Defending Iranian Democracy

I got to agree with Simorgh to some degree

The Muslim conquest of Iran was an unmitigated disaster. We all know it and I don't want to rehash the history for the millionth time

Sassanids were not as kind to previous regimes as Simorgh said. They very much loved  Achaemenid. But they pretty much hated Parthians. They viewed Parthians both as barbarians and foreigners. To be fair Sassanids were "right" in some ways. Parthians were nomadic in nature. And no where as sophisticated as Achaemenid or Sassanids. But the loss of their records is tragic. I have made it a hobby to gather as much on them as possible. Thanks to Sassanids not much is there!

No matter two wrongs do not make a right. Hence none of this excuses the destruction of Iranian heritage. By Sassanids; Arabs; or Islamic Republic. All historical treasures are valuable. To be preserved for generations on.

TL - I have to admit

that I could have been a bit more clear.  As far as cremation, I didn't choose it out of atheism.  There are some arguments about it being more environmentally sound, especially with a growing world population.  On the other hand, the fuel that is needed to burn the body does not make cremation a very environemntally friendly option.  Coming to think of it, Muslim and traditional Zoroastrian disposal of the dead are the most environmentally friendly methods of dealing with the issue.

AO, sorry, lazy quoting

from Shushtari's comment:

"...I dont' believe in all the nonsense that is preached by the akhoonds and
other reglions.....BUT THERE IS DEFINITELY A HIGHER BEING....just my
humble opinion

we will find out after we all die :) "

Then the beginning of  yours:

"

by Anonymous Observer on Thu Sep 22, 2011 03:57 PM PDT

The part about we will find out after we are dead. That will definitely be the case."

What is a girl to think? How am I supposed to know when I'm as dead as a dodo?

Thanks for your explanation of "we" though. It's a weird one. ;)Isn't it a matter of perceptions of "consciousness"?

P.S. Cremation isn't necessarily an argument for atheism; it's just a matter of a non-traditional disposal of a body and some might and  do take that as an argument for the existance of a soul beyond.Just saying...

TL- Classic example of taking a sentence out of context

Read the rest of the paragraph.  My reference to "we" in that sentence is to the human race.  As opposed to where I say the answers will be found long after "we" are gone.  In that sense, I am talking ahout the contemporary "we," i.e., those of us who are alive today.

I am, and have been for most of my adult life, and atheist.  I have no belief (and no need for a belief) in an afterlife, and have already made a will for my remains to be cremated and spread over the waters of my favorite beach on a warm sunny day, so that I can be one with the amazing natural world where I (and the rest of us) came from.  No hell, no heaven, no fairy tales...just beautiful, perpetual circle of life on this wonderful planet.     

'Your views, again, are

'Your views, again, are complete anachronisms. You are applying a contemporary, modern ethical standard upon a pre-modern one of the 7th century.'

If your criticise opponents of Islam for applying modern ethical standards to 7the centruty values you have inadvertently admitted that the teaching if Islam, its customs and barbaric Shariah law belong to the era when it was established lished and therefore it has no place in todays society. When Iranian men and women are forced to wear bedouin Arabia clothes; women are forced into marriages as young as nine; when cruel and vindictive punishments such as ghisas are inflicted then it quite normal to enquire and criticise the source of such unmitigated evil, and it is evil.
As for the comparisons between the conduct ofthe prophet of Islam and those of the Sassanian and Chinese imperial dynasties who also claimed divine rule, I don't believe that either of them exist today. Furthermore, Iranians amongst us who revere our pre-Islamic heritage are not claiming for one second that Cyrus the Great was a prophet (although Orthodox Jews do in the Old Testament book of Isaiah do) or when Darius claims he was king of the universe it woukd be absurd to take it literally. In contrast Muslims not.only believe that the Koran is the undisputed word of God but that the life and behaviour of Mohammed are to be emulated which is why pre-pubescent girls are being married off and sighe is practised today.
I am quite happy to reflect on and criticise the excesses of the Sassanian dynasties during their four hundred and fifty years if rule such as the slaughter of the Mazdaks and the persecutions under the high priest Kadrir but during their very long rule there had also been extraordinary amounts if tolerance as Touraj Daryayee's book indicates especially towards Jews and Christians who were used as artisans and their skills were employed. Even the Sassanian kings such as Bahram V were Jewish. The Church of Nestor was created and by and large, except when the Byzantines started hostilities with Iran which caused the state to treat them with suspicion, they were largely tolerated and even flourished. Except for the dark times of Kadrir there were no Jayeeze racketeering, dhimmis or restrictions placed on their mode of dress or religious ceremonies. Compare that to Islam which has destroyed and tried to assimilate by force or coercion other people into their faith, and those who were accepted such as Jews or Christians (people of the book) were discriminated in every way possible including probate and inheritance matters where converts to Islam would be more privileged.
Finally, whilst fully acknowledging some of the repugnant axts of the Sassanians they never tried to destroy the civilisation or remnants of dynasties before them. In Naqse Rostam, near Persepolis, they honoured their Achaemenid forefathers by enfraving images on the wall on the same side of the mountain and they also burried their kings in the same way.
In contrast, Islam.went on a bloody rampage destroying fire temples and most of what remained fron our ancient past. So.when you see Sadegh Khalkhali

Tabarzin

The best I know most of the early Islamic conversion were by the upper class. Not the lower classes who remained Zoroastrian until forced by their leaders. A perfect example is the Samanids. 

Revolts always tend to come from middle and upper class. The lower class do not have the time; education or leadership. Marxist revolts were led by middle and upper class. So of course the revolts in Iran were from middle class.

It was not until Yagoob that a "lower" class person had a successful revolt. And that he did expelling Arab rule from most of Iran. To this day people out in remote mountains like parts of Kurdistan remain true to Zoroastrian traditions.

Anonymous Observer. slipped out?:

"The part about we will find out after we are dead."

Entertaining the possibility of an afterlife,  that's a tell tell sign, not of an atheist, but that of a theist or agnostic or agnostic theist etc.. Certainly not an atheist.

Tabarzin

"The second issue is that a cult requires a level of unified coherence
and uniform cohesiveness in order to be a cult, as that term is defined
by the social sciences."

Ha! One of the valid arguments against the premise of my "classical" definition of cult and therefore my stance of calling all religions cults, is precisely that of diversity, but even 'regional diversity' (term used very loosely, but very easily observed through different interpretations of e.g. Sufi music across the globe and its peaceful threat to extremists...), I could argue, goes under the banner of size or "volume"?

P.S. Brovva Salman farsi, LOL! As long as that pre-op brovva doesn't get PMT, we're fine!

Historical context and name calling as excuses

"concept of pedophilia does not exist in the pre-modern mind" - .........Middle Eastern and European potentates alike engaged in union and sexual relations with what by our standards are considered to be minors and children..........The Tang Emperors of China - who are contemporaneous - are well known (even documneted) for having a proclivity for pre-pubescents (and not just girls, I might add). Yet we don't hear anything by Islamophobes about the Chinese Tang emperors, who likewise were considered divine. "

Noone is accepting one form of pedophilia over another. I am concerned with issues that affect Iran not China. The truth is it still goes on in the name of religion - child marriages. Even recently as one example, Indonesia's largest Muslim organization wanted to rule in favor of underage marriages, as did some in Morocco, Yemen, etc. 

 //journaloffeministinsight.blogspot.com/2010/09/islam-and-underage-marriage.html 

//middleeast.about.com/od/humanrightsdemocracy/a/child-brides.htm

As far as accusations of Islamophobia, it is often used to silence critics. I have voiced support of freedom of religion and support for women who want to wear hijab on this site. Many times I have supported free speech of even Islamists.

//iranian.com/main/2011/aug/france-veiled-woman-resists-arrestpage3

//iranian.com/main/blog/dr-mansur-rastani/iranians-against-islam-petitionpage2

Personally, I find spending time discussing these matters in a place like IC with familiar defensive characters who insult (name call) and make excuses unproductive. This will be my last comment here as there are better venues to discuss such matters and gain results, with experts and non religious preachers. These people's priorities are to look out for children's rights in a modern world and thankfully have a practical outlook. 

Divaneh said something wise in another blog: "Religious people match their wisdom to their religion…. That is why no religion could ever make people rational and having no religion and no belief in infallible god, people or organisations would be the best salvation. "

Pourshariati's book is very good

I have a copy of it sitting right here next to me.  Please turn to page 469 for a list of officers who fought during theMuslim campaign.  The only problem with that book is that almost all of its sources are Arab historians, which means that story is told through their eyes.  Nonetheless, still a good book.  I don't have Daryaee's book, but I have read a lot of his materials and I find him to be an excellent historian.

In terms of rebellions, please read History of Al-Tabari, Volume XIV, Conquest of Iran, State Univerity of New York Press.  And it's not just the wide scale rebellions.  It's the city to city and enclave to enclave battle and the resistance that Iranians put up to the Arab invasion.  The invasion took almost five years.  There were people who were traveling from Kurdestan to Isfahan to assist in the defense of the city.  This is at a time, again, where the idea  of a nation state did not have today's meaning.  It is, again quite remarkable, and demonstrates the enduring Sassanid legacy of Iranshahr that has kept Iran in one piece (for the most parts) as we see it today.

I will respond to the other points tomorrow.  It's getting late here, and I will have to finish reading my book before I fall asleep.   

Other points

On the treatment of non-Zoroastrian and heterodox Zoroastrian religious minorities under the Sassanian empire, I refer you to the excellent chapter (3) by Touraj Daryaee in his Sassanian Persia: The Rise and Fall of an Empire (I.B. Tauris, London: 2009). BTW if anyone wants a copy of either one these two books mentioned, I have both as fully searchable PDFs.

AO, leaving your subjective and uncritical appraisal of Salman Farsi aside, you say:

 Lastly, in terms of Mohammad's relation with an underage girl, here's
the distinction between him and all others that you have mentioned in
your comment, and I will assume, for the sake off this discussion, that
everything that you said about the Chinese and the Sassanids is true.
None of those that you have mentioned claimed to me messengers of God.
Mohammad claimed to be such person, and as such, it was his obligation
to be the beacon of morality for everyone else. Knowing what we know
now, sex with a child scars that child for the rest of his / her life.

Your views, again, are complete anachronisms. You are applying a contemporary, modern ethical standard upon a pre-modern one of the 7th century. Firstly, both the Chinese and Sassanian emperors considered themselves annointed by Heaven, which is, as an equivalence,  as similar a claim and notion to being the Messenger of God. All Chinese emperors were directly referred to as the "son of Heaven" and often as offspring of this or that Chinese deity. Second, once again, the notion of pedophilia vis-a-vis Ayesha does not make any sense in the context you are indicting Muhammad. The issue of solidifying tribal alliances aside (which marriage in such societies was meant to cement politically), and in a world where most people did not live past 40-50 years of age, a 9-14 year old female in all such societies is a woman. Furthermore, in societies where life was so short, biologically there is evidence that some women where menstruating as young as 10-11 years of age. Since all the sources say the marriage with Ayesha was not consummated until she was 14, this issue as an indictment falls on its face given the various contexts and subtexts to be considered here. Given this, indicting the Prophet of Islam by a standard that does not even exist in his time is downright intellectually dishonest. Again, the harems of the assorted "annointed of Heaven" emperors were full of pre-pubescents - and, indeed, these "annointed of heaven" were having sex and producing offspring by these under aged concubines. Right or wrong, this was the pre-modern world of antiquity, and pedophilia is only a recent and contemporary ethical category. 

Most of the revolts that happened in Iran during the first few centuries after the Arab conquest of Iran where coming from Dehqans and other formerly privileged elites (i.e. aristocrats) of the Sassanian empire. Barely any of these revolts came from the lower classes who had predominantly converted to Islam. This fact alone nuances the whole argument.

The evidence about Imams Hasan and Hussein (as) engaging in the kind of suppression you speak of is flimsy. Since they were the sons of a clan whom, first, the Arab Muslim chieftains displaced and then during 'Ali's (as) short caliphate were engaged in the political intrigues and wars against the Sufyani-Ummayads - and then after Siffin, the Khwarij - when exactly  were Hasan and Husayn engaged in suppressing Iranians?

Tabarzin Jan

It pains me to even read about the events of the last 50 years of Sassanids. It was not one thing; rather a whole lot of things. Khosrow Parviz and his endless wars with Rome. Then leaving no capable person to take over.

A general incompetence. The short reign of Pouran and Azarmidokht. Murder of Rostam's father by Azarmidokht in response to his marriage proposal. . Then blinding and murder of Azarnidokht by Rostam. What a mess!

No wonder there was no faith left in the system Everyone out to get on another. The total corruption of priests. Violent repression of efforts to reform the system. Does it sound familiar? Reminds me of today's IRI. Iran was lucky the war with Iraq came when people were still high on revolution. Their morale kept them from collapsing. With today's morale things may have been much worse. As I said before Mollahs are doing to Islam what Mobeds did to Zoroastrianism.

On the mutiny against Yazdigird III

Parvaneh Pourshariati The Decline and Fall of the Sassanian Empire: The Sassanian-Parthian Confederacy and the Arab Conquest of Iran (I.B. Tauris, London: 2008).

....With all the fanfare around the heroic posture and tragic death of Rustam, however, little attention has been paid to the fact that, in defending the Sasanians at this important juncture of Iranian history, Rustam, like his brother, Farrukhzad and their father, Farrukh Hormozd, was not merely pitching his last efforts on behalf of the Sasanians—whose legitimacy his ancestral family, the Ispahbudhan, had questioned again and again in late Sasanian period, after all—but, more importantly, was defending the rights of his family and their fiefdoms in the east and west of the Sasanian territory. Even less is known about the likelihood that the family was probably the most significant player in accommodating the conquering army and betraying the Sasanians...As both Tabarı’s and Ferdowsı’s narrative underline, therefore, the hero of the battle of Qadisiya participated in the fateful battle quite reluctantly and in spite of his preferred stratagems. In fact, according to abarı, between “the departure
of Rustam from al-Madain, his camping at Sabat., his departure from there, and his confrontation with Sa,d b. Ab¯ı Waqq¯as.’s army, four months elapsed. During this time he did not move forward and did not fight.”1287 Rustam is portrayed as “hoping that the Arabs would become disgusted with the place, [and] would become exhausted, and . . . leave.”1288 So long-lasting Rustam’s procrastination is said to have been that the Arabs, realizing his strategy, followed suit and “made up their minds to be patient and to temporize with the Persians indefinitely, in order to throw them off balance,” raiding meanwhile the Sawad and plundering “the area around them.” Once the Persians realized “that the Arabs were not going to desist,” however, they are said to have commenced their war efforts...In all our narratives the theme of Rustam’s procrastination, his insistence on having an isolated warfare strategy, and his initial refusal to start the war efforts, reflects his stance, not vis-à-vis the child king Yazdgird III, but vis-à-vis
the other factions, most importantly the Parsıg. The correspondence of Rustam with his brother Farrukhz¯ad bears witness to this. The exhaustion of the Sasanian empire in the wake of the thirty-year Byzantine–Sasanian wars, which had only recently been brought to an end, perhaps helps explain Rustam’s inclination toward placating the Arab armies. The Arab insistence on trade interests, was probably also responsible for the creation of those narratives that depict Rustam arguing for the lucidity and honorable nature of the Arab stance. All the traditions concerning Rustam’s correspondence with the Arab armies, with his brother Farrukhz¯ad, and with other factions bear witness, however, that the Parsıg were bent on all-out war. Perhaps their promotion of this strategy was itself predicated upon their knowledge that, indeed, the latter did dread Rustam and his power more than they did that of the Parsıg..."

 pp.228-231

....We recall that after the battle of Qadisiya and the battle of Jalula, Yazdgird III’s flight first carried him south, then southeast, where he probably stayed in Sıstan, possibly for five years. We can now follow his trail as he turned finally to Khurasan around 650. Some of our sources maintain that during his flight, Yazdgird III either went to the proximity of Tabaristan, or was at least invited to take refuge there. In any case, perhaps on his way to Khur¯as¯an, Yazdgird III learned about the events in Tabaristan and Gurgan1 before he finally proceeded to Khurasan, to Marv. We recall that most of our sources emphasize that the protection of the Sasanian king during his flight was undertaken by the most important scion of the Ispahbudhan family, Farrukhzad, the brother of Rustam, and the son of the Prince of the Medes, Farrukh Hormozd.

Whereas none of the anecdotal narratives that describe Yazdgird III’s fate in Khurasan and his presumed murder at the hands of a miller, rings of historical veracity, we do have substantive information that helps us clarify the course of events. The initial conquest of Khuzistan and Fars by Asharı, we recall, took place sometime around 636–637 CE, according to our dating scheme, although some traditions maintain that this was shortly before Abu Bakr died, in 634 CE. The “real conquest of Fars and the remainder of the Sasanian empire to the east,” however, was undertaken by Abdallah b. Amir, the governor of Basrah, under ,Uthman (23–35 AH/644–656 CE),1488 when the latter sent Ahnaf at the vanguard of an army to conquer Khurasan from Tabasayn. According to Morony, it was after the second conquest of Fars that Yazdgird III moved to Kirm¯an and thence, just ahead of the Arab forces, to Sıstan and Khurasan. Yazdgird III, therefore, arrived in Khurasan sometime in 650–651 CE. If Yazdgird III was eight years old when he ascended the throne in 632, moreover, by the time of his arrival in Khuras¯an in 650–651, he was about twenty-six years old. From here on, the sources that depict the youthful Sasanian king as stubborn and thick-headed may carry some truth...And now, we are given a significant piece of information by Ferdows¯ı. After leaving the king, Farrukhz¯ad set out for Rayy. In the meantime he adopted a new posture vis-à-vis Yazdgird III: he had a change of heart (joda shod zi maghzı bad andısh mihr) and the “shepherd came to covet the throne (shaban ra hamı kard takhtarzuy).” Pretending to be ill, Farrukhzad renounced his allegiance to Yazdgird III. And so the last Sasanian king lost his last and most formidable source of support: the Pahlav Farrukhzad mutinied. While leaving the king to the care of Mahuy, Farrukhzad revealed his intent: “I have to leave for Rayy, for I do not know any longer whom I shall consider the king” of this realm...

pp.257-262

Regarding Sassanids

There is no question there was a lot of corruption towards the end of Sassanids. That was in fact the reason for their downfall. But the Arabs were not "rag tag". They were a highly organized and motivated military force.

Yazdgird III was not abandoned. Rostam Farrokhzad died on the battlefield. It was a combination of poor morale; bad leadership and bad luck. The real killer was  inability of Yazdgird III to gather another force. Iran without a doubt had the potential to mass an army ten times the size it lost at Qadisiyah. But the local governors were not willing to send young men to fight and die for Yazdgird III. A mistake many did not live to regret. After cities like Estakhr were utterly destroyed.

Zoroastrian priests were definitely corrupt and powerful. A bad combination. Reminds me of the Mollahs today. Maybe it is in the nature of priests to be corrutpt whether Zoroastrian; Muslim or any other religion. The Zoroastria priests destroyed that religion. Mollahs are destroying Islam in Iran. I predict history will repeat itself. This time Mollahs will fall and take Islam with them. What is next: I have no idea maybe no religion; maybe return to Zoroastrianism or who knows what.

Dear Oon Yaroo

There is too much SH2 gas in Islamic Mosques' toilets because of the free Gheymeh Polo and onions that can cause an explosion and burning of the private parts!

So I highly recommend my fellow Iranians to use either the restrooms at churches or synagogues, even if you have to make a contribution! 

Dear Dr. Rastani, Thanks for informing us of the openning of

this mosque!

Mosques have always had their place in the societies! You go there to relax, meditate,  but more importantly to use the facilities if you know what I mean!

Wahid - a few points

First, your historical narrative of Yazdgird, III's generals deserting him is absolutely inaccurate. By all accounts, Yazdgird's officers stood by him, most of them to their deaths. This, of course, includes Rostam Farrokhzad, who was not even a Persian, but rather a Parthian (killed in battle). Others include Bahman Jazooyeh (killed in battle in Khuzestan), Hormozan (captured and taken prisoner and then killed in cold blood by Omar) and Pirooz Nahavandi. There are many others whose names now escape me. The loyalty of these officers is quite remarkable in several respects. The first being that the concept of nation state as we know it today did not exist at the time. So, these officers could have easily switched sides or simply deserted and joined their various tribes (Rostam's being in the far northeast of Iran- quite a distance away from the battlefield). Second, the Muslim conquest took about five years, and throughout this time, these officers still remained with Yazdgird. Third, Yazdgird was quite young at the time of these battles, and had recently taken the throne after bloody infighting among the Sassanid royal court. So, the fact that these officers showed such loyalty to a newly appointed king under those circumstances is again,quite remarkable.

On the issue of Sassanid's treatment of their subjects, your accusations of mistreatment of other religions within the kingdom is belied by the fact that Yazdgird, III's own mother was a Christian named Meryam! And also the fact that at the time of the Muslim conquest, the majority of the inhabitants of Ctesiphon were Christians. The Sassanids did not even have a royal fire temple in Ctesiphon, the seat of their empire!

As to Salman Farsi, all indications are that he was quite a shady character who traveled from place to place, possibly after a coup attempt in Isfahan, and found hope of capturing the Persian Empire in Mohammad and his gang.

In terms of how the Muslims treated their subject people, all you have to do is read their own accounts. And then compare that to other empires. You will see that it is far worse. And other empires didn't claim to be bringing a religion of peace.  And as far as Iranians welcoming them with open arms, that is also belied by Muslim and Arab historians own accounts of constant rebellions in all parts of Iran, which resulted in large scale military action against the rebellious Iranians.  Some of those military suppression cases were even carried out, according to Arab historians by Ali Ibn Abitalib's sons, Hassan and Hussein! 

Lastly, in terms of Mohammad's relation with an underage girl, here's the distinction between him and all others that you have mentioned in your comment, and I will assume, for the sake off this discussion, that everything that you said about the Chinese and the Sassanids is true. None of those that you have mentioned claimed to me messengers of God. Mohammad claimed to be such person, and as such, it was his obligation to be the beacon of morality for everyone else. Knowing what we know now, sex with a child scars that child for the rest of his / her life. But Mohammad should have known that through divine communications, no? In other words, God should have known what we know today about basic child psychology and communicated that to Mohammad so that he could pass it on to the rest of humanity. So, if Mohammad had sex with a nine year old, he was either untruthful about being a prophet or he could not control his sexual urges in direct violation of (presumed) God's orders. And I am not just singling out Mohammad. In my opinion, Moses and Jesus were just as bad (if not worse) than Mohammad.

Same old, same old...

Simorgh, you are rehearsing the same old, same old Islamophobic talking points: ahistorical and without context.

Firstly, as far as the Muslim conquest of the Sassanian empire goes: this is exactly what it was, a conquest. A rag-tag desert guerilla army defeated one of the super-powers of the time. Just as with every other conquest before it: to the winner goes the spoils. The Sassanians did the same - and worse! - to nations they had conquered, and every imperial power throughout history has demanded some kind of tribute by a subjugated nation. You and many Iranians like you ahistorically talk about the 7th century Mid East as if there are Geneva Conventions in place. But all things considered, the conquering Muslims treated their conquered subjects far better than other empires before them; and the Sassanian empire was already in decay: it was a corrupt, caste-ridden brutal theocracy which mercilessly persecuted all religious and political dissidents. I suggest you look into the treatment by the Sassanian state of Manichaeans, Mazdakis and Monophysite Christians before pointing fingers at the Muslims. Furthermore, as all the evidence shows, the Sassanians were heretics vis-a-vis orthodox Zoroastrianism and imposed a heretical version of the Zoroastrian creed on all their subjects. Moreover it was Yazdigird III's own generals who deserted him and betrayed their own emperor at the battlefield of Qadisiyah. Given this, contemporary Iranian romanticists of Sassanian Iran need several reality checks and serious lessons in the history of the era.

Now the accusation about the age of Ayesha's marriage to the Prophet (pbuh) is another one of the usual talking points of Iranian Islamophobes - nay, all Islamophobes. Like the whining about Qadisiyah, it too is ahistorical and de-contextualized. First, the concept of pedophilia does not exist in the pre-modern mind. Middle Eastern and European potentates alike engaged in union and sexual relations with what by our standards are considered to be minors and children. Do you think the harems of the Sassanian monarchs did not contain concubines as young as (or even younger than) that age? I have news for you, they did - and not only the Sassanians but every single potentate before them and after them whether in the Middle East, Europe or Asia! The Tang Emperors of China - who are contemporaneous - are well known (even documneted) for having a proclivity for pre-pubescents (and not just girls, I might add). Yet we don't hear anything by Islamophobes about the Chinese Tang emperors, who likewise were considered divine.

Yes, surah 4:34 (al-nisa), speaks about beating disobedient women. In the context of a race who were previously outright murdering disobedient female concubines, slaves or minor wives, or otherwise burying female children alive, that is a serious improvement. The Old Testament law about husbands and wives is, again, far worse.

The nearby land that massacred Mazdakis, Manichaeans and relentlessly persecuted Monophysites is probably the nearest land being referred to. There were in fact self-respecting Iranians such as Salman Farsi who did in fact rejoice, not to mention the thousands who deserted the Sassanians and hailed the Muslims as liberators from the cluthches of a corrupt, caste-ridden and totalitarian imperial theocracy such as the Sassanian state.

But all that said, my point about the linguistic illiteracy in classical, literary Arabic of people like yourself and the author of this blog vis-a-vis the Qur'an still stands.

Very true shushtari

The part about we will find out after we are dead. That will definitely be the case. The answers to the questions you posed will probably be discover long after we are gone. But that is the nature of science. A 100 years ago when you and I were not here, people thought that those with mental illness wee possessed by the devil. But we know otherwise. The answer to the size of the universe will be found one day. We may not know it in our lifetimes, but future generations will.

AO....

i respect your views.....but face it, science aint' gonna answer EVERYTHING....

simple example: 'how big is the universe??? if you sit on a spaceship and go forever, where will you end up?? the human brain will never be able to answer this.....the concept of infinity is something that the human brain cannot likely comprehend

I dont' believe in all the nonsense that is preached by the akhoonds and other reglions.....BUT THERE IS DEFINITELY A HIGHER BEING....just my humble opinion

we will find out after we all die :) 

Tabarzin- Good morning! Islam

As it stands the only religion which has done irreversible damage to Iran (regardless of the branch or interpretation of it) is Islam and not Evangelical Christianity. I did not need the 'propaganda machine' from North American media to tell me about that wanton destruction of pre-Islamic culture, the humiliating defeat of Persia in the Battle of  Qaddasiyah, the letter from Khalid Bin Wallid to Yazdegard III promising to bring an 'Army of Death' if he did not pay the Jayizaa (protection racket money) and submit to Islam. Unfortunately, general information in the media did not tell me that the that Zoroastrian  fire temples were destroyed and all but a few remained such as Takhte Soleyman where the Mobeds invented an Arabic name and history to avoid its certain ruin just as they did with Cyrus's Tomb in Pasaargad (Tomb of the mother of Soloman). I wish the Western media had told me that even speaking the Persian language was banned  under pain of death during the Umaayid Calpihate . No siree!

If Evangelical Christians had committed such crimes against Iran then you could bet I would denounce it in the same way.  

But that is beside the point. There are many different Islams as you put it but there are some incontrovertible facts which you cannot defend even though you have tried so desperately to do so.

Mohammed (the prophet of God) married a nine year old. Prophets do not do this. In 626 Mohammed destroyed the Jewish al-Nadir tribe, in 627 he raided the Quruyza tribe and in 629 based on an inspiration from the Angel Gabriel he beheaded the entire Jews of the Khaybar before going on his lunatic rants to various kings of the world inviting them to Islam in the same way Agmadinejad does. Infact, the more I read about the prophet of Islam the more rational Khomeini's act appeared to me from an Islamic perspective.

No prophet beheads men and takes women into slavery. No prophet commits debauchery and kills an entire tribe because of a hunch from the Angel Gabriel. No prophet raids caravans and takes their possessions as booty (even if it was a fair fight).

So much for the religion of peace! 

No prophet would take as a bride a nine year old firl  (or even a fifteen year old as some Muslim apologists have it) at the age of 55. The excuse of wedding Ayesha for the sake of tribal unity does not wash. Mohammed was prophet and could have taken Ayesha as a type of surrogate father. His command would have been accepted by his followers without question.

Finally, in order to answer your question I have never read the Qurran in its original classical Arabic format but it never ceases to amaze me that proponents of this religion always say that the Qurran is the undisputed word of God and its meaning is unequivocal leaving no room for interpretation. Yet whenever someone translates a controversial surrah such as 4:34 which explicitly authorises men to beat a disobedient wife its meaning is mollified to refer to 'scald your wife' instead. Sorry Tabarzin, it doesn't work.

But between one Iranian and another I leave you the following verse from the Koran - its actually one of my favourite:

The Koran Sureh 30.2:  

The Byzantines have been defeated

In the nearest land. But they, after their defeat, will overcome.

Within three to nine years. To Allah belongs the command before and after. And that day the believers will rejoice

Which nearby land is the Koran referring to and why would anyone be rejoicing in it being defeated? No self-respecting Iranian would.

...

Join me my children and free yourselves

from the shackles of mental slavery to intolerant and inhumane ideologies of desert dwellers of 5000/2000/1400 years ago.  Join me in atheism and celebrate humanity and the beauty of science and nature.  We don't have all the answers yet, but we will someday.  It is inevitable.  We rely not on fairy tales and fear monegring, but on human genius and thirst for knowledge, and those factors have proven to produce results and discoveries.  We have no agenda, no arrogance and no dreams of world domination.  Our minds are not feeble, and therefore, we do not need an ancient text to teach us morality.  We are moral becuase we respect life and living beings as fragile and precious.   

Join the ever growing community of the enlightened, where we have put aside petty and cmoical differences about whose "God" is better or what some illiterate fraud worte in a self contradicting ancient text.

The human race deserves better.    

Anonymous My compliments

Excellent. I could not make out what it was at all from such a small pic. 

I am no fan of Islam

So indulge yourselves. There will be no shortage of posts. Spend all your days and nights! In fact stay up all night finding posts where I criticize Islam. Be my guest. Shepesh you go for it; and let others follow. 

Simorgh - It's a depiction of a Sassanid knight

with the royal palace of Ctesiphon in the background.  

Anonymous Observer

Whats that picture in your avatar? it looks interesting. 

And here's another post by VPK on Islam

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Sat Nov 06, 2010 04:00 AM PDT

is the point. Islam Arabic is not the issue.Now iit happens that despite Abadi's attempts at obfuscation Parthianshot91 did a fine job proving Islam is Arabic. However I point out that even if Islam was not Arabic it would still be barbaric.

from here:

//iranian.com/main/blog/dariushabadi/jealousy-over-arab-islampage1

Nice catch Shepesh - VPK has one position on everything

He is right.  Everyone else is wrong.  He is also the master of the universe where he commands his minions to attack other users who disagree with him.  :-)

But if I can be allowed to make a psychological analysis of this person, it appears that he has an inherent inability to understand nuance and complex positions. He also has an inherent inability to see his own flaws, which is what you discovered through your "research." Now when you put all of these positions together, you will inevitably reach the dictionary definition of "blowhard". The most interesting thing is that as much as he complains about Fox News, I think our friend here will get along rather well with Bill O'Reilly.

Read TS9's comments below also, and see how he is being victimized by Mr. reason. 

Shepesh

Fair point. I should have made a distinction between Islam and Muslims. Plus different kinds of Muslims.