Jahanshah Rashidian

To All

I thank all those who left a comment in this thread.

On influence of Islam in our culture / traditions, Jamshid developed the subject brilliantly. Here are some additional views of mine:

Each ritual act cannot be interpreted as a tradition which is supposed to be freely left by past generations. We know many elements of our culture have not been freely developed by our previous generations, but imposed in a loosely constructed type of religious organisation with amorphous set of alien beliefs and rituals. Some of them are even humiliating our previous generations and our pre-Islamic history.

If you extract the imposed Islamic rituals and laws, and set aside the dogma of “non-mahram” --a huge factor of gender segregation which leaves traces in all aspects of our social and cultural life -- nothing will remain as Islamic influence in our today's life. The Islamic machine of culture-building has been stopped short after the advent of the IRI.

What apologetic historians call Iranian post-Islamic “culture / traditions” is a distinguishing feature of religious aspect left from Arab Muslim Invaders. The feature is derived from deeds of Prophet, Imams, and Islamic legends and serves to subjugation.  The concept of such a culture / traditions is a long hidden fraud. It servs to further obeisance to Islam rather than making us proud, happy, and self-aware.

Mr. Mammad

You are a “practicing” Muslim. How can you put more weight on Islamic Glory and culture of its Golden Age rather than one of the “three” pillars,” Naowwat”?  A deviation or doubt (shirk) from this, is an apostasy, especially under the God's state in which you partially beleive.

The question is if Muhammad fits all traits of divinity, if he his God's messenger, and not a self-appointed prophet. You may dip into books, and reservoir of “qualified” scholars for help to interpret the Koran, Hadiths, Sunna (deeds of Prophet), but the question of Nabuwat remains a matter of belief. Few companions aside, many others did not really believe in Nabuwat. Proof: they repeatedly rewrote the Koran (God’s word) long after Muhammad’s death.

Islamic glorious culture, great territories-- mainly started under Umayyads who brought down your first Imam, Ali--, and demographic growth of Muslims, do not justify Nabuwat. The “unqualified” grassroots should have free choice to believe or ignore Islam as a religion. We all know that this was not and is not the case, at least about Iranians. “Infidels” in their own country, Persia, were forced to confess that there is no deity but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.

Historically, once the faith was imposed on Persians, anyone wanting to leave it was punished to death. The "apostate" should be killed and thus the issue is very far from "free choice". All strictly was enforced to keep the converted herd until these days.

I do not see hysterical mourning ceremonies of Ghameh zani, Sineh Zani something like a happy traditional Haftsin for Norooz. Those "Iranian traditions" were introduced under Safavids and Ghagars for religious purpose.  

When Omar, Uthman, and Ali compassed the downfall of Sassanids, they were not themselves less ruthless than “Moobedan”. They were even involved in internal bloody power struggles. So please do not repeat that Muslims invaders came over to save the oppressed people of Persia from their tyrants!

About other invaders like Taymour, Changiz,… They are gone leaving  their bad names behind, Arab Muslims left their faith behind, a faith which is now conflicted by a growing number of conscious people despite death penalty.

I think many of my points were already developed by Jamshid.

Thanks for your comments and discussions.

Islamist Pol Pots

Now that it has undeniably hit the fan and in no shape or form any of the Islamist Rapist republic’s doings can be justified, except the lobbying for its nuke by its nuke lobbyists, the Islamist disciples of charlatan Shariati want to have a second bite at the apple.

 Shariati was a confused Mashdi who’s gibberish confused a generation of Iranians who unwitting became tools of the current rulers.

Most of the current “reformers” in the hot water are either former confused Shariati followers who saw what a load of doodoo his teachings lead to in practice and ergo tried to mend their way and are paying the price for it. And there are those of the confused "reformers"  who believe the glorious Islamists revolution has wavered from the Shariati path and that is the reason for the current mess.

 That is where Mousavi and his wife, specially his wife, Zahra Kazemi come in to save the Islamist revolution by using the Shariati recipe.

News flash, no matter how many times the Shariati disciple rereads his idol’s sermons put together in book format, the content is the same and it is not like fine wine which gets better with time, on the contrary, doodoo gets smellier with time.

Those with lost sibling who were in the Mujaheddin Khalgh have not learned their lesson and now  in the over the hill parts of their ingloriouse life want to impose ruinous, stinky, toxic Shariati excrement on Iran.

 This metastasized  Shariati virus will lead to many frustrated Islamist Pol Pots springing into action and nothing, absolutely nothing good will come out of it making people long for the good old days of Khameni raping and torturing them than Islamist Pol Pots ruling over them.

Anvar

Thanks for your comments. But, you have confused a few issues.

The pillars of Islam are those principles that if you do not believe in them, you are not a Muslim. Praying is a duty, but not a pillar. In other words, you can be a Muslim but not pray for whatever reason. It would be a sin if a Muslim could pray but does not, but not doing it would not make his/her a non-believer.

There is difference of opinion on whether there are five pillars or principles, or three or four: The three that every Muslim agrees on are, (1) Towhid (there is only one God), (2) Nabowwat (the Prophet is the last God-sent prophet), and (3) Ma'aad (belief in the Judgement Day). Shiites add (4) Adl (Justice) and Emaamat (that there are Imams after the Prophet, which Sunnis do not believe in).

Bahais believe that Prophet Mohammad was not the last God-sent prophet. That is where the differences with Muslims starts. They are also not the second widespread religion.

Mammad

Jamshid

You have asked good questions. Let me respond briefly.

1. Yes, not believing in God is obviously a matter of faith also.

The preachers of the type that you are talking about will be persecuted only by a religious government. But, once religion gets out of governance, then the issue is mute. As a practicing Muslim, I support 100% separation of church and state. This is not new.

2. Why is it "good" to hear that I reject what I reject? Not adhering to your particular line of thinking does not imply anything for whether I reject or do not reject. My support for Iranian Revolution was for establishing a democratic republic not for velaayat-e faghih.

I reject mixing of politics and governance, but not, for example, having Islamic political parties. Western Europe and Latin America have Christian Democratic parties. Germany right now is led by such a party (in coalition with others). Italy was ruled by such a party for 50 years. These are religious parties that, however, govern secularly. In other words, when they come to power, they adhere to the principle of separation of church and state. They also accept the rules of democracy, namely, that when they lose they transfer the power to the winner peacefully. So, that is what I meant. WE already have such Islamic political parties in Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, and elsewhere.

That is precisely the definition of a secular person or secular party: One that does not mix religion with politics, and does not believe that rouhanion (in any religion) should enjoy special rights or privileges.

3. First of all, I said "you are not qualified" only once (at least to the extent that I remember) in the past, and that was when you asked me to debate you about Dr. Ali Shariati. I asked you to write your views about him, post it here, and then we can discuss the issue (which never came). Otherwise, it was not clear to me how much you know about him.

I have studied Shariatri's work for decades. I still go back and read his books that I have read many times. I have read the critriques of his work by such people as Bazargan, Motahhari, and Soroush, as well as his supporters, such as many of the present reformists in their youth. In fact, I posted a short article about him a few weeks ago on //Tehranbureau.com and hopefully I'll write an extended article about him, his life, and his work sometime soon.

Secondly, when someone writes a piece in which Nabowwat - which is a matter of faith - is mixed with the Prophet's life and political Islam - three completely unrelated issues - that to me indicates only a superficial knowledge about Islam. You may not agree with it, but that is just fine with me.

Just because someone invites you to a debate does not mean that you accept it and, if you do not accept, it is not because you are afraid. The debators must be on par when it comes to the subject of the debate.

4. No, I did not say that. What I said was before Islam came to Iran, people were suffering at that hands of the kings supported by the mollahs of that era, namely, Mou'badaan.

The anti-Islam people in this site would like to pretend that the people of Iran were living great lives without any oppression at the hands of Mou'badaan. That is simply not true. Why was it that a great empire, such as that of Saasaanian, was easily overthrown by Arab nomads? Because the kings had lost the support of the people. They had lost the support due to corruption, repression, and oppression, and their most important supporters in this were Mou'badaan.

In my view, the damage that both the Moghols and Teymourian inflicted upon Iran far far far outweights whatever that was done by the Arabs. These are historical facts. But, the anti-Islam crowd in this thread would like us to believe otherwise. Almost all of our national treasures, pride, and heritage, Sa'di, Hafez, Ferdowsi, Ibn Sina, ..... were devout Muslims, as were Sattar Khaan, Bagher Khaan, Sheikh Mohammad Khiyabani, Sayyed Jamaleddin Asadabadi, Amir Kabir, .....

Now, the fact that some of those pretenders also fabricate their own version of history (I agree with you regarding this point) does not change the original fact; that is, once again, before Islam, particularly during Saasaanian, Mou'badaan were just as terrible as the terrible mollahs of today. Both groups were and are terrible. We cannot avoid the same mistakes, if we fabricate a particular version of history that suites our biases and prejudices.

Mammad

There are also some that believe that........

there should be a sixth pillar: Jihad

Merriam-Webster.com:

"1 : a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty; also : a personal struggle in devotion to Islam especially involving spiritual discipline

2 : a crusade for a principle or belief."

Three or Five Pillars?

Excuse my cutting in to make a couple of statements on the Pillars of Islam and Baha’is viewpoint on Prophet Muhammad:

To the best of my understanding (as a non-Muslim), there are 5 Pillars in Islam and not 3:

1- Bearing Witness (There is no god but God and Muhammad is his prophet)
2- Daily Prayers (Five times)
3- Paying Zakat (Giving alms)
4- Fasting (During month of Ramadan)
5- Pilgrimage to Mecca (Hajj – at least once in adult’s life if it can be afforded)

Unless I’m mistaken, then the gentleman *Mammad* (who stated there are three pillars in Islam) should not have necessarily disqualified or limited the scope of the discussion of the other gentleman *Jahanshah Rashidian* (who stated there are five pillars in Islam). 

The Baha’i Faith, which according to The Britannica Book of the Year, is the second most widespread religion (after Christianity) in the world, believes in the divinity of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).  Technically speaking, they agree with the first pillar and the essence of the other four.

To oversimplify:  Christ said that He was The Way to the Father (God).  On that basis, Christianity rejects Islam; however, Muslims believe that Muhammad was sent from God after Jesus.  In a similar fashion, Islam rejects the Baha’i Faith; however, Baha’is believe God sent other prophets after Muhammad.   They also believe that there will be more prophets and revelations from God when the Baha’i Faith becomes outdated.

Anvar

Jamshid: This is the first

Jamshid: This is the first time I have read a logical counterargument for  the usual Islam-hating on this site. Retaliation can be severe if people poke their noses too much into questioning Islam, especially in Islamic countries. That has always been the pattern in Iran ergo not any Reformation.

Thank you sincerely for taking the time to spell it out for us.

Islam as part of culture?

 Now that is an interesting subject for discourse. How silly of me to not have seen it this way. When religion plays such a large part of any society.

Dictionary.com:

"The behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group.

The sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another."

Merriam-Webster dictionary.com:

"the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations b : the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; also : the characteristic features of everyday existence (as diversions or a way of life} shared by people in a place or time."

Rashidian

Excellent analysis. Thank you for the time putting this piece together.

For centuries, Iranains were kept from "thinking and discussing" their religion. The few who did were deemed "unqualifed" and persecuted.

I pray for a future Iran where our constitution could protect everyone from persecution by the religious zealots, and where everyone has the right to "think and discuss" any religion or idea.

Mammad

"First of all, ...believing in God or in the Judgement day is a matter of faith"

I agree. Does that mean that not believing in Islam's God is also a matter of faith? If yes, do you believe that people who don't believe in that God have the right to preach their views without being persecuted? Please ansser this question honestly.

"One can reject what you call political Islam (I reject it in most forms myself"

It is good to hear that you reject political Islam in "most" forms, although I wish you would reject it in "all" forms. Still, I am interested to know what is the form that you don't reject? Could you briefly describe it?

"if you wish to discuss ONLY the pillars of Islam, you can, although with due respect I do not believe that you are qualified."

You have stated this many times to many people who reject Islam, that they are not "qualified" to dicuss Islam. I'd like to know who is qualified then? Only those who believe in it? Isn't this a bit self-serving?

This is more in line with what mollahs have been telling people for centuries. That they are not "qualified" to discuss or to think. All the discussions and thinkings were already done by the "experts". The rest of the people need only to follow.

But EVERY person is qualified to discuss ANY religion. It is a right that every human should have. However, I do understand the possilbe cultural influence of Ghom on your views.

"It is not like before Islam came to Iran, Iran was a heaven of secularism, or that people were living great lives and Islam just ruined it!! To the contrary!"

"To the contrary?" Are you saying that Iran became a better place after the Arab invasion? What about all the killlings, rapings and lootings done by the Arabs? Additionally, don't you think that Iran could have politically evolved without foreign invasion? And that an internal evolution would have furthered Iran's progress far better than change based on foreign invasion?

if you believe the Arab invasion "served" Iran for the better and that it freed Iran from the Sassanid tyranny, then you are no differernt than those who today propone bombing of Iran by the US in order to get rid of the IRI; no better at all. 

"And, anyone who pretends otherwise [i.e., that Iran was a heaven of secularism, or that people were living great lives before Islam] is simply fabricating a new history altogether."

Again, I agree with you. But these pretenders and fabricators also include those who claim that Iran became a heaven and that people lived better lives after Islam.

Q

There are many cultural aspects of Islam. But culture is subject to change. Iran's culture has been constantly changing throughout its history. A culture cannot remain static, it changes with times. For example, one can compare European nations' culture before and after renaisance.

But that's not the issue.

The issue is what happens when the culture undergoes change, sometimes drastic change, by various factions of the society. In Iran, these factions could be the Atheists or other non religious individuals, Bahais, non Shia Muslims, and so on.

There are two possibilites. One is that these factions are allowed to preach their views and to influence others, and therefore make fundemental changes to the culture. This is what happens in flourishing and evolving cultures.

The other possibility is that a few may feel threatened by change and use their existing influence to crush these factions by means of persecution. This is what happens in static and fossilized cultures.

History shows that religious people are usually those who fear change most, and rely on persecution in order to avoid it.

Interestingly, the same religious people defend change in culture when it suits their interest, for instance the change that took place in Iran after the Arab invasion.

...

از مطالب نوشته شده استفاده شد و لذت برده شد.سپاسگزارم.

سر همه بلا آمد،سر ما هم بلا آمد و اسلام آمد ... عجب سرنوشتی گره خورد به ایران بیچاره ما !

My appologies for the formatting...

I haven't got the hang of it yet.

First define politics...

What do you mean by politics? Is the art of governance, nation building,
deflecting danger form the society, survival methods, leadership, spreading
justice and peace or trickery, bribery, corruption, wars, money management,
wealth building in cost of widespread poverty and so on?

If you meant the earlier, then Islam is politics.

I believe, Nabowwat has nothing to do with leadership. We praise Mohammed (Puh) who is
the messenger of god and we trust every word he has said.

However as Quran put it beautifully this way, Mohammad is a messenger of god
and is given later the duty to guide and lead his followers:

اطيعوا الله و اطيعوا الرسول و اولى الامر منكم‏

" Follow god and follow the messenger and the masters of commands
whom are appointed by them (God or Mohammad)" 4:59

We know Mohammad was a master in building a nation, an illiterate unknown man concurred the Arab Peninsula in 23 years. He united all Arabs with many
different cultures and religions.

But who are the "masters of commands"?

Ali (Puh), not because his hand was raised by Mohammd at Ghadeir, but
because he waited 25 years for his people to realize he was the one to lead
them.

Prophet Mohammad left us with unlimited numbers of
unanswered questions. But isn't it the life the same way? 

Mr. Rashidian

With all due respect - and I do respect you and your writings, even though I do not agree with many of the things that you say in your writings - this article of yours is a chaotic mixture of a lot of things and not clear what you want to say. I just fail to see what the point is.

First of all, just as believing in God or in the Judgement day is a matter of faith (because no one can prove the existence of either one of them), so also is  Nabowwat. In other words, if one wants to be considered a Muslim, one cannot not believe in it. As you say, it is one of three (not five) pillars of Islam. One cannot be a Muslim and not believe in its pillars. Arguing about it is unproductive, precisely because it is a matter of faith.

I do not even know what you mean when you say, "Today, an increasing number of Iranians cast doubt or do not believe in Nabowwat." As far as I know, from a religious point of view, only the Bahais do not believe in it (and they make a tiny minority). The rest of Iranians either believe in Islam and, therefore, Nabowwat, or not believe in it at all.

But, even if we assume that this absurd statement of your is correct, how do you know that the number of such Iranians is increasing? Because they reject political Islam? If so, what is the relation between the two (see below)? Or, because the number of Bahais is increasing, or Iranian Christians? I just fail to see how such an absurd statement can even be plausible, let alone true? 

Secondly, what the devil does political Islam have to do with the principle of Nabowwat? What the devil does political Islam have to do with the Prophet's life, before he was chosen to be the Prophet at age 40?

One can reject what you call political Islam (I reject it in most forms myself, as a practicing Muslim who just finihed fasting for one month) - just as we must reject political Christianity (abused in the U.S. by ultra-right wings and even racists), Judaism (used to oppress the Palestinians), and Hinduism (used to oppress Muslism and other minorities) - without taking any position regarding Nabowwat or any other pillar of Islam.

This is so because once you and I agree that religion is a private matter, then what a Muslim, or Christian, or Jew, or Hindu, or ... believes in is between him/her and God, and we should not pass judgement on it, or at the very least not mix such issues up with an important PUBLIC issue such as whether religion and governance can be mixed.

Yes, if you wish to discuss ONLY the pillars of Islam, you can, although with due respect I do not believe that you are qualified. But, that is separate from mixing Nabowwat, the Prophet's life, and political Islam.

Finally, I believe that all the claims about Iranians being slaves of Islam for the past 1400 years is sheer nonsense. Christians have done - and still do - far more enslaving of other people, even today.

In addition, the type of society that existed in Iran and elsewhere then is vastly different from what exists now. Therefore, today's criteria cannot be used to analyze the societies of 1400 years ago. That is totally unscientific.

Moreover, before Islam came to Iran, Iranians were enslved by Moubadaan, the mullahs of their era, who were allies of the Iranian kings of that era. This is particularly true during much of the Saasaanian reign. It is not like before Islam came to Iran, Iran was a heaven of secularism, or that people were living great lives and Islam just ruined it!! It was not. To the contrary! And, anyone who pretends otherwise is simply fabricating a new history altogether. 

Mammad

xphobia

The Real or Myth question could be asked equally about all other religions: Christianism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Bahai or the Hindu religion.

Myths are always mixed with reality in order to produce a religious faith, it is often hard to discern one from the other. Remember, some historians have doubted the existence of Jesus as a real person, and the contents of the religious divine books are all similar (yet different in some aspects),  so it is good to ask the equivalent questions from all other beliefs rather than always pinpointing only one of them.

Rashidian, what you need to understand is that Islam is Culture

dear Rashidian,

What is the logic of jumping over fire? What is the logic of "haft sin" table and gold fish, mirrors and "roo darvasi"?

These are cultural artifacts, many of which coincidentally, happen to be from another religion, Zoroastrianism. Islam, is likewise a part of our Iranian culture (only fools insist on denying this). We also have influences from Greeks, Armenians, Turks and British.

Like other religious influences, many people draw inspiration from Islam's message and practice what they see as it's essential goodness. Some of the details may not make sense to you, (like not eating pork), but these details instill a sense of cultural belonging that is valuable to the Iranian people, so they follow it.

Trying to analyze logic of culture and tradition based on today's norms and morals is quite a waste of time. The inspiration is what's important and that inspiration is self evident.

Mr.Ostaad

Hopefully, one can find links between logic and religion, let alone the keystone of both science and religion. Since logic upholds reality itself, it is meaningless to speak of anything in its absence. Being born in an Islamic milieu is a literary example of an emotional belief without logic links.

I am not bashing Muslims, but want them to raise their taboo questions. Is that in a “Nhehi- az-Monkar” chaotic moral, “Islamophobia’? What happens if a reasonable Muslim needs to deal with a geometrical theorem? Is mathematical logic useless? Why not accept the established laws of mathematics instead of looking to ignore the theorem.

All religions refer to a spiritual reality which is a dimensionless source, counterpart, and refuge from our temporal, material experience. keep your spirituality; this is even fine. The point is when a religion becomes a cult banning this process under various ways. Is Islam so flexible to permit you as a Muslim to believe in a transcendent God, say like some of “Muslim” Darvish sitting in Mullahs'jails?

And finally, be luky, beyond any “Heaven” all religions are safer in a secular regime.

As a person who was "born into Eslam" and...

as a an Iranian "Molsalmaan" who has never accepted ANY of the Abrahamic folk stories as "The Truth", I welcome those doubts. To Islamophobes' chagrin, these doubts will strengthen people's spiritual faith while weakening and hopefully diminishing the foundation of the organized religion be it Judaism, Christianity and Eslam.

Islamophobes may be sorry to get what they wish for, which is more Eslam instead of less, as more people become spiritual Moslems than just religious ones.

Dear darius

You have posed a series of questions that I have not raised. I just reflected people's likely conclusion of their futile belief system. I will later point out about your comment and to why we are not still in a level of moral evolution to better deal with religions.

Thank you for the discussion.

Mr .Rashidian

Quran  like other holy books was written many years later , when Muhammad was not alive .I am sur e, you guess the rest of what

I am trying to say. 

The answer to your  question is, even in modern era when there is

printing and super computers ,media , etc, separating fact from myth is as

difficult as many years ago.Accepting the word of quran literally

is a mistake and no one shoud use it to justify their deed, period.

What Muhammad said and people wrote it to fit their needs later, you as an individual may say it better  but do you have enought charisma to make people follow you?

I doubt ,if  education alone could save human from 

all sort of false claims , then we could have hoped for a better world and we did not have to witness all sort of abuse,killing and miseries.

Life goes on and people accept diferent things at different time,We are all caged in and doomedto live our lives , so we better use it for good.while

There are millions of gods in India( all fighting)  and else where  are fighiting to  gain control over the others,yet  prophets are still coming and  showing up at the people's door steps here and there either.

Cheers