is not the typical opinion of all iranians... although it would be hard to figure out how or why!
zion. as Noruz approaches, i am trying to remain optimistic. the views expressed here are not reflective of most iranians. it IS sad that these people don't recognize their bias for what it is. just remember that it is not healthy for us... those with a heart... to dwell on their hatred. it feeds itself. don't let the stain of their bias taint your own heart.
"except for the immorality of being a Jew" aren't those chilling words? it truly makes my skin crawl to realize that someone with that immoral of a soul is walking around amongst us!
peace out.
dear JJ decided not to post my comment.
by anonymous fish on Mon Mar 16, 2009 01:36 PM PDTapparently he thought i was out of order. i'll let this speak for itself instead.
"except for the immorality of being a Jew"
Jaleh aziz
by kofri az bisavadieh mardom (not verified) on Mon Mar 16, 2009 01:34 PM PDTJaleh jan
I think you should continue this very interesting exchange with Ari and don't worry about the noise. Insignificant people who have nothing worthy to add resort to personal attack on the writer and the smart participants. I admire Ari for the best reaction (none) he's showing the riffraff. Let them be and let them display not only their ignorance about politics and literature, but also their bad manners and lack of class.
I enjoy reading your comments, you are a very informed and well-read educated lady.
Ari, I completely agree!
by Jaleho on Mon Mar 16, 2009 01:31 PM PDT"because he finds creative ways to sympathize with his antagonists. This quality of Shakespeare has given modern directors the lattitude they need to de-emphasize religious rivalry in favor of secular meditations on the issue of anti-Semitism. "
I just would add that the modern viewer is a great participant in this too. Above all, both Sakespeare and the directors play for their own particular audience!
Thanks again for clarifying the neat root of the folk-saying!