Current Events

......

Amazing craftsmanship and artistry! Only Iranians can do it! I was wondering how long it took them to weave 76 pages? 6 months? One year?

They should weave Rumi's poetry on carpet. It is truly timeless!

My favorite is Rumi's seven advice:

//www.persiancultures.com/music/Rumi_Molana_Jalal_e_Din-PersianCultureS.com.pps

.........

Bi salighe tar az in akhoonda ...bache akhoonda mibshand !

In chie dige zesht badtarkib .....sanate farsh iran daghoon kardan o deleshoon be in ashghala khoshe !!

soon we will see Toilet

soon we will see Toilet paper version, in Ghods Museum Toilets as well... Other than that the carper is weaved by series of Artists and they've done a great job on it (Aplause).

mahmoudg you are no racist, i can see you love iran

keep it up funny man.

This so called Art work is a total and complete waste of time.

This article presented in TIME LONDON reminds me why.  This so called art work isn't going to stop anyone in a future Iran from requesting the Freedom to say and express their feelings about Islamic thought in Iran.

(This originally appeared in the TIMES (London), 6 November 1984)

  Who  remembers Iran?   Who  remembers, that  is,  the shameful
stampede of Western journalists and intellectuals to the cause of
the Iranian revolution?  Who  remembers the hysterical propaganda
campaign  waged  against the  Shah,  the lurid  press  reports of
corruption, police  oppression, palace  decadence, constitutional
crisis?   Who  remembers  the thousands  of  Iranian  students in
Western universities  enthusiastically absorbing  the fashionable
Marxist nonsense purveyed to them by armchair radicals, so as one
day to lead the campaign of riot and mendacity which preceded the
Shah's downfall?
  Who  remembers the  behaviour of  those  students who  held as
hostage  the envoys  of the  very same  power which  had provided
their  'education'?   Who remembers  Edward  Kennedy's accusation
that  the Shah  had  presided over  'one  of the  most oppressive
regimes in history'  and had stolen  'umpteen billions of dollars
from Iran'?
  And who  remembers the  occasional truth  that our journalists
enabled us to  glimpse, concerning the  Shah's real achievements:
his  successes  in  combating  the  illiteracy,  backwardness and
powerlessness of  his country,  his enlightened  economic policy,
the reforms which might have saved his people from the tyranny of
evil mullahs,  had he been  given the chance  to accomplish them?
Who remembers the freedom and security in which journalists could
roam Iran,  gathering the gossip  that would  fuel their fanciful
stories of a reign of terror?
  True, the Shah was an autocrat.  But autocracy and tyranny are
not the  same.  An  autocrat may preside,  as the  Shah sought to
preside, over  a representative  parliament, over  an independent
judiciary, even over  a free press  and an autonomous university.
The Shah, like Kemal Ataturk  [umlaut over the 'u'], whose vision
he shared,  regarded his autocracy  as the means  to the creation
and protection  of such institutions.   Why did no  one among the
Western political  scientists trouble  to point  this out,  or to
rehearse  the  theory  which  tells us  to  esteem  not  just the
democratic  process,  but also  the  representative  and limiting
institutions which may still flourish in its absence?  Why did no
one enjoin us to  compare the political system  of Iran with that
of Iraq or Syria?
  Why did our  political scientists rush  to embrace the Iranian
revolution,  despite  the evidence  that  revolution  under these
circumstances must be the prelude  to massive social disorder and
a regime  of terror?   Why did  the Western  intelligentsia go on
repeating  the  myth  that  the   Shah  was  to  blame  for  this
revolution, when both Khomeini and the Marxists had been planning
it for 30 years and had found, despite their many attempts to put
it into operation, only spasmodic popular support?
  The answer to all those questions  is simple.  The Shah was an
ally  of  the  West, whose  achievement  in  establishing limited
monarchy in a vital strategic  region had helped to guarantee our
security,  to bring  stability to  the Middle  East and  to deter
Soviet expansion.  The  Shah made the  fatal mistake of supposing
that the  makers of Western  opinion would love  him for creating
conditions which guaranteed their freedom.  On the contrary, they
hated him.   The Shah had  reckoned without the  great death wish
which  haunts our  civilisation and  which causes  its vociferous
members to propagate any falsehood, however absurd, provided only
that it damages our chances of survival.
  For a while, of course,  those vociferous elements will remain
silent  on the  embarrassing topic  of  Iran, believing  that the
collapse of Iranian institutions,  the establishment of religious
terror,  the Soviet  expansion into  Afghanistan  and the  end of
stability in the region are all  due to some other cause than the
Iranian revolution.  Those who lent their support to this tragedy
simply turned their back  on it and went  elsewhere, to prepare a
similar outcome for the people of Turkey, Nicaragua, El Salvador,
Chile, South Africa  -- or wherever else  our vital interests may
be damaged.
  Of   course,    it   is    difficult   now    for   a  Western
correspondent to enter Iran, and if he did so it would not be for
fun.  He  could not,  like the  ghouls who  send their despatches
from Beirut, adopt  a public posture of  the front-line hero.  He
would have to witness, quietly and  in terror of his life, things
which  beggar  description:  the  spontaneous  'justice'  of  the
revolutionary guards,  the appalling scenes  of violence, torture
and demonic  frenzy, the public  humiliation of  women, the daily
sacrifice of lives too  young to be conscious  of the meaning for
which they are condemned to destruction.
  He  would  also have  to  confront  the truth  which  has been
staring  him in  the face  for  years, and  which he  could still
recognise had the habit of  confessing his errors been preserved:
the truth that  limited monarchy is the  right form of government
for  Iran, which  can be  saved  only by  the restoration  of the
Shah's legitimate successor.   But such a result  would be in the
interests not only of  the Iranian people, but  also of the West.
Hence few Western journalists are likely to entertain it.

                                               (6 November 1984)

Tabrik be arab ha

Tabrikeh samimaneh be doostaneh arab ke honarmandaneh Irani 6 saal az omreshoon ro barayeh eshaeh farhangeh arabi sarf kardan!! vaghan baeseh efteghar va ghoroor mishood ageh in honarmandaneh tavana  shahnameh ya divaneh hafez ro mibaftand besoorateh ghali , on mogheh man mitoonestam be Iraniha  tabrik mogoftam va na Arab ha.

It is impressive art work

mahmoudg, this is not a waste of time. It is what we call art. Not that you understand what that means. Based on many of your hateful comments, I think you are a miserable racist.

خدا به همتون عقل بده

I can't type while laughing out so loud on mahmoudg's comment. Having said that, once I saw a show-stopper piece of Persian carpet depicting the Last Supper, which had attracted an awed crowd.

So, this is my point; the artistic and manual work should not be undermined.  

خدا به همتون عقل بده

 البته یکی باید بخدا همعقل بده. ۶ سال وقت حدر داده شده، که ا سدعلی چلاق بیاد و مزخرف بگه که جمهوری اسلامی و نظام این کوفت و ان کوفت. بخوره تو سره رهبر هر ۷۶ صفحه از این مزمهلات که به جای علم و نوجوم، وقت به این چیزها تلف میشود. توفو براسلام و جمهوری اسلامیش