For an Islamic Democracy

A poem for the writer

وقتی تو میگویی وطن من خاک بر سر میکنم

# گویی شکست شیر را از موش باور میکنم

 ### وقتی تو میگویی وطن یکباره خشکم میزند

 # وین دیده مبهوت را با خون دل تر میکنم

 ### وقتی تو میگویی وطن بر خویش میلرزد قلم

# من نیز رقص مرگ را با او به دفتر میکنم ###

 بی کورش و بی تهمتن با ما چه گویی از وطن

# با تخت جمشید کهن من عمر را سر میکنم

 ### خون اوستا در رگ فرهنگ ایران میدود

 # من گاتهای عشق را مستانه از بر میکنم

 ### وقتی تو میگویی وطن شهنامه پرپر میشود

 # من گریه بر فردوسی آن پیر سخنور میکنم

Oh no, it is that time of the year again.

Dumb people celebrating the death of one the dumbest Imam among 11&1/2 imams.So glad I am not Muslim any more.  

Have a good and happy bloody day. 

Thank God for the 1st & 2nd days of Muharram !!

Ashura 2011 ~ Photo Essay

Mona

Grown up

In Islamo babble is someone who has "submitted" to Mohammad. By the way Salman jumps up and down on the other blog about how "clerics let us" run things. Right!

We see watching how Taliban clerics do against NATO with their name on it. The more they talk is the worse they do.

Best for them to be quiet. 

?

What is a grwon up?

Told you, you are a kid

Only a child will jump up and down and cheers up when he "thinks" he has won the debate aganist a grwon up. At the end of the day BacheShirzi the final laugh is on you brother :)))

For an Islamic democracy

Not Arab Land, Not Turkish Land. It is Aryan Land

....... and we call it IRAN.

 NO Allah. It is PARVARDEGAR. Allah brought misery and destruction to our country for last 32 years. Why don't you learn from history?

so the title should read: Ya Hossain : blood of Parvardegar.

Write something about Khalid Ibn Walid or Sad ibn Vagas rather than hossain.

Why the writer doesn't learn from Shirazi and choose the avatar that he choosed? This is nationalism. I love the avatar of Shirazi. This is real Iranian. I still hesitate this individual who wrote this blog is Iranian, even though he/she is trying hard to put out some Farsi words in his/her comments. Not Arabic. please no arab on this site.

Payandeh our Aryan Land Iran 

Yay

Brother shirazi kid - my spelling and grammer is bad but you still
cannot offer a convincing argument except for yourself to accept. So
stray happy in your own little worl brother shirazi kid but you will groe up. iam am sure.

Glad to know you have given up Salman. Although winning a debate with someone of your intellectual capacity is nothing to be proud of. 

Ashura as Cultural Schizophernia

//books.google.com/books?id=EKmws3uvj6YC&pg=P...

خود می‌‌بافی‌ و خود می‌‌خندی

  Brother shirazi kid - my spelling and grammer is bad but you still cannot offer a convincing argument except for yourself to accept. So stray happy in your own little worl brother shirazi kid but you will groe up. iam am sure.

For an Islamic democracy

Salman

  Brother, first I had to correct your knowldeg of Islam

You mean when you tried to claim Reza was in Iran because he loved Iran?

You mean when you said I should love someone because they where buried in Iran?

You mean when you tried to portray the Imams as Persians?

You mean when you hilariously tried to claim that the majority of Iranians where Shia before the Saffavids?

 Welcome to DEMOCRCY brother  shirzai kid!

I assume you mean democracy. What is demoCRCY?

Before I address the rest of your nonsense, I would like to point something out. You have terrible grammar and spelling skills. Some of the stuff you type is seriously difficult to comprehend. I didn't want to mention it Salman,  but you keep insisting on calling me a kid, when all evidence points to you being around nine years old. From your belief in desert myths to  your inability to spell the word "answer" ( you wrote anser) or the word "majority" ( you wrote mojority,lol). With these spelling skills you are the last person who should be calling anyone a kid.

 A bill in the house of reps can pass by 218 to 217 (out of a total  of  435) and same applies to the senate (51 to 49 out of  100). But brother I have even more worrisome news for you. A mojority of 51 over 49 does not necessarily mean that 51 percent of the population win over 49 percent of the population of the nation, The 51 voting members may quite poccibly represnt less that  even 49 persent of the population! So brother shirazi baby, the anser to question is even 48 percent of the polulation may stop 52 persent of same population to voice their opinion. Welcome to DEMOCRCY brother  shirzai kid!

I don't see your point here.  You are describing the process in which a bill can pass through the house of representatives.You are ignoring my point. From what you have said so far, you envision a state in which there is no bill of rights or convention of human rights. The citizens in your state would have no guaranteed rights, the majority would simply be able to do what it wants to the minority. So let me put this question to you. 51 percent of the Iranian population vote to ban any criticism of Islam, 49 percent vote to allow criticism of Islam. This is nothing to do with people elected to vote on behalf of the public. Members of the public going out the vote on this issue. What happens? 

The 51 voting members may quite poccibly represnt less that  even 49 persent of the population! So brother shirazi baby, the anser to question is even 48 percent of the polulation may stop 52 persent of same population to voice their opinion.

So in the scenario you are talking about the 52 percent of people in house of representatives would succeed in whatever bill they are trying to pass. But you are saying that the 51 or 52 voting members (you keep changing the numbers because you can't hold a conversation properly) may not represent the majority of the total population of a country. OK. So what exactly does this prove? That it is possible for the minority to rule the majority? Yeah, I know, It works both ways.Did I ever say it never works both ways? This is the case in Iran right now, the minority oppressing the majority.Except in your example of the U.S they would be voting over some bill, if you where in charge they could be voting over the basic rights of all the citizens of a country . This is even more reason why any state should have a set of guaranteed rights that can not be taken away by voting. Thanks for proving my point for me.

As for Mossadeq read my answer to brother VPK Now back to the main subject the blog and Iama Hossein.

Oh come on, at least spell "Imam" properly.

Brother kid of Shiraz

Brother, first I had to correct your knowldeg of Islam. then your knowledge of democract and mow your knowledge of math.

A bill in the house of reps can pass by 218 to 217 (out of a total  of  435) and same applies to the senate (51 to 49 out of  100). But brother I have even more worrisome news for you. A mojority of 51 over 49 does not necessarily mean that 51 percent of the population win over 49 percent of the population of the nation, The 51 voting members may quite poccibly represnt less that  even 49 persent of the population! So brother shirazi baby, the anser to question is even 48 percent of the polulation may stop 52 persent of same population to voice their opinion. Welcome to DEMOCRCY brother  shirzai kid!

As for Mossadeq read my answer to brother VPK Now back to the main subject the blog and Iama Hossein.

"O my Allah! Give me peace of mind to a restful soul, For Thou controls the soul, and refines him who keeps it pure."

Imam Hossein (AS) 

For an Islamic democracy

Brother VPK

What happened to you sense of humor brother?  never insult anyon - brother, sister even a toddler :) This blog is about Imam Hossien and Ashura and not about Mossadegh. But to prove you and the kid from Shaira. I must point out that he is the only leader of Iran who still matters because he gave us the oil. And for your inofrmation he was not simply appointed. His appointment must have been approved by the parliament ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION and the parliament was democratically elected. So he was a democraticly elected leader. 

Again I don;t name call anybofy - they define their own name. BUT when people call ME a traitor to Iran that is not name calling that is an insult. Got it brother? 

For an Islamic democracy

Salman fails again

 As you are in your growth phase brother I can see why you make such
puerile observations. You obviously have not read the history of our
great country of Iran but wait until you are a little older and when you
read it you know what I am talking about.

Your insults are really helping cover up the nonsense you type. It's always funny to be called a toddler or a baby by a grown  man who believes in desert myths. 

 The greatest and democraticly elected leader of Iran Dr Mohammad
Mossadeq, Alalihe Rhame, decided that "those who were elected to the
pistion of power" were not serving the interests of the people who had
elected them.

As VPK said, Mossadeq was appointed, he was not elected in the way you are trying to portray.  And Mossadew the greatest leader of Iran? He obviously wasn't the worst, but certainly not the greatest. 

So let me get this straight Salman. You think that  51 percent of a population should be allowed to stop the other 49 percent of a population from having the freedom to voice their opinion. Are you actually stupid? Actually I don't need to get this straight, you have already clarified your position. If this is a reprisenation of your Islamic democracy then who needs dictatorship.

 So  your answer to the question of should people be allowed to critisise religion is no. Good sign.

Now using your own words you see broher toddler of Shiraz "how stupid and easy to destroy your arguments are. " 

Just a shame you didn't actually answer my post and went onto a completly different issue. Disolving parliment is not the same as disolving the basic rights guaranteed to you in any civilised country. But keep trying Salman.

Salman Khan

Mossadegh was not "democratically" elected he was appointed. Why do you people not read history. "Great" my foot the guy was a normal human with a ton of shortcomings. I am really sick of this  revisionism.

who was elected democraticly (no question about it) saw himself as the ultimate interpreter of the statute. 

Really well I question it. Prove to me what part of the constitution made him elected. The position of PM was appointment. You sir need to read history. Mossadegh was an incompetent politician who picked a fight and lost: got it.

BTW : 

• You mentioned "VPK is flawed". Well finally got to agree. I am a human and therefore flawed. All human beings are flawed.That includes:  Mohammad; Ali and Hossain. I personally hold a deep dislike for all three of them.
• Please don't name call Shirazi. I disagree with you but I don't insult you. We have thr right to insult but is there any point to it. Really it just pissed others off and makes you sound bad.

Brother Shirazi toddler

As you are in your growth phase brother I can see why you make such puerile observations. You obviously have not read the history of our great country of Iran but wait until you are a little older and when you read it you know what I am talking about.

The greatest and democraticly elected leader of Iran Dr Mohammad Mossadeq, Alalihe Rhame, decided that "those who were elected to the pistion of power" were not serving the interests of the people who had elected them. It was in his great words "the spirit of the law and not its text" that mattered and he, who was elected democraticly (no question about it) saw himself as the ultimate interpreter of the statute. So the great Mossadeq called for the PEOPLE to decide if that parliament was legal body or should cease to exist. He called for PEOPLE's vote in a referrundum and he got the authority from the PEOPLE to dissolve the illegal parliament which he did.  

Now using your own words you see broher toddler of Shiraz "how stupid and easy to destroy your arguments are. " 

Vasslamo ala menattaba'el hoda

For an Islamic democracy

افسوس....

افسوس....آفتاب مفهوم بی‌ دریغ عدالت بودو‌..آنان به عدل شیفته
بودندو اکنون....با آفتاب گونه‌ای آنان را اینگونه دل فریفته
بودند...افسوس!

Democary vs Freedom

There are many kinds of democracy and they do not mean freedom. I am not going to define them all but will just mention a few.

There is elected democracy. Where you elect representatives who then vote on your behalf. While in office they get to vote however they want. Meaning they are not obligated to vote any particular way. If people don't like it they vote them out next time.

There is direct popular vote where people all vote on things. I believe Switzerland has this. America has it in some states where an issue may be put to popular vote. But no state runs solely on popular vote.

No kind of democracy guarantees freedom by itself. That is why you need a guarantee of basic rights. America has the Bill of Rights. Which may not be overrule even democratically. The only way to change it is a long process requiring super majorities,

Please do not confuse democracy with freedom. Without a guarantee of basic rights it is nothing. Because the majority may very simply impose a tyranny on other people. That is how Hitler got to power.

VPK

Salman the hilarious

In a democracy the people decide what should or should not be legal

 Actually that's not true. In a democracy people decide who is elected into positions of power, the people in power then serve the interests of the people because they are accountable to the people.In theory, at least.However all democracies have certain principles that can not be changed through voting. For example the bill of rights in the United states or the European convention of human rights. 51 percent of the population in the United states  can not vote to ensure that the other 49 percent of the population are banned from, for example, making fun of Jesus. 51 percent of the population in the United kingdom  can not vote to ban the other 49 percent from making fun of the queen. You are entitled to certain rights that others can not interfere with, and freedom of religion and freedom of speech are among these rights in any democracy.

But keep saying baby Shirazi if it makes you feel better. Doesn't change the fact that I have proven how ridiculous all of your view points on the variety of issues that have been discussed here are. Seriously, calling me baby shirazi is really cute I'm sure anyone reading this will be distracted so much by your hilarious altering of my name  that they will not notice how stupid and easy to destroy your arguments are.  

Brother baby of shiraz

In a democracy the people decide what should or should not be legal 

For an Islamic democracy

Sick culture

Mourning religious figures who have been dead for centuries who initially proclaim that Islam belongs to "true bloods" and believe that god needs a representive on earth, that's not my cup of tea... We should mourn current political prisoners, not idols from the past...

Brother Salman

So NO brother criticizing a religion can be illegal in a democracy.

I don't care about what can be. Many things can be. I am asking what should be. Should critisism of religion be banned in a democracy, yes or no?

 And please provide some evidence for what you are saying about France. If you are talking about Holocaust denial being banned in France then I am afraid that is not the same as the critisism of the actual Jewish religion being banned. 

Educating the writer from Iran history.

Caliph Umar raised new armies from all over Arabia to send a large enough force to re-invade Iraq. Umar appointed Sa`d ibn Abī Waqqās, an important member of the Quraysh tribe, and cousin of Prophet Muhammad, as commander of this army. In May 636, Saad marched from his camp at Sisra (near Madinah) with an army of 4,000 men and was instructed to join other armies, concentrated in northern Arabia, on his way to Iraq. Saad, being less experienced in the matter of war, was instructed by Caliph Umar to seek the advise of the experienced commanders. Once Saad entered Iraq, Umar sent orders to him to halt at al-Qadisiyyah, a small town, 30 miles from Kufah. Muslims marched to Qadisiyyah and camped there on July 636. Umar continued to issue strategic orders and commands to his army throughout the campaign. Umar wanted victory on Persian front but he ran short of the manpower and decided to lift the ban on the ex-apostate tribes of Arabia of not participating in state affairs. Because of this, the army raised was not the professional army, but was instead composed of newly recruited contingents from all over Arabia. Due to this fact, Umar was more concerned about providing it strategic aid. Umar, however was quite satisfied with the developments on Byzantine front, as the army there was a veteran, and was commanded by Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah, and Khalid ibn Walid, a military genius. After they won a decisive victory against the Byzantine army at the Battle of Yarmouk, Umar sent orders to Abu Ubaidah to immediately send a contingent of veterans to Iraq. Later, a force of 5,000 strong veterans of Yarmouk were also sent and arrived on second day of the battle. This proved to be the turning point in the battle. The battle fought was more between Caliph Umar and Rostam Farrokhzād, rather than between Saad and Rostam. On the other hand, the bulk of the Sassanid army was also made of new recruits since as bulk of the regular Sassanid forces was destroyed during the Battle of Walaja and the Ullais .[13]

The site of the Battle of Qadisiyyah, showing Muslim army (in red) and Sassanid army (in blue).

Qadisiyya was a small town on the west bank of the river Ateeq, a branch of the Euphrates. Al-Hira, ancient capital of Lakhmid Dynasty, was laid about thirty miles west. According to present day geography it is situated at southwest of al-Hillah and Kufah in Iraq.

This is the reason I said NO Arabic on this site. It has nothing to do with God. NO Allah. It is PARVARDEGAR

Brother BabyShirazi

In the country of France, which is a democracy by the way, criticizing the the jewish faith will be equal to antisemtism and it is illegal. So NO brother criticizing a religion can be illegal in a democracy.

For an Islamic democracy

As I said in one of my previous posts..

Everything in life can be summed up in terms of mathematical equations: So here is the formula I discovered, worked really hard on this one, I call it the Mullahkoshian infinite-shit making formula to describe Shiism. Let's break it down Shi'= making shit up ism = philosophizing it, mythifying it, repackaging it and selling it to masses; therefore,

Shiism = Making shit up + mythifying and selling it to masses

Brother Salman

Brother Salman please answer the question.

جوابیات

Brothers

Fesenjoon,  naTavan, Disenchnated, VPK, Angalphile, Shirazibaby, Siavash,  Mullahkiller:

I urge you to go to this link and with your speakers on full volume repeat the lines that are spoken - may God of Hossien have mercy on you:

//badry.ir/post-914.aspx

For an Islamic democracy

I just came across this blog on my way to work

I was reading this blog and all the associated comments on my newly minted Anderoid phone, and I have to say, I was cracking up. Of particular interest was this reply by VPK which was right on point, and very funny as well: "How many of the Muslim leaders were better off without Islam. Umar - stabbed to death. Ali - cut by a posion sword. Haasan - poisoned by his wife; no big surprise. Hossain - beheaded by Yazid. The other number 4 - 11: poisoned; imprisoned then poisoned or a combination. Mehdi -1400 years in a well; is that a way to spend years. Don't even mention the women who became sex slaves. The only one who really benefited from Islam was Mohammad." What cracked me up was the comment about Hassan who was poisoned by his wife, but apparently this was not a big surpise...LOL :)), VPK, care to elaborate on this one?

Another thing that jumped off the page was the extensive use of the term "brother". This is another proof that Islamist, and their leftist lap poodles (or something like that) still live centuries behind. The modern term is not brother, but "bro", i.e. what is happening my islamic terrorist bro? That bro muhammad was one pedophiliac cool cat...Not only this sounds cool, but after all the jibberish nonsense Islamist put up on this site, and take up precious virtual space, you are cutting an extensively used 7 letters word to 3, in process saving a few KB.

Now, there is been this recent trend in Islamist Rapist Ommetistan (IRO), made fashionable by non other than our monkey president, and his clown advisor to Iranianize Islam. The real reason behind this of course is that they know Iranian society is swinging back toward a more nationalist view of itself, and like a good monkey, monkey sees, monkey does, he sure does not want to be left behind, so he has to repackage Islam. You see the Islamofascist donkeys who work for that monkey on this site repeating the same nonsense, like that character "Fear". The argument that an Iranian Zoroasterian Princess from the highest strats of Iranian society would marry an uncivilized , barbaric, " paye berahne" bedouin who eats lizard, and lives in the tent is down right absurd; not to mention that there are absolutely no historical evidence for this. This is done in the tradition of shiism, which comes down to making shit up, mythifying it, and selling it to people in an emotional way..

ALLAH AKBAR DURKAH

اما به قول شما می‌‌شود که به یهودیت حمله کرد ولی‌ به یهودیان آزار نرساند

I am saying that it should be legal for citizens of a country to critisise any religon as long as they do not turn to violence or promote others to take part in violence. Do you disagree with this?

I have shortened the length of this post significantly, because I know you find it hard to read and understand more than a few lines. 

VPK Jaan